Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck Transportation Government United States Politics

2 US Senators Propose 12-Cent Gas Tax Increase 619

Posted by timothy
from the electrifying-news dept.
An anonymous reader writes There are several proposals on the table to stave off the impending insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund (which pays for transit, biking, and walking projects too) in two months. Just now, two senators teamed up to announce one that might actually have a chance. Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) have proposed increasing the gas tax by 12 cents a gallon over two years. The federal gas tax currently stands at 18.4 cents a gallon, where it has been set since 1993, when gas cost $1.16 a gallon.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2 US Senators Propose 12-Cent Gas Tax Increase

Comments Filter:
  • Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DogDude (805747) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @03:52PM (#47275427) Homepage
    Good!

    a. Gas is much too cheap in the US.
    b. We need a lot of infrastructure work.

    Of course, I'm sure we could afford to pave all of our roads with gold, have diamond-studded bike lanes, and solid titanium sidewalks if we didn't spend half our budget on wars, but hey, I'm not holding my breath. There's not as much room for corruption in building roads in this country as there is building roads in some 3rd world country that we bombed into oblivion.
    • Ok, I'll bite. Why do you consider gas to be too cheap?
      • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by GlassHeart (579618) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @04:29PM (#47275861) Journal

        Because a good deal of the cost of gasoline has been externalized. Below are some examples:

        1. The efforts of the US Navy to maintain peace in the middle east shipping lanes. The US consumed some 134 billion gallons of gasoline in 2013, and the budget of the US Navy is about $150 billion. It's reasonable to assume that a few cents per gallon should be charged to help pay for the Navy.
        2. The increased incidences of respiratory diseases due to air pollution. Medical care is expensive in the US, and things that harm public health should at the very least help pay for it.
        3. The costs of global warming.

        Obviously, gasoline is not the sole driver of these, but it makes sense to better account for the true cost of using gasoline. Note that the gasoline tax has not changed in absolute terms since 1993, which means it's lost about 40% of its value to inflation.

        This isn't to say that the 12 cent proposal is fair, or that sharply increasing gasoline prices is wise, but that a gradual increase to match its true cost is sensible.

      • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Cimexus (1355033) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @06:27PM (#47277017)

        As someone that moved to the US a couple of years ago but have previously lived in Europe, Japan and Australia - you guys do have very cheap fuel compared to virtually any other developed country you care to name.

        Those other countries/regions are in decreasing order of cost ... while fuel in Australia is only maybe 1.5x the cost in the US, Europe is close to 2.5-3.0x.

        The difference is of course down to the levels of taxation (the actual cost of oil/fuel itself is relatively similar everywhere on earth). But frankly, US roads are in terrible condition compared to the average road in those other regions I mentioned. I'd be glad to pay more for fuel if we could get some decent roads out of it. Most of them here in the Midwest are horribly bumpy and uneven ... patches upon patches upon patches on roads that really should have been completely ripped up and relayed years ago. I kind of understand now why cars don't seem to last as long in the US as in other countries - it's partly weather (particularly winter salt), but partly that they get slowly rattled to pieces death just by driving around!

    • Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)

      by rogoshen1 (2922505) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @03:59PM (#47275497)

      We need more regressive taxes in this country! Screw the poor people!

      (Yes, consumption taxes on essential goods with demand tending towards inelasticity are regressive)

      (my tinfoil hat tells me Corker likes this due to Toyota manufacturing in his state, and the increase in hybrid sales due to gas price hikes.)

    • a. Gas isn't too cheap in the US. If anything, it looks like commodities investors alone drive the price independent of supply/demand.
      b. The cost should go on registration. As we keep getting cars that are more and more efficient (and even run on electricity), we'll charging road users very unevenly. If this was an emissions tax that might be okay, but I think it isn't (?).

    • Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 19, 2014 @04:04PM (#47275563)

      Too cheap?? LOL

      What makes you think the added income will go towards infrastructure? The existing taxes are already supposed to pay for that but have been diverted to various pet projects..

      Stupid much?

