[NWPT47]No doubt, there has been a lot of anger in some quarters over the Legislature’s decision to raise the gasoline tax 9.5 cents over four years. The question, however, is anger over what?
There’s been talk about legislative “arrogance”… you know, like the arrogance of the Legislature for actually passing legislation. But really, much of the opposition to the gas tax is simply based on the fact that people don’t like paying higher taxes. Hell… who does? Still, while 9.5 cents tacked onto our existing 28 cent gas tax seems like a lot of money, I couldn’t help but wonder how high our gas tax really is, in real dollars, relative to historical levels. My preliminary research might surprise some people.
The chart above plots three lines, the Nominal Gas Tax in pennies per gallon, the gas tax in year-2000 dollars, adjusted using the Gross Domestic Product Deflator, and the gas tax expressed as a sales tax rate (tax per gallon / national average for regular gas.) I’m working on a more in-depth report, and will make my raw data, references and methodology available at that time, but while the specific numbers may adjust slightly in the final analysis, the trends will remain the same.
As you can see, while the nominal gas tax rose from 6.5 cents per gallon in 1950 to the current 28 cents in 2005, the actual cost of this tax both in real dollars, and as a percentage of the price of a gallon of gas, has substantially declined over the past 55 years. Once the full 9.5 cent increase is implemented in 2009, the total nominal gas tax of 37.5 cents per gallon would only come to 32.2 cents in year-2000 equivalent dollars, according to current GDP projections. That figure is well below historical highs, and will decline steadily in the years that follow, as inflation eats away at its value.
This is, after all, the nature of excise taxes. Because they represent fixed dollar-values per unit, rather than a percentage rate like most taxes, inflation causes the revenue per unit to decline over time, unless the tax is periodically increased. For example the nickel a gallon hike in 2003, only brought the gas tax (in real dollars) back up to 1991 levels… the last time the tax had been raised. Yes, revenues continue to rise with consumption, but the gas tax is a user fee, mandated by the state constitution to be spent on roads only, so increases in consumption also represent increased wear and tear on existing roads, as well as increased demand for new infrastructure.
So as we continue to discuss the gas tax, and the initiative to repeal it, I think it is important to understand that we’re not really talking about raising the gas tax, as much as we are adjusting it to keep pace with inflation.
You should also plot the gas tax per mile. You will see an even steeper decline in revenue because today’s vehicles get more miles per gallon. Even from the work you’ve done so far it’s clear that for many years WSDOT has been asked to provide more lanes and maintain roadways receiving much heavier use from many more vehicles with less and less gas tax revenue per mile traveled. When you look at this chart, it should come as no surprise that capacity isn’t being expanded, aging structures aren’t being replaced, and maintenance is being deferred or not done.
Yeah, that surely came out of the horses ass. No sources, no method of computation etc. We know where you pulled it from.
“I’m working on a more in-depth report, and will make my raw data, references and methodology available at that time, but while the specific numbers may adjust slightly in the final analysis, the trends will remain the same.”
Do you even read pbj, (I know you can) or do you just like to attack any way you can, even if you objection is addressed in the post?
Another part of the big picture has been the reduction in dollars from the Federal government from several revenue streams. Bureaus and Departments such as Land Management, Indian Affairs, Forest Service, Agriculture have in the past provided highway support funds under various pieces of responsible legislation. Most of these streams are drying up as well, thus shifting the burden of maintainence and critical upgrading on the State and local/regional governments.
Goldy,
You need to go back on KVI and explain this to John Carlson and the other retards on that station. Big Man Harley Carlson thinks he knows everything about this gas tax situation.
pbj et al… if you want to double check my work fine. There are a number of GDP Deflator calculators out there. Just run the gas tax through the calculator. As for the sales tax equivalency, I used data from the energy department on the average national price of regular gasoline.
I’ve got a lot more data I’m putting together, to show a number of trends, including gas tax as measured by average wages (which shows ability to pay.) I haven’t got the data yet on average miles driven, and total state gas tax revenues, but I’m looking.
