If you keep up with blogs thru aggregators (BNN, VPL) like I do, then you’ve run across a number of Republican blogs crowing about Democrats raising taxes. They are all talking about (echo chamber, anyone?) SB2, which will apply sales taxes to gasoline. Dave Hendrickson, of The Shad Plank, the Daily Press political blog, gives those bloggers a little lesson, saying there are a few “glitches” in what they write. He especially picks on former RPV spokesman Shaun Kenney. Pointing to Republican support of gas taxes, Hendrickson says that Virginia families are “already facing higher taxes on car repairs, vehicle registration and home sales.”
About the only people exempt are those who are also currently exempt from the abusive driving fees — non-residents, who would have to pay the tax on gasoline.
It would be more useful to debate the merits and liabilities of various fund-raising mechanisms — or even whether there’s a need to raise money for transportation projects — than to reach for ways to couch everything in attack language.
Yeah, Dave. But that would be a reasonable approach, wouldn’t it?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Here’s what I posted over at the Shad Plank:
Here’s the bottom line: The gas tax is both regressive and a short-term pool to draw from — especially as fuel economies get better over time.
I’d like to think this is something lawmakers know and understand, so when regressive gasoline taxes which disproportionately attack working families are attacked in turn, don’t be surprised.
Rather, we should be critical of proposals that are short-term, short-sighted, and regressively punish working families (such as this one). Tax fatigue is a very natural reaction to such “throw your money at it and leave” proposals such as a hike in the gasoline tax.
Shaun – I think you miss the point. Your post, and all the others, didn’t talk about the nature of a gas tax. Instead your headline screamed that it was a “Democratic” tax. It was a partisan shot at one solution offered to the transportation problem.
Which — in turn — misses the point of the post. Why should taxpayers tell government why they shouldn’t be taxed, rather than government explaining to taxpayers why the tax hike is necessary?
I love this “Don’t blame the short-sighted tax plan… blame the reaction to the short-sighted tax plan” argument that passes for a rebuttal… that’s nonsense IMHO.
That’s the very “tax and spend” philosophy that gets government into trouble in the first place… let’s find out what we want to do, whether we’re doing it right in the first place, THEN come back and figure out how to make it happen.
$136mil of revenue procured in a regressive gasoline tax hike in a $76,000 million budget doesn’t scream innovation, solution, or creative… it’s motion without progress.
Anyhow, my US$0.02 on the matter.
Of course, I’m not arguing… merely explaining… I’m rusty on this blogging thing — I’ll get back into the swing of things shortly! 🙂
I don’t think anyone was blaming the taxpayer for his reaction, Shaun. Both Vivian and Mr. Hendrickson mentioned you by name because they were specifically blaming you. Your penultimate comment asked, “why should taxpayers tell the government etc.” That’s not what your post was about–it was about why should taxpayers tell DEMOCRATS. Spreading partisan disinformation by making this a Democrats versus Republican issues — when there is actually strong concensus on both sides of the aisle — is disingenuous, and it is wrong.
For the record: I disagree with ending the exemption on of gasoline from the sales tax primarily because the cost of gasoline is too volatile, and collecting a tax as a percentage of the sales cost (as opposed to a flat amount per gallon) will allow the tax to inflate as the price-per-barrel itself inflates due to commodity speculation and price gouging.
Thanks, anon. Shaun – the problem was your headline and post. You made no effort to say anything like what you have posted here in it. You just blamed the Democrats.
I do blame the Democrats… and the “blame taxpayers first” crowd using the argument to spike complaints about the gas tax hike. Categorizing Hanger and Stolle’s comments about the gas tax is hardly “consensus” — and in fact supports what Vivian denies — that this is a partisan issue that splits upon ideological lines.
Now if there’s a problem with this, so be it. if it illustrates the priorities of certain political parties, that’s fine too. Let’s at least be honest about first things and which poltiical party this bill was proposed by…
Again, the “don’t blame the short-sighted tax plan… blame the reaction to the short-sighted tax plan” argument sounds more like someone threw water on a bad idea… not partisanship (and a regressive gas tax IS a bad, bad, bad idea).
