New Haven Independent: Look Who Wants A Tax Hike

Look Who Wants A Tax Hike

by Paul Bass | March 24, 2008 2:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (10)

A Republican Congressman and the national Chamber of Commerce called for boosting the gas tax — make that “user fees” — at a state transportation summit Monday in New Haven.

“Gas taxes have to be on the table,” said Janet F. Kavinoky, top transportation lobbyist for the D.C.-based national Chamber. She was the keynote speaker at the summit, which drew hundreds of people to New Haven’s Belvedere Conference Center. The group Keep CT Moving/ Citizens for Better Transportaton sponsored the event.

Kavinoky urged the construction companies and trade union leaders assembled to contact their elected officials to support dramatic increases in federal and state spending on fixing roads and bridges and expanding all forms of transportation, from highways to airports to mass transit.

She noted that Americans waste an estimated $78 billion a year in lost work time and fuel costs sitting in traffic jams. She also noted that the U.S. has been spending less than 2 percent of its gross domestic project on infrastructure — compared to 9 percent in China and 5 percent in Inida.

“We can’t remain competitive” in the global economy at that rate, Kavinoky (pictured) said.

It would cost $225 billion a year just to maintain roads and bridges in their current condition, let alone expand them, she continued; in 2005, the federal government allocated just $155 billion. She called for passage of Connecticut U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd’s National Infrastructure Bank Act. She also urged people to sign up for a Chamber-organized Americans for Transportation Mobility Coalition, an unusual alliance between Big Labor and Big Business promoting a “first-class transportation system.”

Finding the federal money will require more than spending current dollars wisely, Kavinoky acknowledged. “More public dollars are going to be needed.” That means selling the public on a tax increase. She said the pitch needs to use the terms “user fees” instead of “taxes” — guaranteeing that the tax money would be dedicated to the cause for which it’s collected. In other words, a gas tax increase would go toward transportation.

“People will pay for something they understand they get the benefit out of,” she said after her speech.

She was asked whether her organization has made this pitch more difficult by consistently endorsing conservative political candidates in part for voting against all proposed tax increases.

“Even Ronald Reagan understood that a gas tax was … for the transportation system. That’s a very different ballgame than raising taxes,” she said.

“Maybe the Chamber in the past was a no-new-tax Republican-only thing. But look, we live in a bipartisan world. Especially with transportation, all the options have got to be on the table.”

Click on the play arrow at the top of this story to watch her field the question in full.

Shays Seconds

Kavinoky’s stand was seconded by a Republican U.S. Congressman, Christoper Shays of Bridgeport (pictured).

“In the short run this will not be appreciated. But it is straight talk. There’s no other alternative,” he said.

Shays told the summitteers that he has been in favor of raising the gas tax since his first run for Congress 20 years ago. He said he took flak that year for supporting a gas-tax hike. In retrospect, if his position had prevailed, gas wouldn’t be over $3 a gallon today, he argued: A higher tax back then would have forced automakers to start sooner to make more fuel-efficient cars. That in turn would have lessened the amount of gas people bought, in turn softening demand and driving down prices.

Every political party has its “achilles’ heel,” Shays said. “My party is against any tax increase,” and therefore sometimes finds itself unable to offer real solutions to some problems.

He and Kovinoky said they didn’t have a specific figure in mind for how much the gas tax should rise. Shays said the increase should be “significant,” though perhaps fluctuating in tandem with gas prices.

Car Culture

The parking lot was full for the event at the Belvedere, with drivers pulling into an overflow lot across the street. Attendees had no option beyond driving, since the event was organized at a banquet hall off a Wilbur Cross Highway exit with no real mass-transit options.

That was in keeping with the tone of the summit. The sponsors — contractors like L. Suzio York Hill, Tilcon, the Connecticut Asphalt & Aggregate Producers Association, United Concrete Products — have a vested interest in highways. Accordingly, speakers made few if any references to mass transit.

Some exceptions: An aide to U.R. Rep. John Larson spoke of funding more stops for the Hartford-New Britain busway and of “making the Springfield-New Haven line happen” for would-be train commuters. An aide to U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro read a letter supporting increased money for Amtrak.

And Chris Shays advocated building a rail tunnel under the Hudson River or a rail bridge as part of a renovated Tappan Zee Bridge. He urged even trucking companies to join him. More freight tracks will reduce traffic for truckers, he pointed out.

“Just as Republicans and Democrats need to work together, rail and the trucking industry and the automakers” need to work together, Shays argued. “We’ve all got to put aside our own special interests” and drop that idea that if one side “wins,” another loses.

Comments

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | March 24, 2008 2:47 PM

If we're to get mass transit and safe highways we need increased "user fees." The short answer is we either pay more user fees (and that includes much higher tolls) or we ultimately enrich the profiteers who sell, transport and process carbon fuels.

Congratulations to Republicans and chambers of commerce people who are finally backing a rational carbon fuel policy.