The real problem is that inflation and taxes are going up but most people’s incomes are not. You show as many charts as you want but the fact is that the little guys like myself are still getting hosed.
What about more cars on the road? Lets say 1975 the index is 100, 9cent gas tax. 2005 w/ increase, its 37.5 cents, by traffic has grown by 50%. So state getting not just the 4.8% that 9 cents to 37.5 cent implies, but actually i think 7.2% per year, year in year out (not inflation adjusted).
Righton, his answer will be: Well now there are more cars on the road so we have to pay for more roads and more upkeep. There’s a spin for every rebuttle.
The little guys are getting hosed alright, but it’s not by the Democrats. It’s the Demagogues on KVI.
George Galloway for Pres!
ok the http://www.nonewgastax.com initiative has had 10,000 people sign up to be signature gatherers. that is amazing if not record breaking. more importantly it sure sends a message to the soshulists democrats. and boy they sure raised alot of money in 3 days didn’t they? wake up losers. the only people that want to raise taxes are you 6 regular liberals here.
Nice piece Goldy. Certainly takes the fervor out of the “crisis” alleged the the righties.
Links and sources please Goldy. I realize you are “finished” so please lets not draw conclusions until you claim to be done.
“The real problem is that inflation and taxes are going up but most people’s incomes are not.”
Someone should bring this to the Presidents attention! He seems so unaware.
Another consideration worth plotting would be population levels (or cars on the road), and miles of roads that need to be maintained, to give a sense of how our infrastructure needs have dramatically changed since 1950.
People who keep crying about taxes seem to have some warped belief that our needs have not changed and the cost of servicing those needs have not changed.
Of course we could always go back to an earlier day when we had mud roads and horses pulling carts. Now that would be progress.
I propose that their be two kinds of gas. Taxed and untaxed. People can make their own choice, but those who buy untaxed fuel can no longer drive on anything but their driveways.
Erik @12,
“takes the fervor out of the “crisis” alleged the the righties.”
Are you kidding? This graph and analysis is pretty dry. Sorry Goldy, I know you spent some time coming up with this but it is about as exciting as watching water boil. It doesn’t take the fervor out of anything.
All tools @9,
“Well now there are more cars on the road so we have to pay for more roads and more upkeep.” You’ve got it exactly right. More cars on the road = more wear and tear = more money needed for maintenance. How is that spin?
Reply to 7 (also 9), Yes we ordinary Americans are getting hosed — by greedy oil companies, greedy corporations, and greedy Republicans. The Democrats didn’t do this to us, the GOP did. And yes more vehicles means more roads and more maintenance. The consistent theme of Republicans seems to be wanting something without paying for it.
“People who keep crying about taxes seem to have some warped belief that our needs have not changed and the cost of servicing those needs have not changed.”
People who spend their days wearing rose colored glasses need to realize that the money we are being taxed is not being spent wisely, or always for what it was intended.
It is not necessarily how much we pay that matter but how it is spent, and we all know that this state’s so called research on projects are bogus. They’d rather have asthetically pleasing roads and transportation, than to have completely functional better options at sometimes half the cost.
“This graph and analysis is pretty dry.”
Add some color, put some snazzy clip art in it, Sound effects like “Bridges collapsing”, load it on powerpoint and you got a presentation even the attention deficited right wingers can enjoy!
Reply to 11, do you think we like paying a higher gas tax? But I ask you: Why are you complaining about a 9.5-cent gas tax that is sorely needed to keep our transportation system alive but we never hear a peep from you about the $1.50-a-gallon price rise the oil companies have imposed on us since Bush took office? You are a very myopic person who not only can’t see the forest but can’t see the trees either. Yes we’re getting ripped off big time, but not by the state! Do you want the viaduct to collapse, the 520 bridge to sink, or do you want Seattleites to struggle in the traffic jams that will result from those two corridors being shut down? What do you think that will do to the state’s economy? Chardonnay, whoever you are, you must have skipped out of line when God was passing out the brains.
