Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Exercise in Futility

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Here’s a quote that summarizes the futility of the proceedings in the General Assembly yesterday, in which the major accomplishment was the state Senate’s passage of a gas tax that Gov. Timothy M. Kaine never asked for and the House of Delegates will never vote for.

From the Washington Post:

“There is no consensus in the General Assembly of Virginia between any group on how to approach transportation,” Senate Minority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr. (R-James City) said on his chamber’s floor. “I am not afraid of tax increases, but this is not the time and this is not the place and everyone in this room knows it is not going to happen.”

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We will some interesting drama coming with the new house bill

    Regional taxes only with no statewide component

    This puts some heat on the NoVa and HR democrats

    NMM

  2. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    If Republicans vote for Regional Government and local taxes in HR/Tidewater – that will put heat on HR Republicans.

  3. Paul H Avatar
    Paul H

    Part of being a successful politician is knowing which battles to fight and not handing your “enemies” a stick to beat you with. A gas tax increase has some merit, but not in the current economy with $4.00/Gal gas. All Gov. Kaine succeeded in doing was accomplishing nothing and looking bad doing it.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I was talking with a friend who works at United Airlines. That company is furloughing 1400 employees because of fuel prices. Probably not a good time to raise gas taxes.

    He wants to match Mark Warner, but picked a bad time to try to do it. I’m waiting to see what VDOT and Kaine will do about the traffic study for Tysons Corner. If it’s ripped to shreds, Kaine will be a net plus in my book.

    TMT

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Try it – you’ll like it:

    Critical Peak Pricing Pilot

    In this pilot program, the existing electric meter will be replaced with a state-of-the-art advanced meter and a programmable thermostat will be installed inside the home. The advanced meter sends the home’s energy usage data to the programmable thermostat. The information is displayed on the thermostat along with the current electricity price.

    Pilot customers will receive a lower electricity rate for the power used during non-peak periods.

    During times of critical demand that drain the area’s power supply, pilot customers would agree to reduce usage of high energy-consuming appliances and pay a higher rate for energy consumed during such periods.

    By taking control of energy consumption based on the electricity pricing signals, pilot customers will save money and help manage the region’s power requirements, thus assuring a reliable source of power for all customers.

    http://www.dom.com/customer/efficiency/programs.jsp

    so what if you got a letter and it said you could choose between:

    1. – a 20% rate increase
    2. – installing a smart meter

    ?

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    OOPS! my apologies – the above post was supposed to go with the Coal Plant Bog.

    Here’s what I had for this thread:

    re: fear and loathing in Richmond

    no problemo

    we won’t need no mo stinkin roads:

    Over the next four years, we are likely to witness the greatest mass exodus of vehicles off America’s highways in history. By 2012, there should be some 10 million fewer vehicles on American roadways than there are today—a decline that dwarfs all previous adjustments including those during the two OPEC oil shocks.

    And who will be parking their cars? The 57 million American households that have both cars and access to something resembling public transit. Gasoline at $7 begins to approach prices Europeans have paid for years, meaning that chunk of America “will start to act more and more like Europeans,” Mr. Rubin says. Not soccer moms in a minivan—soccer fans, searching for tokens:

    Our analysis suggests that about half of the number of cars coming off the road in the next four years will be from low income households who have access to public transit. At their current driving habits, filling up the tank will have risen from about 7% of their income to 20%, an increase that will see many start taking the bus.

    Gas prices already appear to be reshaping suburbia. But what Mr. Rubin is predicting is a far bigger shock to the American system. Europe has had decades to develop a society based on expensive energy. What will happen if Americans suddenly are forced to shoulder European-style energy prices — but without the European-style society to cope with them?

    http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/06/26/oil-shock-analyst-predicts-7-gas-mass-exodus-of-us-cars/

    Here we have the distinct spectre of NoVa morphing from Dillon Va to Europe.

    This news ought to straighten the whiskers on Ray’s ears…

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    $7 per gallon gas will create some signficant political waves as well. The energy industry is likely to be highly regulated (which might be a bad idea). There will be efforts to find other non-fossil fuel sources of energy, but any politician opposing drilling darn near anywhere will no longer be in office.

    Americans are not Europeans (or anything else for that matter). If we were, we or our ancestors would not have come to this country. I’m not arguing that things will never change, but there will be blood spilled in the process.

    First blood spilled will be commodities traders.

    TMT

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Give it a break. Kentucky recently increased the gas tax, in fact their gas tax is tied to the price.

    Has been for years.

    It is all a matter of leadership and cojones.

    The commodity traders will be laughing all the way to the bank, whatever you do. Prices go up, they make money. Prices go down, they make money. They provide liquidity, and liquidity has a price.