Posted by: charlie | March 24, 2008 2:53 PM

We need a gasoline tax of about $17.00 per gallon.

The true price of gas, once you account for federal subsidies, production subsidies, pollution, etc., is around $20.00 per gallon.

Posted by: DingDong | March 24, 2008 2:55 PM

After years of voting against Shays (I only recently moved to New Haven), this has me puzzled. Maybe he's not that bad, after all?

Posted by: Gary Doyens | March 24, 2008 3:00 PM

Connecticut currently has the highest gas tax in the nation - all of it funneling into the general fund. It collects nearly $300 million and spends less than half on road improvements/maintenance. The federal government has a long and storied history of taking federal gas tax dollars and dibbying them up for transportation projects that reflect the will and control of senior congressional leaders - who on more than a few occassions stood to directly benefit from a new transportation corridor: Stevens, Hastert and another guy in CA come to my immediate mind. It is hard to justify a sustained lowering of my family's lifestyle by dramatically raising the gas tax (not user fees) when the money they collect already is being used improperly and certainly in the cases above, unethically.

Posted by: facChek | March 24, 2008 3:52 PM

Take a Hike...

Every time you need $$$ your first thought is to raise my taxes...

How about thinking out of the box for a change.

Politicians already charge us state sales tax on our purchase of our cars, charge us state and federal sales tax when we buy tires, again tax us when we sell the car, charge us to register the car, then for emissions fees, tax for the transfer of title, tax the gas and oil, on and on it goes... None of the tax is used for road repairs, give us a break for Christ sake. New Idea.. Spend the earmarks on infrastructure!!

The Federal government takes one of every two barrels of oil imported into the country for reserves... CUT that.... and Give me a break will ya..

Posted by: Walt | March 25, 2008 8:41 AM

Shouldn't be a surprise----Repubs oppose taxes on income.but support user fees or taxes on consumption like the sales tax.

That way, the poor slobs who rely on actual work to survive, will pay the costs, and those who subsist on interest or stock earnings will get a free ride

Note that this users' fee proposal emphasizes gas taxes and seems not to affect diesel fuels, mostly used by the firms sponsoring the proposal.

Thus the costs of repairing the infrastructure will be borne, it seems, not by the firms which are mostly to benefit, and which cause most of the infrastructure wear and tear, but by hard working Joe Slob going back and forth to work..

Repubs are real phonies on taxes.

On the other hand, the Dems produce such worthless candidates for the top offices, (Kerry, Hillary and worst of all Obama) that the Repubs will continue to get my vote.

Posted by: on whalley | March 25, 2008 9:55 AM

@Walt

Dividends, interest and stock earnings aren't income. The wealthy you're complaining about don't have any income technically. Any profits they take from the methods you mention are considered capital gains and subject to a significantly higher tax than income.

A consumption based tax (I'd prefer no taxes period) would help those living paycheck to paycheck. First, they'd actually get to keep what they earn. Second, if jacking gas tax is supposed to make us all more thoughtful consumers and less wasteful it stands to reason that a consumption based tax would make a person who cannot really afford a thing think twice before purchasing that thing and savings would increase. The best way to create wealth is to save earnings. If the latter is not true than the idea that a gas tax would curb consumption must not be true either.

Give the Fair Tax Book a read. It's short and a nice simple overview of the concept.

Posted by: Walt | March 25, 2008 12:10 PM

On Whalley

Just the opposite of your claim, Capital Gains taxes are much lower than taxes on regular income.

I would love to shift the income from my stock-based pension plan which is really a capital gain to the Capital Gains section of the income tax form to save much $$$ with the lower, not higher rates.

If you believe what you say, you had better hire a pro to prepare your taxes or get a different accountant.

The misnamed Fair Tax proposal which you tout, shields income of those who do not need to use a high percentage of their income fo0r food, shelter etc and switches the load to those who must spend, rather than accumulate their wealth in order to survive,

What I have read, estimates that the current tax would be replaced by a federal sales tax (probably by another name) of about 23% on all non-exempt purchases of goods or services

Life being what it is, the sales tax would likely need to be even higher than the Fair Tax proponents predict maybe 35 to 40% including the State sales tax.

This, and other similar proposals like the value-added tax are just gimmicks to save taxes for the investor class and stick it to the workers.

(I'm no longer a worker, but getting by OK with SS and investment income, and with home and cars already bought, so your greedy tax proposals might actually help me, but nevertheless, they are phony claims,)

Posted by: j schmidt | March 25, 2008 12:56 PM

How is this good for business if the cost of living in Connecticut becomes more expensive for individuals and businesses? It might be nice if the taxes already collected on gas actually went to roads and bridges but when they go to general revenue, more taxes will not necessarily mean that the money will go to where it is intended.

New Haven Independent

Look Who Wants A Tax Hike

Comments

Post a comment

Preview:

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Legal Notices

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed