Thanks Jim

[DolfanBob]

Leave it to a Politician to ruin a good thing. And according to him. It's not a Tax. 

James Inhofe.

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R., Okla.), who just took the reins of the panel, said he is open to considering raising the gas tax as a way to help pay for the dwindling Highway Trust Fund that keeps up the nation's roads and other transportation infrastructure.
"Everything is on the table," Mr. Inhofe said in a Wednesday briefing with reporters to preview his committee agenda. He said his top priority is passing a long-term transportation bill, whose spending runs out at the end of May.

With gasoline prices at lows not seen since 2009, some political observers and business executives say now is the ideal time to raise the 18.4 cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and the 24.4 cent-a-gallon tax on diesel fuel, which haven't increased since 1993. The taxes are the main source of revenue for the highway trust fund.

Mr. Inhofe didn't say he supports raising the gas tax, and he refutes referring to it as such. "It's not a tax," Mr. Inhofe said. "It's a user fee."

He also said this period of cheap gas isn't really a window of opportunity given it could close sooner than Congress is going to act. "You don't know what's going to happen to the price of gas," Mr. Inhofe said.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

They want to raise the user fee gas tax by 12cpg. That would put Oklahoma at a total of 47.40cpg for gasoline and 50.40cpg for diesel. For Oregon that would make it 61.47cpg for gas and 66.74cpg for diesel.

And I'm sure that all this money will go to all the road projects the stimulus went to.

http://www.api.org/~/media/files/statistics/statemotorfuel-onepagers-jan-2015.pdf

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/06/politics/gas-price-politics/index.html

[swake]

It's a great idea. Infrastructure spending hasn't kept pace with inflation and has been additionally impacted by more and more fuel efficient vehicles.

Long past time to raise the gas tax.

[Conan71]

Mr. Inhofe didn't say he supports raising the gas tax, and he refutes referring to it as such. "It's not a tax," Mr. Inhofe said. "It's a user fee."

I hope he doesn't fly for 48 hours after that incredible spin.  He's got to be awfully dizzy.

Swake, I'd disagree on the Federal gas tax increase, the feds have many ways to fund infrastructure.  Leave it up to states or municipalities so they can guarantee it ends up in their own coffers.  Can you imagine how much better Tulsa's roads could be if the city were to capture 10 cents per gallon in uh, user fees?

[swake]

I hope he doesn't fly for 48 hours after that incredible spin.  He's got to be awfully dizzy.

Swake, I'd disagree on the Federal gas tax increase, the feds have many ways to fund infrastructure.  Leave it up to states or municipalities so they can guarantee it ends up in their own coffers.  Can you imagine how much better Tulsa's roads could be if the city were to capture 10 cents per gallon in uh, user fees?

I would be very much behind the state raising the state gas tax and allowing cities to do the same for local roads, but you and I both know that's never going to happen.

[Hoss]

I hope he doesn't fly for 48 hours after that incredible spin.  He's got to be awfully dizzy.

Swake, I'd disagree on the Federal gas tax increase, the feds have many ways to fund infrastructure.  Leave it up to states or municipalities so they can guarantee it ends up in their own coffers.  Can you imagine how much better Tulsa's roads could be if the city were to capture 10 cents per gallon in uh, user fees?

With the way Oklahoma (mis)manages the Turnpike Authority, can you imagine the mess allowing the states to directly handle funding?  Oy.

[cannon_fodder]

The gas tax has not kept up with inflation, it simply has not been raised for far too long. As it is not percentage based, it needs to match inflation to cover the increase in construction costs. Couple that with more roads and vehicles getting better gas mileage, and we have far, far less money for Federal roadways than we ever have (since WWII anyway).

You can hate taxes all you want, but we need to pay for roads, bridges, etc.  Even Inhofe agrees that is a proper role of government.

1932, the gas tax was 1 cent to find the national highway projects
1952 - 2 cents
1983 it is up to 9 cents
1990: 14 cents
1993: 18.4 cents

And that's where we stand. Adjusted for inflation, we should be closer to 30 cents today. Then we should raise it more to adjust for more vehicles, more road miles, bigger bridges, and better mile per gallon... in order to cover the equivalent "road miles per gallon" or whatever we need to cover.

As to the "not a tax" thing... a "use tax" is a preferred method for taxation. no doubt it can be the most economical and makes great sense in some areas. BUT -it is a tax. Saying otherwise is ridiculous.

[sgrizzle]

I would rather the tax be based on a percentage of sales rather than per gallon. Plot gallons used on one line and money needed to maintain roads on another and they have no relation.

[Conan71]

I would be very much behind the state raising the state gas tax and allowing cities to do the same for local roads, but you and I both know that's never going to happen.