      • Re:Good! (Score:4, Informative)

        by bobbied (2522392) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @04:12PM (#47275651)

        Say: "Social Security Trust Fund!" 100 times, then go count the IOU's that are in it... No dollars there, we spent it all.

        • from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258 [cbpp.org]

          Social Security: Another 24 percent of the budget, or $814 billion, paid for Social Security, which provided monthly retirement benefits averaging $1,294 to 37.9 million retired workers in December 2013. Social Security also provided benefits to 2.9 million spouses and children of retired workers, 6.2 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers, and 11 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2013.

          I know very f
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Dishevel (1105119)
      Yes. Gas is too cheap so the government must artificially raise the price.

      Umm. Fuck you.

      We have set aside funds for infrastructure. 18.4 cents of every single gallon of gas sold in the US! Where does that money actually go?

      Well over 25% of gas tax funds go to side walks and bike trails and shit like that. How about we start with this.

      States have gas taxes as well. In California I have to pay 71 cents/gal in gas taxes. Then because that is not enough sales tax on gas is calculated after the fuel tax so w

      • by sjbe (173966) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @05:43PM (#47276601)

        Gas is too cheap so the government must artificially raise the price.

        No, infrastructure is too expensive for the funding we have in place. Gas is the best proxy we have for usage of that infrastructure so it's reasonable to tax that. More gas used means more infrastructure repairs needed and less gas used means less use of said infrastructure.

        We have set aside funds for infrastructure. 18.4 cents of every single gallon of gas sold in the US! Where does that money actually go?

        To maintain the infrastructure - duh. That's pretty much a matter of public record. It's a big country and we have a lot of crumbling roads. Furthermore 18.4 cents doesn't go as far as it did 20 years ago. In fact it is roughly equivalent to $0.11 cents in 1993 dollars once you adjust for inflation. Much of this infrastructure is paid for with federal dollars so it makes sense to tax it at the federal level.

        Well over 25% of gas tax funds go to side walks and bike trails and shit like that.

        Citation needed. That number smells like you just pulled it out from where the sun don't shine.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by FatherOfONe (515801)

      With all due respect. Are you crazy? New taxes are never the solution. Ever. This is like helping someone who is addicted to cocaine, more cocaine! How about this, they truely balance the budget first, then we can argue about how we should spend the money. You want new roads, awesome, then we cut social security, medicare and medicate. I am all for it! There is nobody on this planet that is as inefficient as our government and thus giving them more money is akin to being insane.. Their only soluti

      • Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by DogDude (805747) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @04:21PM (#47275763) Homepage
        New taxes are never the solution. Ever.

        It's good to know that you have a system as complicated as a country of hundreds of million people figured out with a single sentence. You should consider running for President. Sounds like Sarah Palin would be a perfect running mate for you!
      • Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @04:24PM (#47275805)

        http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/a... [ssa.gov]

        1993 Average income: 23,132.67
        2013 Average income: 44,321.67

        Roads and Bridges, like firefighters and law enforcement offers, are a legitimate function of government. Funding for the roads has been cut in half by inflation and the infrastructure is becoming dangerous. Especially bridges.

        If the tax had been set at 18%- then it would have scaled with gasoline prices. But with the increasing share of hybrids, much higher mileage of gasoline cars (33mpg vs 28mpg), many more trucks used for shipping (70% more in 2007 than in 1997) (roughly 15 million today vs 4 million in 1993), and now purely electric cars the tax needs to be changed to reflect today's reality.

        What we really need is to remove the gasoline tax and replace it with a mileage tax.

        I read a lot of 1850's newspapers and it's funny because with the civil war approaching, the voters and legislators then seemed more rational than our voters and legislators today.

        You *can't* *have* the roads for *free*.
        It *costs* money to build and maintain the road system.

        Grow up.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by codepigeon (1202896)
          Using Average Income is dishonest/misleading. You should use median income:

          1993: $48,000
          2014: $52,000

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
          • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @06:27PM (#47277013)

            Dude...
            You are using inflation adjusted figures for 1993.

