Capitol - Your Illinois News Radar » Quinn doesn’t like gas tax hike *** UPDATED x1 ***
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Quinn doesn’t like gas tax hike *** UPDATED x1 ***

Wednesday, Feb 25, 2009

*** UPDATE *** “Premature” does not mean it won’t happen, by any stretch of the imagination

Gov. Pat Quinn said today that talk of a huge state tax increase in next month’s budget proposal is “premature,” and he reminded local officials and interest groups lobbying for more money that times are tight. […]

“It’s premature to talk about that now,” Quinn said as he entered the Capitol through its main North entrance, a marked departure from Blagojevich’s habit of using a basement utility tunnel. “But when we have the plan, we’ll lay out in full detail what the needs are and how to pay for it.”

[ *** End of Update *** ]

* As I told subscribers this morning, Gov. Quinn isn’t at all enthused with increasing the motor fuel tax to pay for the capital bill…

While the governors meeting focused in large part on building the nation’s infrastructure, Illinois hasn’t approved a major public works program in a decade. Part of the problem was Blagojevich’s strained relationship with legislators, but funding remained a major stumbling block. Now, lawmakers there are floating the idea of using a gas tax to pay for it.

But after talking with fellow governors about how to pay for infrastructure improvements, Quinn said a gas tax hike sounds “counterproductive.”

“If we want to wean ourselves from a petroleum-based economy, then we can’t be using that particular source of funding to invest in the things we need to do to become energy-efficient,” he said.

The governor, who plans to run for re-election in 2010, said he’s “never been excited” about the gas tax because it is an excise tax that isn’t based on a customer’s ability to pay. But the idea of the gas tax as a user tax, to pay for infrastructure doesn’t make sense, because infrastructure is more than just roads, he said.

Quinn suggested that infrastructure plans should include non-transportation items — such as laying fiber optic lines along highways — to promote telemedicine, online education and Internet commerce.

The Senate Dems are looking at a 16-23 cents per gallon increase in the tax. The House Dems are mulling an 8 cents per gallon hike. But Quinn doesn’t appear to love either idea.

To raise a billion dollars for capital, he’d need about a third of a percentage point income tax increase. But that’s without all the exemptions he wants to put into place for lower income taxpayers. Some downstaters are looking at the income tax for capital, but the income tax will probably also have to be raised to close the budget deficit.

* Semi-related…

* Govs’ Q & A: Avoiding deficits post stimulus

* Illinois to Get First Chunk of Stimulus Money. But they’re unclear on how much it will be, and what it can be used for.

* Reform committee wraps up second hearing

* Illinois officials call for letting public see secret investigations of corruption

* Ill. government inspectors want more transparency

* State salary data ought to be online

* Green Party leaders in Illinois slam Senate President John Cullerton’s comments opposing campaign finance reform

- Posted by Rich Miller        

  1. - Lakefront Liberal - Wednesday, Feb 25, 09 @ 11:03 am:

    Wow — someone actually saying stuff that makes sense. It is funny how sometime you don’t even realize how twisted in knots our political dialog has become.

    I have been a proponent of raising the gas tax simply because I know we need the money and it is the only thing out there right now that seems doable and makes some sense. But he is totally right that a) it is shortsighted because we ultimately need to STOP using gas and b) putting the cost of infrastructure on the backs of people who buy gas really isn’t fair since infrastructure means a lot more things than just roads and c) a gas tax, like any fee, hits low income folks disproprtionally — how is it fair that the people who earn the least pay the most (as a percentage of their your income) to maintain the things we all use?

    Cripes, if we’re not carefull the next thing you konw he is going to start trying tell people that the earth revolves around the sun (something 20% of our population currently is not aware of or does not believe).

  2. - Greg - Wednesday, Feb 25, 09 @ 11:18 am:

    Unlike most other taxes, we want and benefit from the gas tax’s substitution effects. The tax has to depend on the usage of gas in order to create these incentives and achieve a price that reflects actual cost (govt support). If you want to rebate a portion of proceeds to people, fine, but the rebate could not be proportional to their gas usage without undermining the effect (eg, you could throw on a $2/gal tax and then distribute 75% of the proceeds equally among households.)

  3. - Louis G. Atsaves - Wednesday, Feb 25, 09 @ 11:27 am:

    I am one of those who felt that Quinn didn’t deserve a “honeymoon” when elevated to the position of Governor.

    I will give him credit here. If he keeps looking for long term solutions instead of short term fixes, I may have to actually reassess my position about his “honeymoon!”

  4. - The Doc - Wednesday, Feb 25, 09 @ 11:28 am:

    Parts of Quinn’s argument make sense. A gas tax is regressive, and infrastructure can be more than roads, bridges, and transit.

    Aren’t the excise taxes on cigarettes targeted for health care initiatives? By Quinn’s logic, taxing cigarettes is a poor idea since the source of revenue will decrease, meaning fewer dollars for health care. I can’t envision any pol advancing that cause. Schoenburg and Cullerton are seeking to increase that tax, right?

    Moreover, if the idea, along with raising revenue, is to provide disincentive for a particular behavior (driving), why is raising the gas tax poor public policy? Quinn’s statement reflects a desire to become more energy-efficient. But doing so necessarily means less reliance on motor fuel.

    Mayor Daley has provided oodles of proof that if you tax something long enough and at a high enough rate, people will find alternatives (bottled water is a good recent example).

