Roads?

I heard one of the governor's spokesmen on the radio yesterday explaining the new plain for increased taxes on auto registration. The tax increase would pay to fix the roads. I'm not sure I buy it. And, the spokesman's explanation wasn't very convincing. He had some flaws in his argument.

First, the gas tax is now 19 cents/gal, but, due to inflation its now worth only 15 cents/gal compared to just a few years ago. Well, it may come as a surprise to the fellow, but inflation has hit us now, too. What was 19 cents for us is now 15 cents for us, too!

It was brought up that perhaps the sales tax on gasoline (which includes a sales tax on the 10 cents/gal gasoline tax!) could be used for the roads, in addition to the registration fees. But the guy argued that the sales tax on gas goes to the schools. Hmmm...the schools? There's a whole lot of difference on 6% of $1.50/gal than 6% of $3.50/gal. In other words, there has been a huge windfall with the price of gasoline over the past two years. Where is that extra money going, if indeed the schools are financially hurting? There should be no education budget crunch, if as this guy claims, the sales tax on gas goes to the schools. On gasoline purchases then, we have been giving twice as much to the state/schools in the past two years. Hmmm???

The guy claimed that if we "do nothing," costs of repairs will skyrocket in the future while the roads getting increasingly bad. Again, what's going on here? What is this guy talking about? "Doing nothing?" Who's "doing nothing?" Is there no road and highway budget now? Oh, there is? Then why isn't that considered "doing" something?

This seems like another half-baked idea from the governor's office, like the business tax cut that came free of any conditions, such as that companies would have to hire more workers or cut prices (which would lead to more hires) before qualifying for the cut. The gov's spokesman said the gov is "willing to listen" to other ideas, yet I've never received even a "go jump in the lake" from any of my e-mails sent to him.

Have you seen where a Canadian scientist's (a Canadian!) report has led the Canadian gov't (Canadian!) to delay the mandatory CFL bulbs instead of incandescent ones? Hmmm...Canadian! But not here. I wonder, just wonder, sometimes. Why isn't the American gov't doing the same thing, instead of telling us no more incandesecent ones by 2012? This Canadian scientist criticized the "science behind" the CFL bulbs. She cited the dangers and health hazards, not to mentions the inefficiencies, costs, and inconvenience. Where is our gov't on this? I've heard nothing; it's apparently full speed ahead on forcing the change/ban. I guess that leads me to one of several conclusions about why the CFLs instead of incandescents. Is somebody stupid? Is the fix in, with a bribe of sorts? Or, I suppose, the Canadian scientist seemed pretty astute, specific about her criticisms. Can we get a response or an honest and earnest answer from our gov't, one not fraught with ideology, but with real science? Doubtful.