            Median income in 1993 was $30,210.. which adjusted for inflation is $48,884.

            In 1993, the tax was 18.4 cents.. which adjusted for inflation would be 30 cents.

            So 12 cents higher. Hmmmm. The math checks.

        • It seems no one has explained to the slashdot viewers the nature of the US federalist government. You see, certain responsibilities are left to the federal government, such as military defense, coining money, and international trade agreements. Other responsibilities are left to state governments, such as firefighters, most law enforcement, and ROADS.

          No the feds should not put any tax towards road infrastructure because they are not responsible for roads. They don't have the constitutional authority, and

          • http://www.wyotax.org/gasoline... [wyotax.org]

            Where do our Federal gasoline taxes go?

            The federal tax goes directly to the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which was created in 1956 and provides funding to the states for highway and transit projects. Funding, however, is not based on how much tax is collected from a given state, but from a state's "need," which is calculated by several measures, including miles of road and number of licensed drivers. This means that some states are "winners" who receive more than they are tax

        • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by djlemma (1053860) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @05:37PM (#47276561)
          I think a tax on gasoline is far easier to implement than a tax on mileage, and makes a lot of sense. The government wants to give incentive to high mileage vehicles and electric vehicles, so unless you have a different rate category for the mileage tax it would effectively punish them. Also, the amount of wear caused by a vehicle is proportional to its weight, so to be fair you'd need to put a higher mileage tax on heavy vehicles... That's already basically accounted for with a gasoline tax, since the heavy vehicles necessarily use more fuel, and at least for now you won't find too many EV/Hybrid semi trucks out on the road.
          I'm not necessarily opposed to having some sort of tax based on usage (based on odometer readings I suppose, which would require all states to adopt annual inspections) but I think the tax on gasoline is a necessity as well. I guess I'm the opposite of the person you were responding to. :)
      • Re:Good! (Score:4, Informative)

        by roninmagus (721889) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @04:27PM (#47275837)
        I used to be like you. "Read my lips, no new taxes!" Taxes are bad, taxes are the devil, they get so much and waste so much already. Until I became treasurer on my homeowner's board. We are required by our master deed (which is approved and registered with the city, therefore is legally binding) to provide certain services. A new regulation from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac states that we must take on a certain expense or they will not back loans issued in our neighborhood. If they do not back the loan, then 95% of mortgage companies will not issue it because they can't sell the liability. Therefore, no one in our neighborhood can sell their home unless the buyer pays 100% cash.

        This expense represents a 35% increase in our budget. We cannot legally cut services. So we have to issue a "tax" (dues increase to the HOA) to cover the cost. The benefit to the community is that they will be able to sell their homes again--we've already seen a 20% loss in value.

        So yes, taxes are sometimes necessary. In my case it's forced from the outside. In the government's case, it could be due to waste and inefficiency but I'm willing to bet that is a very small percentage (and a study I've read of welfare waste backs this up). It could also be due to increasing population, increased infrastructure regulatory requirements, dwindling resources, etc, etc, etc.
      • by Ziggitz (2637281)
        Only morons deal in absolutes, and horrible analogies and delusions of living in a fantasy world where we conquer nations steal the natural resources and sell them to fill the national coffers like we're in a fucking video game.
      • Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Luthair (847766) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @04:41PM (#47275985)

        While we're on analogies - what you're saying is you can live on a wage from 20-years ago today and ignore the inflation that has happened in that period?

        Remember that this is a fixed rate set 21-years ago, while the costs associated maintaining infrastructures have gone up. Further, cars have also became substantially more fuel efficient reducing the per km value of the tax as well without corresponding reduction of wear or demand on the infrastructure.

      • by dnavid (2842431)

        With all due respect. Are you crazy? New taxes are never the solution. Ever. This is like helping someone who is addicted to cocaine, more cocaine! How about this, they truely balance the budget first, then we can argue about how we should spend the money. You want new roads, awesome, then we cut social security, medicare and medicate.

