Sen. John H. Chichester, R-Northumberland, is floating the idea of imposing a 5 percent tax on gasoline as an alternative to the grab-bag of taxes proposed in the GOP Senate-House compromise plan. If Chichester’s gambit gets traction — and it has some support in the Senate, especially among Hampton Roads Democrats — it could unravel the compromise, report Michael Shear at the Washington Post and Christina Nuckols and Warren Fiske at the Virginian Pilot.
Chichester’s gas-tax idea does have its virtues. First, it is simple and transparent; taxpayers would see the tax — an extra $1.25 per $25 fill-up — at the pump. Second, because it is transparent, the added expense will induce motorists to drive less. In that regard, the gas tax contrasts favorably to the “dog’s breakfast” (as Bart Hinkle describes it in his column today) called for by the GOP compromise. The GOP taxes are spread over so many sources of income, including General Fund surpluses, they are entirely opaque to the motorist. The end result: They would subsidize driving, not discourage it.
On the other hand, Chichester’s idea would represent an entirely new tax, raising about $600 million a year. That’s significantly more than the new revenue raised through the GOP compromise, which makes it a deal killer in the House. I have to agree with the House GOP sentiment on this: There is no justification to raise taxes while the state is running chronic budget surpluses.
Ultimately, the only viable long-term solution is to move to a transportation-funding system based upon a mileage fee to pay for maintenance and congestion tolls to raise funds for highway improvements. Nobody likes paying fees, but the idea can be sold politically because (a) the concept is simple and transparent and (b) people get something (access to roadways) in exchange for what they pay. There would be minimal disintermediation by the state political class.