    ——————————-

    “The 57 million American households that have both cars and access to something resembling public transit.”

    Right. You really think the Orange line or VRE can handle a 50% increase? 57 million Americans are going to be demanding a LOT better service. Maybe even seats.

    Ka ching!

    Roads and cars are gong to look cheap, especially if you free the jitneys, and pay people to car pool.

    RH

    —————————–

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “By 2012, there should be some 10 million fewer vehicles on American roadways than there are today”

    Well we should not need any new road money then. Maybe the GA is playing their cards right: stall till the problem goes away.

    Along with the GDP.

    Here’s the rub. Which roads will be abandoned first? ROVA is going to be populated with off-road vehicles.

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “This news ought to straighten the whiskers on Ray’s ears…”

    I knew Larry was NSA.

    Otherwise, how did he know?

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “At their current driving habits, filling up the tank will have risen from about 7% of their income to 20%, an increase that will see many start taking the bus.”

    They may not have any choice. The question is whether they will be better off.

    Say the bus is cheaper, and they only pay an increase from 7% to 15% as a result of the bus.

    But their time in transit doubles.

    It is an economic trap. You don’t have the money to spend the extra 5% even if it buys you 100% more free time.

    And yet people like Larry see this as a good thing: fewer drivers.

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I worked in England for a while. It was simply astonishing to see the plant shut down at 4:45, absolutely shut down, every day, no matter what.

    The plant was driven by the bus schedule. I can’t even imagine what the productivity costs were, compared to any American place I’ve worked.

    Larry thinks the Europeans have adapted without any additional costs. He is wrong.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “What will happen if Americans suddenly are forced to shoulder European-style energy prices — but without the European-style society to cope with them?”

    What we have going for us (still, so far) is the American freedom to find ways to adapt. The way you adapt in Europe, is the way they tell you to.

    RH

  14. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    The Europeans had an advantage in that most of their towns and villages were built before cars were prevalent, so it was easier for them to do mass transit, etc. Most of America has been built along with the highway system, and without a decent mass transit system in most cities, so it will be much more difficult for us.

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Larry thinks the Europeans have adapted without any additional costs. He is wrong.”

    not true

    The Europeans have been paying $8+ dollars for gasoline for years – with the extra money going for wide and deep transit.

    Expensive? You bet your whiskers.

    Our current trajectory – using more gasoline and building more roads has a odd denial aspect to it ….

    I’m quite sure how Europe works is not a template for the US but then again – what we are doing now is not a template for the future – either.

    On one hand – we say that $7 gasoline will hurt those who do not have access to public transportation while on the other hand we say that we cannot subsidize public transportation.

    The Europeans don’t see public transportation as subsidized anymore than we believe that Schools or Police are subsidized in this country.

    In other words, we have our view of what core services are that are paid for with taxes and the Europeans have a different idea.

    Here’s what we do – we whine about the gasoline prices and we whine about Europe having it easier than us on settlement patterns and transit – almost as if Europe did not explicitly have a strategy for charging $8 a gallon – on purpose so they could pay for transit.

    So on one hand, we say “those crazy Europeans don’t know what the hell they are doing and then on the other hand we say the Europeans are “lucky” that they had transit fall into their laps – purely an accident of fate.

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “In other words, we have our view of what core services are that are paid for with taxes and the Europeans have a different idea.”

    That’s right. They don’t pretend to have anything like user fees or user pays. Their fuel taxes go into the general fund. they may go to transit from there, but they do not overtly charge auto drivers to pay for transit.

    Not that there is anything wrong with that, because auto drivers do get some benefit from the availability of transit. Their costs should be consonant with the benefits they get. In the U.S. that benefit is small: for most drivers it is zero.

    I don’t know about you, but I believe schools are subsidized. Police on the other hand are a true core service that everyone uses and depends upon, not just those who get arrested. Since everyone uses it and everyone pays for it, it is not a subsidy situation.

    “Roads and the automobile are the primary means of urban transportation, and motor carrier (vans and trucks) is the principal method of freight delivery in urban areas. The dominance of motor transport is not likely to change. Road use may be restrained somewhat in response to environmental and congestion concerns — and especially in response to pricing strategies — but it will remain the dominant mode.”

    “Transit has become an anomaly in transport policy. Governments at all levels have generally sought to liberalize entry to transport markets, reduce price regulation, and inject a measure of enterprise in publicly owned carriers and infrastructure, yet urban transit is still delivered almost exclusively by municipal agencies. Further, while governments have tried in other transport modes, and in other fields, to make users responsible for the cost of services, urban transit is still funded mainly through direct subsidies.

    Transit service levels, fares, and subsidy amounts are decided by local or provincial elected officials. If transit services across the country are considered together as a separate mode, they receive by far the largest direct transport subsidy of any mode. Subsidies have grown quickly in recent decades and must continue to do so if the plans of cities and their transit agencies are to be met.”

    – Canadian Transportaton Act.

    What makes you think that Europeans view things differently from Canadians? Sounds like subsidy to me.

    Indeed – “Transit operators, supported by the Transportation Association of Canada in its Vision for Urban Transport, now argue for a much larger federal commitment, solely to transit. They suggest the government should share routinely in funding transit capital, by dedicating revenues from road fuel taxes. U.S. federal assistance provides a model, they suggest: US$6-7 billion a year (20% of revenues from fuel taxes and vehicle fees dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund), is being allocated to transit capital investments.”

    Does that sound like special interests lobbying? Or does it sound like someone sittiong down and trying to rationally figure out what the best possible integrations of modes is?

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Unlike in the USA where in most states taxes on fuel are hypothecated (earmarked), in most European states the greater part of revenues from fuel and vehicle taxes are not earmarked for financing transport infrastructure. There is a discussion on the relationship between transport related taxes and infrastructure funding. The two main perspectives can be summarised as follows:
    • On the one hand, fuel and vehicle taxes are regarded as a charge for funding infrastructure. This perception is justified by the ‘benefit principle’ (also known as ‘principle of equivalence’) — an important taxation principle — which requires that each tax payer should be taxed according to the benefit he gains from services and goods provided by the state.
    • On the other hand, taxes on fuel and vehicles are regarded as fiscal contribution to general budgets. This avoids the inefficiency of having to earmark where public expenditures are driven by the development of revenues and not by the importance Parliament ascribes to the infrastructure. Due to the fact that mileage and car ownership of private households — on average — correlate with their income (11), this perspective is in line with the ‘ability-to-pay principle’, whereby the individual level of taxation should reflect the tax payer’s situation of wealth and income.
    It is not feasible to make a clear distinction between the two perspectives. The EEA favours the second option, i.e. to regard fuel and vehicle tax revenues not as infrastructure charges. First of all, transport costs — including the payment of fuel and vehicle taxes — constitutes a deduction of other taxes, e.g. corporate and income tax (12). Secondly, the widespread attitude to demand free provision of road infrastructure as a service in return for fuel and vehicle taxes undermines the fiscal balance of state budgets, because in most states public budgets strongly depend on the revenues from these taxes. It is neither desirable nor possible to tax each group of tax payers in the same order of magnitude as this group benefits from public services.”

    That is the European View.

    RH

  18. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “Here we have the distinct spectre of NoVa morphing from Dillon Va to Europe.”.

    Maybe that wouldn’t be be so bad. I have more faith in the most of Europe’s politicians than in most of Virginia’s.

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well.. I know this might sound counter intuitive but it appears that the folks who believe that the Dulles Toll Road and the HOT Lanes can fund transit – are thinking like the Europeans…

    no?

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    NO.

    “On the other hand, taxes on fuel and vehicles are regarded as fiscal contribution to general budgets. This avoids the inefficiency of having to earmark where public expenditures are driven by the development of revenues “

    They don’t rob Peter to pay Paul.

    RH

  21. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    then what would you call the European practice of taxing gasoline to pay for transit?

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The transfer of DTR fees to fund Dulles Rail has more to do with the enrichment of the Tysons Corner landowners than a subsidy for transit. One could justify a payment from DTR users to Dulles Rail if it could be shown that rail created a demonstrable reduction in DTR volumes during peak driving times. There would be bona fide benefit to drivers i this instance. It’s probably worth something.

    However, given the plans from the Tysons Task to mega-size both Tysons and Tysons area traffic, the impact of Dulles Rail (but for) on DTR users will likely be negative. They will pay more and receive nothing.

    Virginia’s State Religion — Developer Worship.

    TMT

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the European practice of taxing gasoline to pay for transit?

    They do not tax gasoline to pay for transit. Fuel taxes go to the general fund. From there, someone else decides what to do with them, just as you seem to hate here.

    If they decide to spend general funds on transit, that is a different deal entirley from chargine “user fees” for auto use and then turning them over to transit users.

    The end result may be the same, but the process is ethically different.

    (Incidentally, several European nations are trying to, or have, privatized transit operations.)

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “One could justify a payment from DTR users to Dulles Rail if it could be shown that rail created a demonstrable reduction in DTR volumes during peak driving times. There would be bona fide benefit to drivers in this instance. It’s probably worth something.”

    I believe TMT is entirely correct.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More