        Its a bit more complicated than that in this specific case. Gas taxes go into the Highway Trust which is used to fund highway construction and repair projects and other related transportation projects. 80% isn't actually spent directly by the Federal government, its block granted to states for state infrastructure projects related to highways and transit. The taxes themselves aren't indexed to inflation and haven't been adjusted since 1993, so while they remain relatively static the costs of performing t

    • by armanox (826486)

      As someone who spends a large portion of their monthly budget on gas, I am very apposed to this. I also am opposed to the diverting of the transportation fund for other things that has been quite common place (or at least in my state).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Let's say I'm the lawnmower. Your lawn needs mowing so you pay me to do it. However, I don't mow your lawn. Instead I smear shit all over your windows.

      Your lawn still needs mowing. Will you give me even more money?

    • Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @04:11PM (#47275639)

      I think the tax needs to be a percentage tax.

      I agree that our infrastructure is suffering due to lack of funding.
      Adjusted for inflation, this tax has lost almost 75% of the purchasing power it had 20 years ago.

      • Re:Good! (Score:4, Informative)

        by GlassHeart (579618) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @04:32PM (#47275893) Journal
        According to the CPI Inflation Calculator [bls.gov], 18.3 cents today is worth about 11 cents in 1993, so a loss of around 40%, not 75%. But your point stands.
        • Yup- I saw wages went from 23 to 43 after I posted this. Which is in line with the cpi calculator.

          But, need to be careful of the CPI calculator because they've been messing with it for a while to address Cola increases (esp social security).

          For example, the price of gasoline has roughly tripled.
          The average cost of a new car in 1993 was about $12500. This price will vary depending the make and model of the car. A luxury car cost close to $20000
          The average price of a new car in 2013 was $31252. Luxury cars

    • by vux984 (928602)

      Good!

      a. Gas is much too cheap in the US.
      b. We need a lot of infrastructure work.

      True on all points, but electrics should contribute as much as gasoline powered cars from Honda to Ferrari.

      At this stage the tax should be on the odometer; read and applied when you renew your insurance.

      And if its going to scale to anything it should be correlated to vehicle weight.

      A Ferrari may drink 4x as much gas as a Honda Civic, but it causes the same wear on the infrastructure. The 4,600 lb Tesla does more wear and tear th

      • And if its going to scale to anything it should be correlated to vehicle weight.

        And what good is that if the vehicle rarely gets driven? Gas is a reasonable proxy on average for vehicle weight. Bigger cars generally consume more fuel. Yes there are some gas guzzlers that consume more than their share but there also are some fuel sippers that consume less. There are environmental benefits to taxing those who needlessly consume more of a resource than necessary.

        A Ferrari may drink 4x as much gas as a Honda Civic, but it causes the same wear on the infrastructure.

        You're looking for a perfect proxy for road usage. Stop. There isn't any perfect measure you could use that is practically

    • Re:Good! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by David_Hart (1184661) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @04:35PM (#47275923)

      Good!

      a. Gas is much too cheap in the US.
      b. We need a lot of infrastructure work.

      Of course, I'm sure we could afford to pave all of our roads with gold, have diamond-studded bike lanes, and solid titanium sidewalks if we didn't spend half our budget on wars, but hey, I'm not holding my breath. There's not as much room for corruption in building roads in this country as there is building roads in some 3rd world country that we bombed into oblivion.

      Personally, I would love detailed breakdown of where the current gas taxes goes. I'm willing to bet that a good portion of it goes to other programs, pet projects, and expenditures that have nothing to do with highway, bridges, transit, bike, or walking path infrastructure. In other words, I'm pretty sure that there is enough money coming in from gas taxes today. I'm also willing to bet that the Highway Trust Fund would not see the full amount of any tax hike....

      This is just another way to get people to pay more taxes.

      • Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Alex Zepeda (10955) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @07:48PM (#47277623)

        And you'd be wrong.

        https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/motor... [dot.gov]

        The revenue from the collected Federal fuel taxes are deposited into the Highway Trust Fund, which has several accounts. Though the percentages vary depending on the fuel type, the majority (approximately 83 to 87%) is deposited into the Highway Account, to be used on road construction and maintenance. An additional amount (approximately 11 to 15%) goes to the Mass Transit Account, and for many fuels, 0.1 cents per gallon goes to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.

    • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sloppy (14984) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @04:39PM (#47275951) Homepage Journal

      Hey man, maybe this tax is a good idea, but the whole "Gas is much too cheap in the US," thing is a pretty dumb thing to say. There is no such thing as "too cheap." By all means, end the gas subsidies and externalities (e.g, middle east wars, not having to pay to plant forests to soak up CO2 pollution, etc) and add any taxes that are appropriate (e.g. fuel usage and road wear maybe aren't an exact match but they're pretty close; so I'd say gax taxes to pay for highways are a pretty decent idea), but even 10 cents per gallon wouldn't be "too cheap" because nothing can ever possibly be too cheap.

      That said, gas sure is cheap. I can buy gas cheaper than I can buy Coca Cola and it's sure worth a lot more.

    • What? (Score:4, Informative)

      by s.petry (762400) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @05:20PM (#47276387)

      The US Government has spent over a trillion dollars funding a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 6 billion dollars funding a revolt in the Ukraine, at least 9 million dollars funding rebels in Syria (I have not looked at any numbers past what Obama did last September), Billions in beefing up US Local police forces, Billions more on DHS, FEMA, and the TSA, Billions more funding Egypt's various revolutions, and untold amounts in "black budgets" all over Africa. Even the GOA who is supposed to ensure accountability for spent tax dollars, spends millions on a lavish party for 33 people in Las Vegas.

      And you think average people who's salaries and average wealth has gone down by nearly 30% in the last decade alone should pay even more money because they could not spent anything on Roads and Infrastructure whilst they pissed away your money everywhere else?

  • When it comes to raising money, they can both get on the same train.....

    Anyhow, an 18 cent change all at once is never gonna happen. They'll have enough rending of garments and gnashing of teeth if they try to raise it nickel.

    • er, 12 cents. Same difference....

    • by necro81 (917438)
      Propose a $0.12 increase, settle for a nickel to get it passed. It's better than nothing...
    • by turp182 (1020263)

      You are correct about 18 cents all at once never happening.

      But the summary says it's 12 cents over 2 years.

    • by bigpat (158134) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @04:02PM (#47275539)
      The issue with the gas tax is that it is a fixed amount per gallon and the real value falls over time with inflation. The only way for the gas tax to keep up is to index it to inflation. Otherwise you will continue to see the Highway funds periodically getting depleted until you have to pump up the tax again. Much better to permanently index the tax to inflation rather than have these periodic increases. Of course you could argue that there are better ways to tax in order to raise transportation infrastructure funds. But if you are going to stick with the gas tax, then index it.
      • by bobbied (2522392)

        No, you don't index it to inflation, you make it a percentage of the pre-tax cost, i.e. make it a sales tax.. So you set the gas tax to something like 6 cents on the dollar at the retail point of sale...

        Yes, I know this changes the whole way we collect these taxes, but this way it's automatically adjusted from here on out and we can stop this political hand wringing exercise.

  • by iceperson (582205) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @03:56PM (#47275459)
    12 cents won't affect me one bit. It certainly won't change my driving habits. The poor on the other hand.. well, let's just say if you're living on a fixed income and/or are already below the poverty line a nice big regressive tax might sting a little...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by slapout (93640)

      It will affect you. Unless you don't buy anything from stores or restaurants.

      • Or have anything delivered to you. Or use the postal service. Or pay taxes...

      • Last I checked, the gas tax is separate from the diesel tax, which would affect the stores and restaurants you mention.
    • by T.E.D. (34228)

      So you say. But you have to realize that's also a hike in the transportation costs of anything shipped by truck in the USA (damn near everything). Gas tax hikes essentially cause a negative supply shock [wikipedia.org]. This is a particularly evil kind of economic event where costs rise and and employment drops. This is why we haven't raised this particular tax in two decades.