Ah. So it *wasn’t* a policy discussion, it was a political discussion, and the fact that Stolle and Hanger support the tax while Democrats like myself don’t support this iteration of the tax is inconsequential. I was perplexed by your answer at the Shad Plank that made me think that’s what you were interested in. I confess that I should have been pointed in the proper direction that you will make categorical statements like “short-sighted tax plan” without elaborating what that actually *means,” while I’m trying to discuss the negative impacts that percentile-based taxation has on a commodity that experiences large price fluxations due to a volatile global commodities market.
Sorry for the misunerstanding.
In that cas, let’s talk again about that regressive Republican abuser-fees plan! Remind me again, how did the Republicans go about explaining to the tax payers why that particular tax was necessary? Is that the partisan dividing line you want to draw here? Republicans voted for abussive driver fees, Democrats proposed gasoline taxes to offset the same transportation expenses? How did that work out for you last month?
Anon (I can’t believe I’m responding to an anon commenter),
So you’ve condeded the gas tax hike is a bad idea?
I accept!
If you’d like to discuss how to offset HB 3202 through an increase in gasoline taxes, I believe the tax per gallon has to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $0.57… but since we’ve already concluded the gas tax is a bad idea…
Long and short is this; Gasoline taxes are regressive and a short term fix. Levying the taxes without a plan is just throwing money at a problem that deserves long-term attention. Thus, not only are my problems at the policy level, they are also at the political level because the main proponents of the gasoline tax for transportation improvements are — as you stated — Democrats.
How’s that for policy? As for the rest, I’ll leave the fees alone for another conversation. 😉
By increasing the gas tax aren’t we creating a situation where our transportation improvements are even more dependent on a fuel we as a nation want to ween ourselves off of? As Shaun’s said, it’s a short term solution that disproportionately impacts those the least able to afford it.
Here’s my problem: show me the “Democrats” who agree with the proposed bill. A single Democrat introduced a bill and y’all jumped off the reservation and assumed that all Democrats supported the bill. That’s what I’m calling Shaun to task for.
It’s not a partisan issue. It is the opinion of one Democrat, at least so far.
I would not support extending the sales tax to gas simply because I happen to abhor regressive taxes. It’s the same reason why I’m against a national sales tax. So see, Shaun, you’ve got at least 2 Ds here who are against it.
Don’t you think it was a little broad to make the statement about Democrats?
The gas tax hasn’t been raised in more than a decade. The problem now is Kaine is trying to cut as many programs as possible to pay for K-4, he is not too worried about the transportation situation from my view. Why start new programs instead of concentrating on what we really need money for? As far as the abuser driving fees that is one of the worst and probably less thought out legislation than any in the past few years. I think more time was spent on worrying about thongs.
Vivian hit the nail on the head. Confusing bad policy with bad politics is just as short-sighted as Shaun says this policy is. Generally we should try and avoid it — which is why most Democrats are, for instance, generous enough to restrict our jokes about the car tax to Jim Gilmore. I would even say that to his credit, despite his *ridiculous* assertions and ideas about the abuser fees, I can at least say that Delegate Dave Albo isn’t a one-dimensional free-luncher like Jim Gilmore. I disagree with the method he decided upon to generate revenue for roads, but at least he understands that you need to have actual money to pay for core services.
Ditto Republican Senators Stolle and Hanger, who advocated raising the gasoline tax. A different approach, but at least they want to try and solve something.
Despite your best efforts, Shaun, the biggest issue among voters heading into the November 07 elections was transportation and not illegal immigration (but hey, good try). It’s pretty clear that voters, especially those in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads who flipped control of the State Senate, want to see something done about this issue. I hope that Republicans and Democrats will work together this session to create a plan that addresses our transportation infrastructure problems in a realistic way that doesn’t include abuser fees while reducing the burden on over-taxed lower-income familes, much as they did during Governor Warner’s administration. And when they finally do, Shaun, I hope you’ll support them.
Unless the policy really isn’t that important, and you prefer the politics of surrealism with the rest of the free-lunchers.