Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Benefits & Risks
Next Post: Stop the satellite TV tax
Posted in:
It’s time for state lawmakers to put together another construction program, says Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago). He says it’s needed, but won’t be easy to accomplish.
“It’s really important, I’m supportive of it. It does require, though some tough votes. It’s not just spending money, it’s not just borrowing money without providing a way to pay off (the bonds), but it does create jobs and it keeps the money here in Illinois,” he said.
A revenue source other than the motor fuel tax must be found to pay for the program, because that tax is a per-gallon tax, and cars are more fuel efficient than they were decades ago, so the tax is producing less revenue, but the need for roads is the same, Cullerton said. […]
Cullerton says if there’s to be another construction program, it’ll require bipartisan votes, and it probably won’t be considered in Springfield until the state budget for this year and next is in clearer focus.
One of the options under consideration is using the sales tax on motorfuel to fund the capital program. The problem with that idea, of course, is that it blows yet another big hole in the state budget.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 9:42 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Benefits & Risks
Next Post: Stop the satellite TV tax
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
There’s that magic word “bipartisan” again.
Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 9:51 am
===Cullerton says if there’s to be another construction program, it’ll require bipartisan votes, and it probably won’t be considered in Springfield until the state budget for this year and next is in clearer focus.===
“We work out those budget cuts, we discuss some revenue options for the budget, then, Governor, we can work on the roads…to make all this go down easier for everyone.”
Actually, this situation makes me feel a bit “better” because as long as their are avenues to horse trade, there will be ways to get to compromises.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 9:53 am
Iowa decided that 10c a gallon was reasonable…there are ways to create a steady stream of funds from the motor fuel tax even as vehicles become more efficient and we use less of it, if the law could be constructed creatively (like indexing it for inflation or based on next year’s estimated motor fuel use). Otherwise, we are either looking at increased registration and title fees, some form of mileage based tax (where we are 10 years from having technology and public acceptance in place) or some Rube Goldberg concoction of taxes and fees that aren’t related to transportation, like the last capital bill that introduced the “candy bar tax”. Agree that blowing a hole in the budget to rob Peter to pay Paul shouldn’t be considered, especially in these times.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 9:55 am
Gas consumption taxes worked at modifying car buying behavior and increasing efficiency. This doesn’t suggest the need for mileage based taxes until a significant portion of vehicles are powered by something other than gasoline or diesel. Electric cars don’t yet have the market share to require this. When 1/3 of cars are electric, there might be a reason to reconsider this strategy, but until then per gallon taxes encourage the adoption of alternative forms of taxation. If Cullerton were serious about pollution, energy independence, and the environment overall, he wouldn’t take this position on fuel taxes. Not to mention how invasive and complicated mileage based taxes, tollway expansion and other alternatives are.
Comment by AC Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:01 am
Meant to say, “until then per gallon taxes encourage the adoption of alternative forms of *transportation*” not “taxation”. I’m blaming autocorrect, even though it’s really my fault.
Comment by AC Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:03 am
It sounds like he is between a rock and a hard place. I wish him luck in finding a solution.
Comment by Mama Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:08 am
Wouldn’t make sense to put a capital program ahead of the budget.
If you don’t finish your meat, you can’t have any pudding.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:10 am
Translation:
We can cut a deal on roads but we need to be able to trust you Bruce. Once we get the FY15 and FY16 budgets done, we’ll know if we can trust you.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:13 am
He’s identified the right solution, but unfortunately stated it’s the wrong solution. It isn’t. Equalize the amount based on efficiency. It’s as if they’re trying to solve a problem no one else in the country has faced. Jeesh.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:13 am
All Illinois leaders should refrain from ruling out things, until we have a budget.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:15 am
===Once we get the FY15 and FY16 budgets done, we’ll know if we can trust you.===
Better than I said it, spot on.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:16 am
What does “equalize the amount based on efficiency” mean?
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:17 am
Word: Just to be nitpicky, the line is “If you don’t *eat* your meat, you can’t have any pudding.” (How can you have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat?!?)
Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:24 am
Skeptic, I took liberties for clarity.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:27 am
“Per gallon” thoughts– Is it true to say the lighter weight economy cars don’t tear up the roads as much as heavier vehicles. Tax the vehicles that are cause more wear and tear on the roads, by their weight, via registration fees. Oh Wait–there is a formidable lobby there.
Does anybody know current stats on cost per lane mile nationwide? It would be interesting to see what a similar state (weather considerations) pays per lane mile. Is it possible there could be a little waste in Illinois?
“Create jobs” thoughts — How do we the taxpayer see proof of jobs. IDES payroll reports that reconcile back to specific state contracts. Probably dreaming there but it is the only way to know for sure.
(I remember the billion dollar upgrade to the Amtrak line going through my area, “creating jobs,” and there were two flag men and an automatic railroad tie replacement machine. Somebody made a pile on that one.)
Comment by cdog Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:28 am
Utah just raised its gas tax by a dime.
Utah.