      If it really needs to rise (most likely it does), if it were me I'd wait until the next time gas prices drop for some reason, and raise it then to a

  • Fuck. That. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @03:57PM (#47275467) Homepage Journal

    Defund the NSA, we'll have all the money we need for roads and infrastructure. And then some.

    • Why would you do that? There're the primary source of targeting data for the 700 Billion we spend every year on the military. It would be like buying a brand new GPS and then not loading it with any maps to save money.

  • So did shares in Tesla go up on this news? Expected increases in Prius sales?

    • by iggymanz (596061)

      uh huh, when electric cars become common they'll be taxed out the wazoo for highway / transportation too

  • Let's be fair (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 19, 2014 @04:02PM (#47275551)

    The government only pulled in $1,934,919,000,000 this year so there's obviously not enough to go around.

  • ... dropping the transit, walking, and such goo out of the federal outlays, and leave it to relevant localities.

    • Walk? On what sidewalks? Our city did a cost estimate to put sidewalks in the most dangerous highway in town, and when the price exceeded three million, scrapped the idea.

      And another pedestrian died just last month.
  • The EU has more public transportation with there higher taxes on gas.

    • by MBGMorden (803437)

      The US population is much more spread out. Our land area is over twice the size of the entire EU but we have only about 63% as much people. What works there doesn't necessarily work here.

  • by Solandri (704621) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @04:10PM (#47275635)

    The federal gas tax currently stands at 18.4 cents a gallon, where it has been set since 1993, when gas cost $1.16 a gallon.

    Since the gas tax is ostensibly for the construction and maintenance of roads and highways, it should be compared to that. The cost of maintenance and construction scale mostly according to CPI, not the price of gas. I can't think of any reason why you'd compare the tax to the price of gas unless you're deliberately trying to mislead people into thinking it needs to go up more (political arguments about energy taxes aside).

    Putting $1.16 into an inflation calculator [bls.gov] yields $1.90 in 2014 dollars, or a 64% increase. 64% of 18.4 cents is 11.7 cents. So a 12 cent increase is exactly what's needed for the tax to keep pace with inflation.

    • by SkimTony (245337)

      There is one reason to compare it to the cost of gasoline, which is predicated on an inverse relationship between the cost of fuel and the amount people are willing to spend on it. While there are many quibbles and outright logical flaws in the reasoning behind the gas tax, this one seems relatively sound:
      1) Gas tax is a certain percentage of cost of fuel, collected as fuel is purchased. Fuel use approximately correlates with wear and tear on roads.
      2) Price of gas increases dra

  • by grasshoppa (657393) <skennedyNO@SPAMtpno-co.org> on Thursday June 19, 2014 @04:53PM (#47276133) Homepage

    Why is it the only time Ds and Rs can agree on something is when they're reaching their grubby little hands into my wallet?

  • by erp_consultant (2614861) on Thursday June 19, 2014 @05:32PM (#47276507)

    Instead of taking a hard look at where the money in the Highway Trust Fund is going, their solution is to simply bring in more money. The HTF was originally set up to fund the building of the Interstate Highway system. Period. That was it's sole purpose. Those funds were transferred to various States to build and expand the IH system as needed.

    Fast forward to today and the HTF resources are being funneled into Transit systems, ferry boats, bike paths, and nature trails. All worthy causes but the money should not come out of the HTF. That's why it is underfunded.

    This is the same trick that politicians play time and again. It happens with Education, Social Security and other items.

  • I don't even notice when gas changes by $.12 per gallon any more. The change in gas prices does not change my need to buy it. Not that I would rather not spend that much, but $.12 per gallon on a 15 gallon tank is only $1.80. Considering I pay $3.50 - $4 per gallon, that is roughly the cost of half a gallon or less. I won't notice it. Even if I fill up every week, $1.80 * 52 weeks is only $93.60 over the course of a year which still is not a large pile of money. If I drank coffee I would probably spend that much on coffee in a month or less.

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre

Working...