Comment on 15, I think they’re living in the 1850s and believe everyone should walk or ride a horse, so they don’t see any need to pay taxes for paved roads.
Comment on 20, please explain to me what is “unwise” about replacing a viaduct and bridge that have reached the end of their design lives, or what is “unwise” about expanding traffic capacity to meet the needs of a growing population? I see nothing at all wise about your obstinate opposition to a tax increase simply because it’s a tax increase, even though as Goldy’s chart shows the real cost of the tax has steadily declined and is less today than it was years ago.
Are you kidding? This graph and analysis is pretty dry.
Maybe dry. But it sounds like you agree with it. At least Goldy didn’t punish you with an spreadsheet.
If people felt that the gas tax was going to repair roads and increase road capacity, there would be less opposition. But, it isn’t. It is going toward a partial down payment to do something about the viaduct and 520, and add more carpool lanes to 405.
Sorry, but that isn’t going to fly. It’s too bad – the whole analysis about the gas tax declining is real. The people would have been convinced that a raise was a good thing, but then they actually looked at where it was going.
Janet – Last I looked the viaduct is a major road in need of repair, and the 520 bridge is a major road in need of replacement with something offering greater capacity.
Like they say, “facts are hard on dreams”.
Reply to 26, would you rather the gas tax was higher, so it could provide “full” funding for replacing the viaduct and 520 bridge? Then you would complain the whole state has to pay for Seattle’s bridges. Partial funding is the right approach because the state’s whole economy depends on Seattle’s transportation network, but the people in Seattle who use it the most will pay more than someone living in Spokane or Vancouver. That seems fair to me. Janet, I think you’re one of those contrary people who complains just because they like to complain. I would like to see you post something constructive.
“the state’s whole economy depends on Seattle’s transportation network”
*cough* BULSHIT!
I don’t remember seeing a truckload of apples from Yakima driving across the 520 or driving down the Viaduct but nice try Lib Parrot.
Well, the decline of the gas tax may be real, but it’s like taxing cigarettes. Start at tax point A. You make it painful to smoke, so some people quit, so now you lose tax revenues originally projected by the tax, so what do you do, you increase the tax to point B to make up for the shortfall. Vicious circle. There was an economic term for that, taxation into obscurity.
So we now do that on the gas tax.
Pudster
The solution to the viaduct can be reached by repairing the part damaged in the earthquake. But that option isn’t even on the table. In fact, nothing is on the table – we are raising money to fund a solution that has no deadline or cost limit. Guess what will happen? (Hint: the same people who brought you Sound Transit will probably be bringing you the gold-plated viaduct/tunnel/road.)
I would be more than happy to pay reasonable gas taxes, and even a few tolls, if the money was used to actually relieve congestion and increase road capacity. But it won’t happen.
Question for all: What if any impact will the newly passed $295 billion transportation bill (that is if GWB does not veto it) have on our transportation/highway/infrastructure problems?
“#
“the state�s whole economy depends on Seattle�s transportation networkâ€
*cough* BULSHIT!
Comment by All tools here, and yet there are still screws loose — 5/18/05 @ 6:01 pm
#
I don’t remember seeing a truckload of apples from Yakima driving across the 520 or driving down the Viaduct but nice try Lib Parrot. ”
Lord, please tell me you are not an economist!
never mind post 34. Found the answer in the Daily O, 3+ billion for Washington State projects
So everyone (right AND left) gonna bitch and cry about how “unfair” the gas tax is, but i’ve YET to see ANYONE suggest some decent, viable alternative. As much as I hate paying more to fill my car these days, just where the hell are we going to get the money to pay for the necassary projects (and yes, 520 and the AWV do effect E.Wa, get over it)?
Do people think this stuff gets built for free? That maybe cause YOU don’t use it, you should’nt have to pay for it?! Please! If your gonna bitch, at least offer something…anything! Granted our funds get pissed away more now that they used to, thats a different fight. It does’nt change the fact Western WA roads were designed by Elmer Fudd, and the massive local growth was not envisioned or accounted for.