  5. - montrose - Wednesday, Feb 25, 09 @ 11:41 am:

    **Mayor Daley has provided oodles of proof that if you tax something long enough and at a high enough rate, people will find alternatives (bottled water is a good recent example).**

    Are people actually buying less bottled water in Chicago as a result of the tax? I honestly do not know.

    It is difficult to compare tax on cigarettes for health care to the current gas tax debate. People do not have to smoke, but they do need transportation. Hence, when we talk about utilizing taxes as a disincentive to the activity being taxed, there needs to be a reasonable alternative available when it comes to transportation. That is not the case with smoking. Downstate, driving is pretty much the only game in town, depending on where you are. Until we have better public transportation systems down there and/or better access to fuel efficient vehicles, we cannot use a higher gas tax to incent people to take on “better” behaviors.

    This does not touch on the valid point that with the cigarette tax, we ideally want revenues to decrease, so it is not (hopefully anyway) a sustainable funding stream.

  6. - The Doc - Wednesday, Feb 25, 09 @ 12:07 pm:

    Montrose, the city’s revenue raised as a result of the bottled water tax has fallen far short of their projections, suggesting that residents are purchasing bottled water outside city limits.

    You’ve somewhat validated my point. That is, since there’s not much of alternative for many drivers, particularly in rural areas, the gas tax will have the intended effect of raising the revenue needed to fund the capital bill. And I’ve argued that expanding mass transit should be a priority in any capital bill for this very reason.

    Lastly, we can certainly affect drivers’ behavior to a point, namely by providing the incentive to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles.

  7. - Ghost - Wednesday, Feb 25, 09 @ 12:11 pm:

    I agree with all of quinns points. BUT I would suggest that a small tax on gas would still be appropiate. Maybe 3-4 cents a gallon. Then you can look at funding the res with more long term solutions, such as GRT.

  8. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 25, 09 @ 12:12 pm:


    Um, that idea is deader than Rod Blagojevich’s political career.

  9. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 25, 09 @ 12:12 pm:

    –Quinn suggested that infrastructure plans should include non-transportation items — such as laying fiber optic lines along highways — to promote telemedicine, online education and Internet commerce.–

    We’re getting a whiff of the unfocused Quinn here. You’re governor now, dude, not a gadfly.

    We are, and will be for quite some time, a gasoline engine society. We need roads; we need good roads; we need to pay for them somehow. Good roads are vital for bringing goods and services to market; building good roads puts people to work.

    In opposition to what others have said, a gasoline tax does not fall disproportionately on the poor; it is paid by all in exact portions as to how much they drive and the fuel efficiency of their automobile.

    I ride the el and walk; I drive less than virtually anyone I know. But let’s get real here.

  10. - Cassandra - Wednesday, Feb 25, 09 @ 1:12 pm:

    Maybe Quinn is channeling California. I believe they finally dropped their gas tax proposal but they imposed a”temporar” income tax surcharge and also significantly raised vehicle licensing fees. Many Californians are not happy, of course, California being the land of cars.

    California also imposed some very significant cuts
    which we haven’t seen here.

    But I do think the various state governments watch either to see how various schemes play out.

  11. - steve schnorf - Wednesday, Feb 25, 09 @ 1:20 pm:

    I think Gov Quinn is simply stating the obvious. Of course, an infrastructure plan needs to include more than just roads, bridges, and mass tran. It needs to include sewer and water projects, brownfields reclamations, energy conservation, public buildings (esp schools), etc. I am a little curious about relying on only MFT to pay for all of it. If it were me, I would probably add 50 cents or so to the tobacco tax, maybe pick up one or two other small sources (alcohol, video poker?) to balance out the revenue sources for the whole package.

  12. - Ghost - Wednesday, Feb 25, 09 @ 1:31 pm:

    Its too bad on the GRT. The concept itself is in play in other states, with some tweaking and set at a more reasonable level it might have been a viable source

  13. - QuincyNews - Wednesday, Feb 25, 09 @ 2:08 pm:


    Thanks for the link on the Sullivan income tax hike plan.

  14. - Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Feb 25, 09 @ 5:42 pm:

    Steve S.-

    I find it amusing, that with the current diversions of MFT money to non rooadway and especially non-transportation related uses, that we are now considering raising the gas tax higher so that even more money can be raised and diverted.

  15. - steve schnorf - Wednesday, Feb 25, 09 @ 6:22 pm:

    6, we could end the diversions, but then we would have to raise the gas tax or something else to backfill the holes at SoS, IDOT, State Police, etc

  16. - Smitty Irving - Wednesday, Feb 25, 09 @ 6:54 pm:

    Why shouldn’t IDOT road and highway expenses be paid from the Road Fund and MFT Fund?

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.

* Federal judge orders arrest of two petition circulators with alleged ties to Madigan
* Question of the day
* Everything old is new again... almost
* This is most definitely not the first time, and it probably won't be the last
* Chicago poll: 57 percent say they'll swallow the pension payment medicine
* Auditor General releases Quincy veterans home report
* Maybe "stability" is not the word Pritzker should use?
* All's well that ends well
* When almost nothing becomes something and that's just life in the bigs
* Preckwinkle and Rush will double down today
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today's edition
* Should cannabis legalization proponents be worried?
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Yesterday's stories

Visit our advertisers...











Main Menu
Pundit rankings
Subscriber Content
Blagojevich Trial
Updated Posts

March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005


RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0

Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller