USDoT cooks the books

[jimpeel]

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2635.asp

US DOT Misreports Gasoline Tax Revenue
Motor fuel excise tax revenue was up $185 million in 2008, not down, contrary to US Department of Transportation claims.

Mary PetersThe US Department of Transportation (US DOT) has falsely suggested that the nationwide drop in vehicle miles traveled is endangering the revenue source used to maintain America's highway network. Soaring gasoline prices in the summer and the ongoing recession together forced motorists to cut back substantially on travel, resulting in 100 billion fewer miles being driven in fiscal 2008. Transportation officials seized upon these facts to argue that the gas tax is unsustainable and that the country must quickly shift to tolling to save the highway trust fund.

"As driving decreases and vehicle fuel efficiency continues to improve, the long term viability of the Highway Trust Fund grows weaker," Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said in a December 12 statement. "The fact that the trend persists even as gas prices are dropping confirms that America's travel habits are fundamentally changing. The way we finance America's transportation network must also change to address this new reality, because banking on the gas tax is no longer a sustainable option."

The federal Highway Trust Fund took in $3 billion less in revenue in fiscal 2008 than it did in 2007, and Federal Highway Administrator Tom Madison placed the blame squarely on the gas tax.

"This (drop in revenue) underscores the need to change our policy so American infrastructure is less dependent on the amount of gas American drivers consume," Madison said.

The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) crunched the numbers and found this assertion to be entirely untrue. In fiscal 2007, the US Treasury reported that a total of $29.4 billion was collected from the taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. In 2008, the total figure grew by $185 million to $29.6 billion. Lower traffic volumes did cause gasoline tax revenue to drop $70 million, but this figure was more than offset by a $256 million increase in revenue from the tax on diesel, which is primarily paid by the commercial trucking industry. View revenue chart.

These truckers, hit by tough economic times, cut expenses significantly. Sales of new rigs plunged in 2008. That caused a $2.4 billion drop in revenue from the 12 percent tax on the retail sales of trucks and trailers. An accounting change in the way kerosene and similar taxes were transferred ended up showed a paper loss of $722 million from the fund. Together these factors, which are unrelated to the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2008, accounted for the $3 billion drop in trust fund revenue.

"The US DOT misused that data to suggest the federal motor fuels tax can no longer finance federal investments in highway and mass transit improvements," ARTBA Vice President William Buechner said. "The data in fact suggest that the federal motor fuels taxes can remain a viable source of revenues for highway investments for the foreseeable future. The trust fund's real problem is not the decline in VMT, but rather the economic slowdown and the fact the federal motor fuel tax rates have not been changed since 1993."

TheNewspaper has previously reported that gas tax revenues have not plunged at the state level. In Virginia, for example, fuel tax revenues were up 2.6 percent in fiscal 2008 (more). Motor carrier fuel tax receipts likewise increased in Illinois (more). At the same time, overall traffic has plunged on toll roads forcing huge increases in the tolling rates to prevent a loss in profit for private investors (more).

 

[randomJACKASS]

You do realize gasoline is, (whether they admit it or not) a "sin tax"? If it doesn't burn clean it ought to be taxed. Nobody would argue that there is waste in goverment, and that's a different matter entirely. All the same, assuming that petroleum is an exhaustable resourse that damages our world, there ought to more incentive to find other ways, not less.

 

[Gonz]

Well then, get on it. I expect you to have viable alternatives by New Years DAy.

 

[jimpeel]

You do realize gasoline is, (whether they admit it or not) a "sin tax"? If it doesn't burn clean it ought to be taxed. Nobody would argue that there is waste in goverment, and that's a different matter entirely. All the same, assuming that petroleum is an exhaustable resourse that damages our world, there ought to more incentive to find other ways, not less.

Then the entire industrial revolution was a sin; and you are a sinner because you are using a computer to post messages on the Internet that is powered by electricity created by fossil fuels.

Do you really believe that if the entire Earth were powered by ultra-clean hydrogen that there would be no tax on hydrogen because it is clean and is not harming the Earth? If so, you simply do not understand the insatiable greed of politicians. They would tax you for sex, by the stroke, if they could somehow install a peter meter on your penis.

 

[spike]

There were taxes during the industrial revolution.

 

[H2O boy]

there have been taxes since we became a nation, beginning with the whiskey tax, which led to the whiskey rebellion. government has always imposed it, then tried to make us like it. we have up until recently opposed inordinate taxation. then came the liberal with his guilty conscience, screaming and pleading for the government to fix all our woes for us. they've been more than happy to oblige or pose as obliging at least

what we need is people to realize how much tax they pay, then do something besides whine about it and vote in more taxhappy morons of either party.

what we need is a few more people to flat out refuse to pay it, and then their peers to support them instead of cowering in fear of the massive government they created

if we all just stopped paying it we might be surprised how quickly the strong arm of enforcement goes without pay and then refuses to enforce any longer. can you imagine if april 15 arrived and 90% of the people just said 'go fuck yourself. come take it from me' how many irs agents would put in the work to track anybody down if they themselves werent getting paid? the government is already in debt so deep it would take generations to balance the checkbook. without our money they cant arrest us

just something to think about as your annual property taxes come payable

 

[randomJACKASS]

Then the entire industrial revolution was a sin; and you are a sinner because you are using a computer to post messages on the Internet that is powered by electricity created by fossil fuels.

Do you really believe that if the entire Earth were powered by ultra-clean hydrogen that there would be no tax on hydrogen because it is clean and is not harming the Earth? If so, you simply do not understand the insatiable greed of politicians. They would tax you for sex, by the stroke, if they could somehow install a peter meter on your penis.

