Added at 11:47 PM-Yippee! Skippee! Utah Wins and Nick Sabin loses (sorry for his team) now I can rest easy. See ya tomorrow--
Talk about unintended consequences!!!
Comcast has daily headlines which I usually don't access 'cuz I'm on my way to the internet, but today I stopped at the one talking about how the transportation committee wants to double the federal gas tax. And the reason?
1-people are driving less (using less gas)
2-people are driving hybrids and driving smarter
So, when all the global warming folks said drive less and drive hybrids and use ethanol, etc., etc., and we did, why is anyone surprised at the result? (And by the way, in my opinion, the changes in driving habits were disproportionately due to the fact that it became a cost/benefit situation--most of us can see the forest.)
So let's get this straight. Taxes are, or should be, predicated on future needs.
So when they built the roads they started collecting taxes for maintenance. Or did they wait until the infrastructure went to hell in a handbasket and then have to make up for poor planning and lost time? And then, did they set the rates to actually meet the needs or did they set them just high enough so the populace would not rise up? Has this been a miniature Ponzi scheme whose time just came to explode in our faces?
And on top of that don't forget that the committee was appointed by the Congress, which means Pelosi, etc. so consider the source when you consider the directives given to the committee at its inception.
Just be aware--be ready for the onslaught of press reports on the NEEDS we face in regard to this subject and most of all, don't forget that if the price goes up, the demand goes down, so the proportion of taxes to usage will change as well. The economists like to predict at what point behavior is changed by economics and it's a never-ending saga. It's really tough to get agreement, so use your common sense and demand that our government does as well.
See ya (and I may be back later today)