Our tranportation situation sucks, but crying about it does little. How about we increase the tax to the new vehicles? The more expensive (or heavier) the higher the rate. Or reinstituting tolls? It works fine in other parts of the country. Pay as you go, makes sense to me.
reply to #30/35:
I see quite a few trucks going back and forth on I90, when I drive from West to East and back. I see many of these same trucks lining up to the supermarkets and fruit sheds. If anyone plans to ship their products overseas, its probable it goes thru the nearest major port.
And gee, I wonder where all those imported products I see on grocery store shelves come from in Wenatchee? Not all of it comes
from “south of the border”.
Reply to 30 and 31, since Washington’s ports are located on Puget Sound, and most of Washington’s financial, legal, commercial, banking, and medical services are centered in Seattle, try shutting down Seattle and see if ANY PART of Washington is still functioning a week later! Your argument that the rest of the state is independent of Seattle is preposterous.
I have a suggestion. We could pay for replacing the Viaduct and 520 bridge by keeping gas taxes paid in western Washington here, instead of sending $7 to eastern Washington for every $1 they pay in gas taxes. If all they’re going to do is bitch and moan, let them pay for their own roads!
Patrick @ 19: “The consistent theme of Republicans seems to be wanting something without paying for it.”
Bart Simpson: Didn’t you wonder why you were getting checks for doing absolutely nothing?
Grampa Simpson: I figured ’cause the Democrats were in power again.
Oh, yes, all those federal entitlements are all paid for, aren’t they?
I’m not disagreeing with you; but Democrats are just as guilty.
I love it when liberals embrace pay as you go for services.
You guys game to expand pay as you go beyond the freeways? Ready to fully tax the bus riders? Charge admission for the crummy art you burden public projects with? Charge admission to the overpriced library you foisted on us?
righton @ 42
Geez, old ideas die hard. Have you forgotten? The Democrats are the party of “pay as you go” and fiscal responsibility. Since Ronald Reagan, the Republicans have been “charge as you go” and “fiscal train-wreck debt mongers”. Remember, Clinton is the only president in recent history to get a balanced federal budget AND he insisted in using the surplus to start paying off Reagan’s credit card bill. Clinton has been the only fiscal conservative in the oval office for the last 25 years.
Now that I have reminded you about reality, quit bullshitting and get to work on your party to gain some semblance of fiscal responsibility.
How does the president balance the budget? Does the constitution give him fiducial responsibility? Uhhh, NO! Congress does. Clinton didn’t balance jack, except Monica Lewinsky’s head in the lower part of his body.
Congress passes laws, Congress sets the budget, which the president either signs or vetoes. Remember he had a cow on the 95 budget, caused a shutdown. A temper tantrum I call it. Look at what happened when the taxes were reduced. The ecomony took off. Butt you need to give Clinton credit for something besides receiving oral gratification by a young woman so so be it. The only oval in that office was Monica Lewinsky’s mouth!!!
Now for you lefties who will say look at the mess we’re now in. Yes it’s a mess. But we had 9/11 and talk to any economist about the real cost to the economy since then is around a $MMMM (that’s a $trillion Armageddon, since your simple mind needs guidance). Yeah get the Economist Magazine like the Capitol Hill guy gets. And Armageddon, and trolls like you, look up your own DAMN figures. Just in NYC alone the World Trade Center attack on 9/11, cost the city’s economy 143,000 jobs a month and $2.8 billion in lost wages in the subsequent three months.
Yes the Iraqi war and Afghanistan are costing us. But do you want to fight them there or in your back yard, like Seattle docks, Alki Hill, or other hallowed democrapic places. Remember these bozos do theri damage in the city where most of your people live. So pick your poison and live with it and stop whining about WMDs, Bush lied, etc. Either you look forward or you look backward. Most democrapics continue to look backward. I look forward.
Pudster
Wear and tear maintenance is a function of ton-miles. Congestion is a function of the absolute number of vehicles.
