Conventional wisdom is that it sure would be good to find a way for "the other guy" to pay these costs rather than me. This flows from similar successful efforts to fund public improvements with OPM financing ("Other People's Money"). This was fabulously popular here in San Antonio in May, 2008 when we voted to continue and/or increase the taxes on hotel rooms and car rentals in the city to pay for improvements to the Riverwalk and local soccer fields. Bring on the public improvements that will make life in San Antonio better, and since that might also lure a few out of town conventioners, make them pay for it.
Unfortunately, there's no OPM to be had when it comes to road improvements. Yes, we can indeed tax visitors and business persons traveling through TExas if we employ toll roads or gas taxes either one. But that shotgun approach also means that shudder Texans will also be burdened with those taxes and fees.
All of this "begs the question" on a couple of points:
- What's the most efficient way to collect the needed money? Toll roads require traffic to slow down to deposit the loot. They also, as mentioned above, can change people's minds about using certain roads if some are tolled and others are not. People will go a little out of their way to save a penny.
- More roads create more suburban sprawl. Do we really want that? Is that preferable to renovating and renewing urban areas where we've got adequate existing roads. (Oh yeah, those roads would then have to be maintained better -- never mind).
And now the political operatives are floating a supposed NEW third method for raising money. It would involve, as I understand it, having people pay a tax on the elapsed miles driven on their odometers of their cars. But how does that differ in effect from the gas tax? A gas tax is higher for people who drive more miles. But a gas tax discourages gas guzzler cars in ways the "miles driven" tax wouldn't.
Makes your hair hurt, don't it?
4 comments:
My original post did not go into the fact that historically the state legislature has raided the fuel tax revenue for purposes other than road construction and repair. If they'd just do what they said originally, would we have challenges funding the roads we "need"?
Dennis,
I enjoyed your comment...and yes, he does wish the weather permitted gardening...he fears that my laptop will become permanently attached to my lap, or my butt to this chair.
Thanks for worrying about the political woes...I'll leave it to you so I don't have to. :)Rita
Ah, Dennis, your comment hints at an answer, something our beloved President's words have made very clear: the need for better leadership within an organization. I knew a man with a job is State purchasing. Like a well-meaning Christian fellow he tried to save the State money, and awarded contracts to more efficient bidders. He did this once against the "higher ups" decree to award to a specific person who was not the lowest bidder, nor the most efficient supplier, but whom did happen to fall into two minority categories. Now, here we have an interesting situation of politics, where on the one hand money was being spent inefficiently, but would have righted historical social injustices in the form of benefiting someone who fell into two historically victimized demographics. But then look at the dipping into Peter's road fund pocket to pay Paul's helicopter and business meal fund. When i sya leadership i mean not just responsible, non-biased, uncorrupt decision making but also the hutzpah to spit in the political correct face and define decision making parameters. I think the fellow i knew should have done what he was told, but he was also making god decisions and should not have punished for it, and if there were deeper concerns (like awarding a contract to help minority business people at a little extra expense) then those need to be defined. As in the case with the road funding, then wouldn't good leadership start to look like higher accountability and better stewardship? I don't know if i have a point, and i think i am just processing through the delicate balance and dance which is political decision making matrix contrasted with poor political leadership history... maybe all i am saying is, yeah, i agree with you.
One other point that occurred to me but which I didn't express is that two of the sources of revenue for roads (fuel tax and "miles driven" tax) each have separate laudible goals. The fuel tax ultimately rewards those who purchase and drive the more fuel efficient vehicles. Those vehicles get more MPG, thus the owner can pay less respective tax per mile driven. However, the "miles driven" tax rewards travelers who find ways to reduce their overall distance traveled, whether it be by combining trips, carpooling, thoughtful navigating, etc. Of the two, I find the fuel tax to be fairer and more egalitarian since those drivers can actually win both ways. They could drive more fuel efficient vehicles AND seek to reduce their total miles driven, thus saving gasoline and tax money two ways.
Post a Comment