Tolls-- A Regressive Tax On The Middle Class Republicans And The Republican Wing Of The Democratic Party Love

One of the key line-in-the-sand differences between Republicans and Democrats is how the two parties spend tax dollars and from who they collect tax dollars. That line has been blurring, first under Clinton and now under Obama. Republicans conveniently want to lessen the tax burden on their wealthy campaign contributors at the expense of the middle class. Corporate Democrats, just as conveniently, find that to make a lot of sense-- and bring them a lot of campaign dollars. A few days ago, Ashley Halsey III, writing for the Washington Post, examined one way this is playing out that will further impose on the middle class: a regressive tax (tolls) on users of interstate highways. Didn't Eisenhower, with the backing of both parties, agree that would never happen in return for public acceptance of paying to build them in the first place? Obama says he's open to it.

“We believe that this is an area where the states have to make their own decisions,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “We want to open the aperture, if you will, to allow more states to choose to make broader use of tolling, to have that option available.”

The question of how to pay to repair roadways and transit systems built in the heady era of post-World War II expansion is demanding center stage this spring, with projections that traditional funding can no longer meet the need.

That source, the Highway Trust Fund, relies on the 18.4-cent federal gas tax, which has eroded steadily as vehicles have become more energy efficient.

“The proposal comes at the crucial moment for transportation in the last several years,” Foxx said. “As soon as August, the Highway Trust Fund could run dry. States are already canceling or delaying projects because of the uncertainty.”

While providing tolling as an option to states, the White House proposal relies on funding from a series of corporate tax reforms, most of them one-time revenue streams that would provide a four-year bridge to close the trust-fund deficit and permit $150 billion more in spending than the gas tax will bring in.

The corporate tax reform proposal has gotten a lukewarm reception even from Democrats in Congress, and Foxx emphasized that the administration is open to any counterproposal that wins bipartisan support.

With the trust fund about to run into the red and the current federal highway bill set to expire Sept. 30, Congress cannot-- as its members often note-- keep “kicking the can down the road.”

Even a temporary extension of the current bill would require them to authorize a transfer of money from the general fund.

Details of the president’s proposal, which he first outlined almost two months ago, were welcomed as a sign of growing momentum toward a resolution, even by those who couldn’t fully embrace his plan.

“While we may not agree with all aspects of the administration’s proposal, we look forward to the continuing dialogue with Congress and the administration on charting America’s transportation future,” said Bud Wright, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Terry O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, said the bill helped “advance the discussion” but said a federal gas tax increase should be used to fund it.

“The gas tax remains the most tested and logical way of meeting our critical investment needs,” O’Sullivan said.

“For too long, Congress’s duct-tape approach has made our roads and bridges unsafe, destabilized the construction industry and slowed our economy.”

The federal tax last was raised in 1993 and has not been adjusted for inflation.

...Foxx said the highway trust fund would face a $63 billion shortfall over the next four years.

“What our proposal would do is [use] pro-growth business tax reform to backfill in the highway trust fund,” Foxx said. “We would put that $63 billion back in place to stabilize the highway trust fund, and then the additional $90 billion would be spent on new programs.”

He said the $302 billion bottom line for the proposal would be reached “through a combination of existing taxes that go to the highway trust fund that would equate to $152 billion on their own, and then $150 billion in transitional revenues from pro-growth tax reform.”

The proposal emphasizes a fix-it-first approach that would give funding priority to existing roads, bridges and transit systems rather than expanding their network.

Foxx, the former pro-business mayor of Charlotte, sounds like a Republican. I suppose you have to if you want to succeed in politics down there. He was confirmed to be Secretary of Transportation last June 100-0, which means even the most obstructionist Republicans who normally oppose every nomination felt just fine about Anthony Foxx. I suspect Duke Energy assured them he would cause no problems and push an agenda Republicans and corporate whores could easily embrace. The Charlotte Observer has been eager to point out his "moderate, mainstream politics."

I asked Alan Grayson (D-FL) what the hell is going on with this kind of a proposal. He didn't seem any more sanguine about it than I am. "This is the sort of proposal you see when you indulge the Republicans in the anti-tax obsession. Cliven Bundy gets his grazing land for free, but we have to pay to get to work each day."