Why does Seattle get a fix to 520 and the Viaduct, and the Olympic Peninsula get a new 2 lane bridge at Tacoma Narrows with a toll and no meaningfull increased capacity?
The gas tax evaluation might look at the tax in terms of revenue per mile driven adjusted for inflation or deflated, and as a function of income similarly adjusted.
The Viaduct is a commuter convenience, not a freight mobility issue. Tear it down and be done with it. Any thoughts on the Embarcadero Freeway situation? It wouls seem to imply that there are no consequences to not replacing the AW Viaduct.
If Tacoma Narrows is worth a toll for no meaningful increased capaacity, why not 520? Does the output of Seattle’s Horses A not stink? Do they put their pants on two legs at a time?
And how much of the tax will fund meat inspectors? Revenue diversion is not a new issue, and has fueled previous anti-tax feelings.
The tax increase has been publicly presented as a Seatle-specific aid package. Voters may not be thrilled. So think about including where the incremental funds will be spent, and why Seattle has such a claim on all of us.
The issue is more than the increase in the gas tax, it is also where it will be spent, and will it actually be spent on roads or
on “art” or meat inspectors.
I see a lot of creative spending proposals paid for by new tax levies, but never when faced with budgetary constraints do these creative people propose solutions that meet fiscal reality. Maybe it’s time to break the tax and spend paradigm with new leadership and stingy citizens at the helm.
Terry,
Respectfully – Are you high? The viaduct is a “commuter convienience, and not a freight or mobility issue”? I’m sorry, but something that carries 102,000 vehicles per day isn’t exactly just some froo-froo unneeded luxury. If we “tear it down and be done with it” we’ll end up with 102,000 vehicles needing some other way to get through downtown Seattle. Even if your hypothesis that freight doesn’t use the viaduct is true (and I’m not buying it for a second), then what happens to our freight routes once 102,000 commuter vehicles are shoved onto other routes? Did you even stop to think for a second about how much worse I-5 through Seattle would be if the viaduct was gone?
The truth is that Seattle has been paying for the infistructure of the rest of the state for the last 50 years. You guys need to stop your whining and pay us back.
If the viaduct really carries 102,000 vehicles per day, where are they all going to go during the several years it will take to build a replacement after the existing viaduct is torn down?
That is assuming, of course, that (1) the gas tax increase isn’t repealed in November and (2) that the local voters approve another $2 billion in local taxes of some sort — since the gas tax increase is only going to fund (at most) half the cost of the viaduct replacement.
PuddyButt @ 44.
Once again, you idiocy shines through. I did not say that Clinton balanced the budget. I said he got a balanced budget. Yes, he got it from Congress. And you bet your ass it was a function of his leadership (he did the same thing as governor).
Bush fucked over our children prior to 9-11 by buying into “Reaganomics” (an economic theory uniformly rejected by academic and real-world economists) and giving tax breaks without shrinking government at the same level. This is the same mistake that Reagan made. And, no, Bush did not do it just himself, but he used his “leadership” to push this agenda (tax cuts, no spending cuts).
Got a 9-11 issue? Got a war going? Then be fucking responsible and push for an increase in revenue to offset your expenses. Not doing so is completely and inexcusably irresponsible! That is what I mean when I say Republicans are the party of “charge as you go.”
(Hey Pudd. . . the word “Butt” means derrière. The word “but” is a conjunction. Try to know your ass from your “however.”)
funny puddybud @ 44, in case you have trouble remembering where you are posting, this is a liberal blog, in case you haven’t noticed. you said “Armageddon, and trolls like you”
Laugh at you daily for your ‘factual’ talking points. Are you so mixed up that you do not realize you are one of OUR pet trolls?
PuddyBuddy “he real cost to the economy since then is around a $MMMM (that’s a $trillion Armageddon, since your simple mind needs guidance).”
Damn! You are a comic genius! When you gonna be playing Vegas? You are too good to be trapped here in Washington. You are ready for the big time!