Then by that logic either A. we should stop all technology, of B. we should just do whatever and not worry about consequences? There are lots of ideas for renewable energy sources, but nobody with the money seems to be willing to explore it. Unfortunately I see horrible economic devastation, and possible environmental repercussions happening before people in this country wise up and make changes, but I hope I'm wrong.

Not a damn thing you and I can do about it other than perhaps using that old American spirit and making something worthwhile ourselves. I just can't understand why people fear change so much that they continue with old outdated ideas despite the consequences that may result. Oh well....

 

[Gonz]

B

Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

[Gato_Solo]

there have been taxes since we became a nation, beginning with the whiskey tax, which led to the whiskey rebellion.

*snip*

without our money they cant arrest us

just something to think about as your annual property taxes come payable

Property taxes are not federal. Those taxes go to the local school board.
Income taxes are, first and foremost, for the defense of the nation and to pay off the debt...at least on paper. How much you want to bet that refusal to pay federal income taxes by a large majority would result in the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act? As for the rest of the taxes...it's built in to the purchase...

 

[Gonz]

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by

the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act?

Too late.

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.

Washington Post

 

[jimpeel]

Unfortunately I see horrible economic devastation, and possible environmental repercussions happening before people in this country wise up and make changes, but I hope I'm wrong.

Then you should be able to show us the permanent environmental repercussions of WWII.

The permanent damage to the oceans and atmosphere from all of those burning oil tankers sent to the bottom.

The permanent damage from the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan and why those are not thriving cities today.

Nagasaki today

A barren wasteland!

Hiroshima today

OMG! Just look at that devastation!

 

[JTP]

"They would tax you for sex, by the stroke, if they could somehow install a peter meter on your penis".

OMG, that's hilarious! You should copyright that, if it's original, because it had Ginnie and me ROTFL! She is threatening (jokingly) to install such a meter. Thanks for the humor!

 

[spike]

Then you should be able to show us the permanent environmental repercussions of WWII.

The permanent damage to the oceans and atmosphere from all of those burning oil tankers sent to the bottom.

The permanent damage from the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan and why those are not thriving cities today.

A barren wasteland!

OMG! Just look at that devastation!

You should probably realize that your statements don't contradict random's. Kinda weird the direction you went with that.

 

[randomJACKASS]

The truth needs little explanation. Sounds like jimpeel is trying to convince himself of something to me. I don't know that any damage is permanent, but I don't know it isn't either, and none of you can be absolutely certain either. I am just arguing for progress, admitting to myself that change can be good and that not all that we currently do is "right" on a "forever basis". But I also know humans fear change and it usually requires tragedy to motivate us.

 

[spike]

It's misdirection. Instead of replying to your points he's shown us pretty pictures to try and force the conversation into just "damage done by WW2" but he kinda jumps around like that.

I know it's weird and in a logical discussion this wouldn't happen. So you could go on his sidetrack and explore this tangent of whether there was permanent damage done by WW2 but since that really has nothing to do with your point you just have to ignore that crap and try and figure out the overall point he's going for. That's also hard to nail down.

But knowing his posts I would guess it's something along the lines of "environmental irresponsibility is the way to go" and "all energy but fossil fuels is bad". Hard to say for sure though.

 

[chcr]

The truth needs little explanation. Sounds like jimpeel is trying to convince himself of something to me. I don't know that any damage is permanent, but I don't know it isn't either, and none of you can be absolutely certain either. I am just arguing for progress, admitting to myself that change can be good and that not all that we currently do is "right" on a "forever basis". But I also know humans fear change and it usually requires tragedy to motivate us.

Good or bad, change is inevitable. The way some people constantly whine about it is merely annoying (always IMO). I don't necessarily like every change that happens more than anyone else does. I do recognize, though, that I can only make the best of it regardless of whether I like it or not. It's clear, to me at least, that there is no shortage of folks who would far rather whine than deal with it and that I, unfortunately, have a decided lack of patience with this.

 

[catocom]

Yeah the good thing about a one word-er, especially "change", you
can spin it in Any direction, any time.

 

[jimpeel]

The truth needs little explanation. Sounds like jimpeel is trying to convince himself of something to me. I don't know that any damage is permanent, but I don't know it isn't either, and none of you can be absolutely certain either. I am just arguing for progress, admitting to myself that change can be good and that not all that we currently do is "right" on a "forever basis". But I also know humans fear change and it usually requires tragedy to motivate us.

I gave you two examples where permanent damage to the environment should have been evident; and it isn't.

The enviros claim that oil pollution is permanent and devastating yet there is no evidence of any lasting damage from WWII.

The enviros claim that nuclear disasters will be permanent and devastating yet there is no evidence of any lasting damage from two atomic blasts over thriving cities which thrive to this day.

Have you sen Prince William Sound? The oil is almost all gone; and not from any "clean up" efforts by humans.

Nature takes care of itself. All that humans do is to thwart that effort.

 

[Gonz]

Nature leaks more oil into the ocean than man has & it's scrubbed & absorbed daily. The planet is self-sustaining.

Since there is no evidence of permanent enviromental damage due to man, why should we lower our standards of living to appease some paranoid fool with a fetish for trees?

 

[randomJACKASS]

By your logic, if I decided to start murdering homeless folks who nobody would miss, and I did so quietly and completely disposed of the bodies, there would be nothing wrong with it.

If I beat the crap out of anyone I think is an idiot, but only to the point of being black and blue with no lasting damage that would be OK.

If I had a restaurant and served people feces and there was no noticeable lasting effect that would be fine too?

Environmental studies would have to span many generations before one could say anything definite, and since technology wasn't there until recently looking back is not proof of any kind.