Comment by Dan Johnson Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:30 am
- A Guy -,
For a “guy” in communications you’re clear as mud at times;
===He’s identified the right solution, but unfortunately stated it’s the wrong solution.===
It’s the right solution, big saying it, it becomes wrong?
If it’s right, what aspect of what is right…is wrong?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:31 am
Is this code for, ==I can’t pass two tax hikes in one session==?
Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:37 am
One of the big problems of government is that it is not innovative. Although that is part of the nature of government since R&D isn’t normally budgeted and generally taxpayers demand results which doesn’t always happen with R&D.
Certainly a mileage based tax would be preferable to a per gallon tax and much more fair. Especially charging large trucks a higher mileage rate than cars. Just imagine if this were implemented on highway 55 alone, how much revenue could be generated.
Comment by A Jack Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:44 am
A Guy: Your statement made perfect sense to me. LOL
But Word asked the right question, because the potential methods to “equalize the amounts based on efficiency” all seem to have real practical and political problems. (e.g. adjust the rates annually based on some average efficiency estimation?)
Do you know of a state that has solved the problem that Cullerton has raised?
To me, Cullerton’s concern is not a disqualifier for this idea. But budget comes first.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:47 am
Whatever powers a car, it still needs tires… what about a higher tire tax? I can see a down-side in that it will make people drive longer on bald tires, bad for safety. But based on the increased speed limits, nobody gives a fling anyway.
Comment by Newsclown Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:47 am
Word: Ah ok. I just didn’t want a good Floyd reference to get mangled accidentally. Yes, you behind the fence there, STAND STILL LADDY!
Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:48 am
“How do we the taxpayer see proof of jobs.”
IDOT requires a contractor (prime and subs) to submit weekly certified payrolls and monthly EEI reports. In addition, the resident engineer also has to keep track of the number of people on the site everyday.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:49 am
===Certainly a mileage based tax would be preferable ===
You want the government monitoring your mileage?
C’mon.
Look, I lease a gas-electric hybrid (ELR). The only time I get gas is when I drive out of town. I’d probably be willing to pay some sort of annual surcharge for capital programs, but I don’t think the gubmint should be monitoring how far I (or you) drive every day.
It’ll be an expensive nightmare to set up and operate and subjects us to all sorts of possible civil liberties violations.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:51 am
It’s all academic, isn’t it? We got the word from Durkin yesterday that the GOP and Gov. Rauner will not back any tax increases in 2015 and 2016.
If that’s the case, there will be none.
Before someone writes “veto-proof majorities,” disabuse yourself of the notion. They don’t exist for tax increases, and, even if they did, wouldn’t happen, anyway.
Unless the GOP moves off its revenue position, there’s no funding source for a capital program and Rauner’s proposed budget needs about another $3 billion, or 10 percent, in cuts to be real.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:51 am
But would this be more about a capital plan or TFIC’s plan to fix/improve existing roads and bridges? To me, there is a difference. A capital plan implies new construction and new projects. TFIC’s plan is more of a way to address “past sins” (or passed sins, perhaps) and ensure current infrastructure does not further erode. The two can be mutually exclusive. And - as always - a propensity to show USDOT and NHTSA that we are serious about taking care of our current assets may open the door for more federal transportation dollars.
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:53 am
== Tax the vehicles that are cause more wear and tear on the roads, by their weight, ==
Generally speaking, the heavier vehicles get worse gas (or diesel) mileage … so a per gallon tax really does hit the heavier vehicles.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:58 am
“Certainly a mileage based tax would be preferable” Along with what Rich said, it’d be completely unworkable, unless you have a way of tracking every single car that drives through Illinois. And not just on the Interstates. Good luck with that.
Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 11:06 am
=== Wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 10:17 am:
What does “equalize the amount based on efficiency” mean?===
Dude, you really this remedial?
If cars are more efficient now and achieve greater miles per gallon, the cost per gallon to maintain roads, which are getting an equal amount of wear and tear, needs to be adjusted.
Just like pensions. Adjustments could have and should have been made along the way to prevent consistent crises we’re dealing with.
Old formulas kill.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 11:07 am
“Equalize the amount based on efficiency” could mean a number of things.
It could mean a mileage tax to account for fuel efficiency. Or it could mean much higher fuel or sales taxes to account for efficiency. Or it could mean a annual registration surcharge on more fuel efficient vehicles.
It’s been a national security policy of the United States for more than 40 years to strive for fuel efficiency and energy conservation. It would be a lousy trick to start punishing it now.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 11:08 am
I know, I know… The privacy issues of a mileage based tax would be large. But perhaps some kind of prepaid card like they use on the tollways? And one could argue that the plates on your car allows the state to verify where you go based on existing technology. Anyway, once we go to self-driving cars, I well imagine that you will need a bicycle to stay totally private.
Obviously this needs some research as well as other innovative ways to pay for keeping our infrastructure up to date.
Comment by A Jack Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 11:13 am
If cars are (let’s estimate) twice as efficient, perhaps the tax per gallon for this needs to be adjusted to 2x what it was. A separate equation for electric cars should be calculated. Same with hybrids. Cars need roads no matter what. The more complicated this gets, the harder it is.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 11:14 am
An aside: Each time I hear another Leader in Springfield taking some tax or spending position, I wonder about Madigan.