Your fan,
Donnageddon
Look what the liberal worries have done for ground beef….3 bucks per pound for a sick cow…thanks guys….
The Butt is my reference to you all, especially Armageddon. He/she/it has many friends down here in the San Francisco area. In fact isn’t Armageddon the San Francisco treat? I do that on purpose, so now you know.
There are only two real economists, MIT’s Paul Samuelson, and Univ. of Chicago’s Milton Freedman. Look up what they said about Reaganomics. It may shock you!!! These other academic (ha) non-nobel whining PUTZ’ are worthless droolers. I can hear it now from Armageddon, DamnageD, Patrick – “Liar”. Here let me help you:
1.) Take your fingers and type http://www.google.com.
2.) Enter Milton Freedman +Reagonmics
3.) Sit back and read some great commentary from a great man.
4.) Next Paul Samuelson. BTW he was compulsory reading in Engineering school at my university. Go figure.
Here is a nice excerpt: “For example, in 1991 the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee of Congress released a report entitled “Falling Behind: The Growing Income Gap in America,” which purportedly proves that the victims of Reaganomics were the least affluent Americans. The report concluded that “families in the lowest forty percent of the income distribution actually had lower real incomes on average in 1989 than they did in 1979.” Upon closer inspection, however, what the income data really show is that when Jimmy Carter’s economic policies were in effect, family incomes plummeted by 9 percent, but that after Reagan’s economic policies took effect (1982-89), family incomes rose by 11 percent.” What?, sacre bleu – can’t be true, dammit there goes my arguments against Reaganomics!!!
Regarding Reagans credit card bill I guess you were kind of young back then. Reagan wanted to reduce spending in the social arena to work on our failing military thanks to Jimmy Cahhhrter, but Congress continued to elevate spending so your own stoopid argument doesn’t hold water. He didn’t create the budget, the democrapic house and senate did. So you blame Reagan for the problems caused by Congress in the 80’s but you elevate Clinton for the right thinking the Republicans did in 90’s congress. You are a sad joke for a democrapic person. I guess you were to young to remember Jimmy Cahhhrter’s 18% interest rates? He had to first solve that and rebuild the military which brought down the Soviet Union, you know your good friends on the other side of Berlin.
Hey jpgee, I woke you up from your stoopor. I realize this is a left sided troll blog. Butt, some of us on the right side like to cruise over and add some levity to your screams, rants and ravings. Yes I do know how to spell butt since your side is against phonics in schools, (look at the latest failing report of 4th graders in NYC schools who won’t implement phonics) I figured I would phonetically spell out the words for you!!!
Pudster
Goldy, I like this blog.
Pudster
My funny puddy buddy, maybe you should concentrate your superior intelligence in New York. Maybe you can study a bit more and become the 3rd Real Economist out of approx. 3 million people living here in the USA. On the other hand, maybe you can realize the error of your ‘talking point intelligence’, get a look at the real world and the damage the extremist right are doing, and give Hillary a hand in her re-election campaign. Once again, chuckling inside at my dear puddy buddy
PS. Puddy Buddy, you should like this blog. It is one of the very few in the US that accepts trolls like yourself for what you are, and does not block you into oblivion
I think conservs are angry at overall rise of taxation and gov’t spending; gas tax just one more thing. Wish i had time to go find some chart of teh “real” rise in gov’t spending, especially local/state over time
Leftist Trolls: Unlike the way you attack me with vitriol when I post a link and the first words out of many of your mouths is LIAR, LIAR, I proved your stoopid argument against Reaganomics is wrong, butt your MoveOn.Pork mindsets will not allow you to walk out of the fog and say: “You’re right”. The only thing left is name calling as usual. So now the tables are turned. No answer to Samuelson and Freedman!!!
So dj @ 49 you said: “Bush fucked over our children prior to 9-11 by buying into “Reaganomics” (an economic theory uniformly rejected by academic and real-world economists) and giving tax breaks without shrinking government at the same level.” I ask you what emminent leftist economist has said this. Using the torridjoe, patrick & armageddon words: prove it! Please forward to me these people who disagree with Nobel winners. THe Nobel family didn’t like Reagan either, but they knew great economic theory when they read it!!!
