Comments on: Sen. Coburn still fighting the good fight http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2005/10/25/sen-coburn-still-fighting-the-good-fight/ Don't dis or dismiss this miss! Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:28:30 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Sister Toldjah http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2005/10/25/sen-coburn-still-fighting-the-good-fight/comment-page-1/#comment-45254 Sister Toldjah Fri, 28 Oct 2005 03:00:18 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2005/10/25/sen-coburn-still-fighting-the-good-fight/#comment-45254 <strong>Dana:</strong> Interesting. I had not examined it that closely. Ah well ... it's a start, anyway. <strong>Stackja:</strong> If only we could :) Dana: Interesting. I had not examined it that closely. Ah well … it’s a start, anyway.

Stackja: If only we could :)

]]> By: stackja http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2005/10/25/sen-coburn-still-fighting-the-good-fight/comment-page-1/#comment-45103 stackja Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:20:36 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2005/10/25/sen-coburn-still-fighting-the-good-fight/#comment-45103 ST Change the mindset, get government out of the way, let indivduals do more, not saying easy. ST
Change the mindset, get government out of the way, let indivduals do more, not saying easy.

]]> By: Dana R. Pico http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2005/10/25/sen-coburn-still-fighting-the-good-fight/comment-page-1/#comment-45076 Dana R. Pico Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:03:00 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2005/10/25/sen-coburn-still-fighting-the-good-fight/#comment-45076 There is a fundamental problem with Senator Coburn's proposal: it leaves intact the assumption that the federal government ought to fund intrastate projects. The federal gasoline tax is 18.4¢ per gallon, with a guarantee of 92% of said tax revenues being spent in the individual states in which they were collected. Wouldn't it make a heck of a lot more sense to cut the federal gasoline tax rate by 92% (that would be 16.9¢ per gallon), which would allow the states to raise their gasoline taxes by that amount, without hurting anyone? That way the <em>state</em> governments could decide what projects were needed; do you think the ridiculous bridge project in Alaska would have been funded if Alaskans had to pay for it? The $384 billion federal highway bill has all sorts of projects in it that ought not to be the business of the federal government at all. Why are congressmen from Montana voting (and horse trading) on funding for a bike path in a Massachusetts town? If it's that good a project, let the people closer to the projects decide, and fund, them. Heck, let's assume that the states would choose to fund every stinking project in the porcine highway bill. Simply by not sending all that money to Washington, it skips a layer of bureaucracy. That means that overhead costs are lowered, and more of the money gets used on the projects themselves. There is a fundamental problem with Senator Coburn’s proposal: it leaves intact the assumption that the federal government ought to fund intrastate projects.

The federal gasoline tax is 18.4¢ per gallon, with a guarantee of 92% of said tax revenues being spent in the individual states in which they were collected. Wouldn’t it make a heck of a lot more sense to cut the federal gasoline tax rate by 92% (that would be 16.9¢ per gallon), which would allow the states to raise their gasoline taxes by that amount, without hurting anyone? That way the state governments could decide what projects were needed; do you think the ridiculous bridge project in Alaska would have been funded if Alaskans had to pay for it?

The $384 billion federal highway bill has all sorts of projects in it that ought not to be the business of the federal government at all. Why are congressmen from Montana voting (and horse trading) on funding for a bike path in a Massachusetts town? If it’s that good a project, let the people closer to the projects decide, and fund, them.

Heck, let’s assume that the states would choose to fund every stinking project in the porcine highway bill. Simply by not sending all that money to Washington, it skips a layer of bureaucracy. That means that overhead costs are lowered, and more of the money gets used on the projects themselves.

]]>