Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Fun with rationales

Posted in:

Illinois

Also this year, [Rep. Lindsay Parkhurst, R-Kankakee] opposed increasing the gas tax to 38 cents per gallon, from 19 cents. It was the first hike in nearly three decades.

She said she was against increasing the tax so much at once. Under the new law, the tax would rise with the inflation rate. She said the state should have had inflationary increases over the years.

“We should have made sure we had infrastructure funded all along,” Parkhurst said.

Elected in 2016, Parkhurst said she was for proposed road improvements near the expanding CSL Behring plant near Bourbonnais. That will likely be made possible because of a $45 billion highway bill that state lawmakers passed earlier this year. Parkhurst voted against that bill because it also included the gas tax hike.

Gotta start somewhere, Representative. If the Motor Fuel Tax had kept up with inflation after it was last increased, it would be 38 cents per gallon today.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 9:39 am

Comments

Another way to look at it is look how cheap we had it for three decades.

Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 9:55 am
“We should have made sure we had infrastructure funded all along,” Yup, we should have made sure we made pension payments all along too. Your point? Woulda, shoulda, coulda.

Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 9:57 am
Somehow, ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it too’, comes to mind. The funds for road improvements do not magically appear out of thin air.

Comment by Tommydanger Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 10:00 am
And of course she (like the others who voted against it) will still show up smiling at all the ribbon cuttings.

Comment by K3 Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 10:01 am
== Another way to look at it is look how cheap we had it for three decades. ==

Another way to look at it is, we ignored cold, hard reality until it ran up and kicked us in our collective tuchus.

Comment by Northsider Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 10:14 am
Tryin to remember if the Rep bungled the traffic signal or that was strictly a GovJunk production

Comment by Annonin' Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 10:27 am
==Another way to look at it is look how cheap we had it for three decades.==

Which would’ve been true if we didn’t charge sales tax on top of a motor fuel tax.

Ten years ago, a couple of state reps attempted to raise the gas tax by 15 cents, index it to inflation, but also reduce the state tax to 1.25%. That sounded like a good plan. Of course, it went nowhere.

Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 10:39 am
==We should have made sure we had infrastructure funded all along==

Unless Rep. Parkhurst has blueprints for a time machine, what’s her point?

Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 10:41 am
Of course there is a need for capital projects. It just seems that a $45B plan when you have somewhere around $150B in unfunded pension liability is a bit much. Since the Gov measures his personal holdings in billions, maybe he feels we all have that kind of loose change sitting around.

Comment by SSL Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 11:27 am
===“We should have made sure we had infrastructure funded all along,” Parkhurst said.===

I’ll help ya. Ready?

Ya can’t complain… “… “We should have made sure we had infrastructure funded all along,” Parkhurst said.”

… and then vote against doing it too.

You look and sound embarrassingly ridiculous to your own record.

If you’re not embarrassed by this, then you are doing the whole “legislator” thingy wrong.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 11:30 am
So let me get this straight. She agrees there are infrastructure needs. She thinks they should have been funded all along. But since they weren’t she’s not voting in favor of the mechanism to pay for the infrastructure improvements? That’s interesting logic for your opposition Representative.

I certainly hope she isn’t at any ribbon cuttings for any projects in her district.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 11:40 am
@Demo- Shorter version- “I want it but I am not for it”.

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 11:58 am
Or: I want it but I want someone else to pay for it which would be an appropriate state motto for the proposed state of Eastern Blocovia.

Comment by former southerner Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 1:20 pm
I want it but make Chicago pay for it.

Comment by Froganon Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 1:21 pm
“I want it but make Chicago pay for it after we kick them out of Illinois.”

Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 1:45 pm
We will build it, and Mexico will pay for it.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 5:28 pm
We should not have raided the Road fund for the past 15 or so years ago. ( and not paid it back)…that little nugget gets lost in the teeth rattling, pot hole infested, rim bending road history.

Comment by theCardinal Wednesday, Sep 4, 19 @ 9:53 pm

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: Today’s word: “Productive”
Next Post: Du Quoin State Fair grandstand ticket sales rose 26 percent, revenue up 37 percent

Last 10 posts:

Reader comments closed for the weekend (11-22)
Isabel’s afternoon roundup (11-22)
The Waukegan City Clerk was railroaded (11-22)
Whatever happened, the city has a $40 million budget hole it didn't disclose until now (11-22)
Manar gives state agencies budget guidance: Cut, cut, cut (11-22)
Roundup: Ex-Chicago Ald. Danny Solis testifies in Madigan corruption trial (11-22)
Open thread (11-22)
Isabel’s morning briefing (11-22)
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password) (11-22)
Live coverage (11-22)