The clock is ticking starting now at 06:57 5/19/05. Maybe you need to watch “Sith Happens” first.
I be watching. Goldy maybe you need to help them in their argument since as Dr Tutu said “Their screaming”.
Pudster
ONCE AGAIN WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT I-90!!! AND NOT EVEN I-5!!!
So why again should Eastern Washington residents have to pay for roads that the WILL NOT use?(520 and Viaduct) answer the damn question!
A toll would be so much more effective in raising funds. Why do we force Pierce and other counties south of ***KING*** to fund their own repairs and maintenance and then pander so heavily to ***KING***? Seems extremely hypocritical.
We should tax Lattes and Microbrews and Pinot Gris’ to pay for the SEattle stuff. Hit the city whooses where they spend their dough.
and to you righton, I guess we should tax the Eastern part of the state with special taxes also, maybe they deserve a $.195 gas tax as they live in the open range and must drive longer distances. Let them pay for their own ‘infrastructure’ and see how far they get. Without Seattle and Western Washington the East actually ceases to have any meaning
Reply to 42, “I love it when liberals embrace pay as you go for services,” since the GOP has abandoned this principle, we Democrats have added it to our platform to enhance our appeal to the segment of the voting population that does their thinking in the head instead of the groin. Our gain, your loss.
Reply to 44: Rarely have I read a more disingenuous comment. Yes, the constitution gives Congress the power to enact budgets, but the President submits a proposed budget, and Congress is always mindful of the President’s veto power when voting on budget measures. Especially under this administration, the Congress has been a mere rubber stamp for what the White House wants. And you’re trying to say Bush isn’t responsible for his deficits and spending increases? (Derisive laughter in background.)
Reply to 45, Terry I think you have a very poor understanding of both the traffic issues and funding. You must not live in Seattle or ever drive on the viaduct, or you would know there is plenty of truck traffic (i.e., “freight”) on the viaduct. Also, although it’s true that trucks put more wear on roads than cars, even if there were not a single truck on our highways, an increase in car traffic would result in more wear and increase the need for maintenance.
You are flat-out wrong in your comments about diverting gas tax money to meat inspectors. Gas tax revenues are dedicated monies that can only be used for roads. I dare you to provide proof that one penny of gas tax money has been diverted to general government in the last 50 years.
You are also stating falsehoods when you assert this gas tax was “presented” as a Seattle-aid package. It was not, and is not. It includes money for freight mobility and road projects all over the state. Only $2 billion of the money goes to Seattle. That will not be enough to pay for either the viaduct or 520 bridge. Completing these projects depends on voters passing a local tax package that officials hope to get on the 2006 ballot which is likely to include reimposition of vehicle excise taxes or tolls, or a combination of the two.
Your statement that the second Tacoma Narrows bridge won’t add capacity is also false. By having two bridges instead of one, each carrying four lanes, that highway’s capacity will double. That’s the whole point of building a new bridge next to the existing one.
You also raised an issue of where the gas tax money will be spent. The truth is that over half the state’s population lives in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties; and that the gas taxes paid by motorists in those three counties subsidize the rest of the state. Eastern Washington has only a fifth of the state’s population and receives $7 of road spending for every $1 of gas taxes they pay. If they want to complain about gas taxes, then I say keep western Washington gas taxes in western Washington, and let eastern Washington pay for its own roads.
Your post, my friend, is a pack of lies and misrepresentations.
Reply to 48, the viaduct traffic will be diverted onto surface streets, and yes it will be a mess for several years, but at the end of the construction there will be a route to carry that traffic. If you do nothing, you will have the mess forever.
I think it’s within the bounds of fair debate to argue the case for not replacing the viaduct and not spending the money in order to avoid tax increases. I also think the people arguing that position are wrong. Their “solution” will damage our state’s economy and make Seattle unlivable. All for the sake of saving a few pennies a gallon.