His silence reminds me of a quote:
“Give me six hours to cut down a tree, and I will use four hours to sharpen my axe.”
– A. Lincoln
Comment by walker Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 11:14 am
Mileage tax??? Yeah, good luck collecting that.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 11:15 am
Wordslinger is right (again). If Durkin actually means what he said yesterday, and if he doesn’t get his mind changed, then there will not be “any new revenue this session.”
Comment by anon Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 11:16 am
And really I don’t care if the government knows where I am going as long as it doesn’t allow my wife access to that information.
Comment by A Jack Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 11:21 am
Anything would be better than actively monitoring my car via GPS every moment of the day.
Use the motor fuel sales tax, build more tolls, or just figure out the state’s finances when you raise income or sales taxes. But enough with the big brother stuff. No need to do so.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 11:35 am
I wouldn’t mind a few cents more per gallon, if the highway fund was used ONLY for highways.
Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 11:47 am
I’m with Wordslinger…If Durkin holds to his principle about no new revenue, this is all for naught.
Sometimes I think that this great State is headed for a long, slow motion train wreck. It pains me to even envision it, but much like the alcoholic, drug or gambling addict, you have to hit rock bottom and start again with a fresh set of principles, ideas and actions. I’m not pessimistic by nature, but, in this moment in our history, given the players, this tragedy may very well play out in grand fashion…
Massive cuts, massive pain for everyone, no capital plan, a short in pension funding and suffering for everyone except Mr. Rauner and his 1% neighbors.
Comment by northernwatersports Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 11:52 am
With today’s technology, we are already seeing a national movement towards collecting more tolls, electronically. If the feds ever remove the prohibition on tolling existing interstates, look for more states to start doing it. Collects more money, doesn’t require the invasion of privacy of a mileage-based tax, can be done electronically (just make I-Pass statewide), and some are even looking at ways to electronically toll less-than-interstate surface roads at strategic points (where it would be inconvenient to go off route to avoid the toll plaza). And it collects a fee from every vehicle, even the all-electric ones. Of course, many people would protest paying for what was once a “free ride”. IDOT is already looking at adding new tolled lanes to the expressways, which is allowed by the feds.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:04 pm
It’s possible Durkin didn’t really mean “any” new revenue. Republicans have routinely voted for higher sales taxes and fees to fund capital programs. It is raising taxes to pay for social services they really object to.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:04 pm
Guy, I dont think anyone can be “remedial.” But your statement was unclear as to which of any proposals you favored among the many being considered around the country regarding fuel efficiency and road funds.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:06 pm
End the ethanol subsidy.
Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:13 pm
Hope I cleared it up for you.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:13 pm
Guy, “just like pensions” didn’t really clear things up, not by a long shot, but believe me, I won’t ask for any more explanations.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:19 pm
What I have enjoyed about - A Guy - is that facts rarely get into the way of any point he wants to make, and seems to start his first pint as ambiguous as possible.
To the Post,
At what point do the GOP Leaders start responding to signals like the one Cullerton is sending?
Given the tensions specifically to Rauner and Cullerton, and the larger, less intense tension swirling around with the Four Tops and the Governor, again, the call to a meeting of these five to hammer out things is really up to the Governor asking for the Four to meet, and the Four responding. The rest is just theatre now.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:38 pm
It’s really too bad that there isn’t any money for road construction and repair. Right now with gas and oil prices so low the costs associated to the these prices may never be more opportune. To say it another way, road construction consumes lots of oil, right now oil costs are low.
Comment by New Guy Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:51 pm
What I have enjoyed about - O Willy - is…..
Gimme a minute.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 1:18 pm
=== Wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:19 pm:
Guy, “just like pensions” didn’t really clear things up, not by a long shot, but believe me, I won’t ask for any more explanations.====
Today just isn’t your day for extrapolating I guess.
Mileage on cars is much more efficient today. If you are going to rely on the old formula of a per gallon gas tax for a road bill, it’s necessary to make adjustments for the loss of revenue based on fewer gallons purchased.
Pensions were designed for a population that did not live as long. Now people live longer and healthier lives. Healthcare for those pensioners has gone up exponentially on the premiums alone. The math no longer works for the active employed paying into the system to support the longer living retired persons. An adjustment should be made over time that doesn’t suddenly create an onerous burden in huge changes.
That was the comparison I wished to make. Things change. Policies need to modify to keep up with those changes. If we don’t, we find ourselves precisely where we are now; in a series of looming crises.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 1:25 pm
Guy, I’m pretty sure the “series of looming crises” that have been going on for at least fifty years over pensions had to do with borrowing the money that you knew were supposed to kick into the systems.
Your revisionist history isn’t terribly creative.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 2:09 pm
I agree with Wordslinger concerning a mileage tax.
The United States has been encouraging fuel efficiency and energy conservation for many years. It would be a unfair and even counterproductive to start taxing cars that are fuel efficient now.
Comment by Enviro Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 5:45 pm