Sorry, I keep forgetting what state we live in.

[swake]

I would rather the tax be based on a percentage of sales rather than per gallon. Plot gallons used on one line and money needed to maintain roads on another and they have no relation.

The issue with setting the gas tax as a percentage of the sale is that the price of gas is more volatile and pushes the tax collection to the retail sale and it doesn't take into account increased fuel efficiency over time. Find the right tax rate and then automatically index it annually for the rate of inflation and average fuel efficiency. Kind of how the feds set the mileage reimbursement rate annually now.

There's also an interesting idea out there to cap oil imports to support a floor on prices to help the US oil industry. That's a good idea too so that we keep the money we spend on oil within the US instead of sending so many billions overseas. It may cost a bit more at the pump, but, it's good overall for the US economy to reduce imports.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

The issue with setting the gas tax as a percentage of the sale is that the price of gas is more volatile and pushes the tax collection to the retail sale and it doesn't take into account increased fuel efficiency over time. Find the right tax rate and then automatically index it annually for the rate of inflation and average fuel efficiency. Kind of how the feds set the mileage reimbursement rate annually now.

There's also an interesting idea out there to cap oil imports to support a floor on prices to help the US oil industry. That's a good idea too so that we keep the money we spend on oil within the US instead of sending so many billions overseas. It may cost a bit more at the pump, but, it's good overall for the US economy to reduce imports.

So you are suggesting a sliding scale to keep gasoline prices and taxes at a fixed point so that the price doesn't change but the tax does. So if consumption goes down by improved fuel economy, and production remains the same and the price goes down, the tax would go up. Use it less tax it more. Which also plays into your other statement to enact regulation to artificially keep the price of crude oil at a certain level as to control the market. Sounds like gov't price fixing, and telling the Exxon/Mobil, Conoco/Phillips, BP, Texaco/Shell that oil they produce overseas can't be shipped to the US, and the oil they produce in the US can't be shipped overseas even though oil is a global commodity and bought and sold under free trade.

You do realize that the shale oil produced now is on private land to avoid the gov't regulations on drilling on federal land, and the downturn in the price per barrel is based on OPEC ramping up production to help enforce sanctions against ISIS/ISIL the JV squad in Syria and Iraq, and to punish Putin for his incursions in Crimea, and to mention that Venezuela has added to their debt of $20billion more from China to keep themselves afloat, and their repayment is a guaranteed 600,000 bbl/day payment.

[RecycleMichael]

As to the "not a tax" thing... a "use tax" is a preferred method for taxation. no doubt it can be the most economical and makes great sense in some areas. BUT -it is a tax. Saying otherwise is ridiculous.

Taxes and fees are different, but still cost the consumer the same.

Taxes are based on dollar value. The amount of money you spend or what something is worth. Fees are based on something other than money...per gallon, per person, per pound, per day, etc.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's still Jim Inhofe at his "finest"....

Tell me again why this state keeps electing that guy?  And others...

Oh, yeah... I almost forgot....!

[swake]

So you are suggesting a sliding scale to keep gasoline prices and taxes at a fixed point so that the price doesn't change but the tax does. So if consumption goes down by improved fuel economy, and production remains the same and the price goes down, the tax would go up. Use it less tax it more. Which also plays into your other statement to enact regulation to artificially keep the price of crude oil at a certain level as to control the market. Sounds like gov't price fixing, and telling the Exxon/Mobil, Conoco/Phillips, BP, Texaco/Shell that oil they produce overseas can't be shipped to the US, and the oil they produce in the US can't be shipped overseas even though oil is a global commodity and bought and sold under free trade.

You do realize that the shale oil produced now is on private land to avoid the gov't regulations on drilling on federal land, and the downturn in the price per barrel is based on OPEC ramping up production to help enforce sanctions against ISIS/ISIL the JV squad in Syria and Iraq, and to punish Putin for his incursions in Crimea, and to mention that Venezuela has added to their debt of $20billion more from China to keep themselves afloat, and their repayment is a guaranteed 600,000 bbl/day payment.

No, I am suggesting that Saudi Arabia is attempting to kill the US energy industry and that is not in our best interest. The Saudis are not our friends.

[TheArtist]

No, I am suggesting that Saudi Arabia is attempting to kill the US energy industry and that is not in our best interest. The Saudis are not our friends.

I think what is also happening is that they are looking around at the new battery and renewable energy technologies that have been percolating up recently, some flat out incredible new technology out there, (along with potential new electric cars) and can see the writing on the wall.  What they are doing is just as much a "shot across the bow" at those things as the US shale gas industry.