I think this energy would be better invested in getting rid of a national administration that is in bed with oil interests and electing a president and congress who will protect consumers instead of ripping us off.
P.S., to all of you complaining about the gas tax, just a friendly reminder that you can cut your gas tax bill in half by trading in your gas-guzzling pickup or SUV for an economy car! :D
Reply to 53, why am I not surprised that when this brainless troll gets called on his stupid posts, his response is to accuse his detractors of being homosexuals? That is soooo right-wing. Let the name-calling begin.
Can’t fit 5 kids into a Prius and still get them to their non-public, non-socialist school. Wanna allow public funding for our private school bus needs?
PuddyButt @ 53
�There are only two real economists, MIT�s Paul Samuelson, and Univ. of Chicago�s Milton Freedman.�
Where do we begin. Oh. . . maybe you meant Milton Friedman? Holy shit, are you one fuck-up moron!
These are the only �two real economists?� This is about as ignorant a statement as you can make. What about the other 19,000 members of the American Economics Association. Find me one economist who subscribes to that hair-brained notion, Butt-boy. There are numerous schools of economic thought, and Friedman is well known for almost single-handedly pushing one respected school (the monetarists). Still, monetarist ideas are not universally accepted by other economists (even if respected). Samuelson is considered the grand old thinker in economics and has had important influence in almost all schools of economic thinking. The field has moved well beyond these two individuals, however.
�1.) Take your fingers and type http://www.google.com.
2.) Enter Milton Freedman +Reagonmics�
Ummm. . . PuddyButt. . . try this yourself, dipshit. Google does not return anything�even if you do know how to spell Friedman�s name. What a dweeb!
You cannot find anything because Friedman did not support Reaganomics. The �supply side economics� folks trace their intellectual lineage to Friedman, however, there is this one little (well. . . actually huge) difference between full-blown supply side economics (SSE) and Reaganomics. Supply side economics demands that government shrink at the same rate as tax cuts. In other words, full-blown supply-siders really do believe in fiscal responsibility. But Reaganomics is not this flavor of SSE.
Samuelson? You idiot. He is widely recognized for many things (like promoting quantitative methods in economics), but certainly not as a supporter of �Reaganomics�. Rather he is considered the progenitor of neo-Keynesian synthesis. The full-blown supply-siders (who generally disavow Reaganomics as a flawed interpretation of SSE) pit themselves against Keynesian economic theory). You don�t know much about economics, do you?
Pudster, if you really knew anything about SSE, you would have credited
1. Arthur Laffer who has a Ph.D. in economics, but has contributed almost nothing in the form of peer-reviewed research. To most economists, he is either a joke or a flash-in-the-pan.
2. Robert Bartley, the guy who ran the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal. I.e. he is a journalist.
3. Robert Mundell, the well-known trade economist who SSEers sometimes claim as the father of SSE. He doesn�t claim this and his work inconsistently supports this idea. In reality, he is only a mascot for SSEers.
The (possibly apocryphal) story of the origins of SSE is that Laffer and Bartley came up with their baby in a NY eatery on the back of napkins. Where did they publish their supply-side manifesto? In the American Economic Review? In Econometrica? Or, perhaps, The Journal of Political Economy? No. . . they published their ideas on the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal. As it happens, some economists think they were on to something and have gone on to developed a full school of SSE, but the conservative school of SSE requires shrinking government at the same rate as tax cuts. Reaganomics ignores that half of the equation.
The central idea behind SSE is that tax cuts result in economic growth. This makes for a tremendously popular political message (Free Ice Cream Cones for Everyone!). Even so, mainstream economists almost universally reject this na�ve version of SSE. In the early 80s, only about a dozed of the 18,000 members of the American Economics Association even called themselves supply side economists. In U.S. universities, there are no major departments that promote themselves as a “school of SSE”, and there are no self-labeled SS economists at any major university department. (I don�t have web references for these factoids, but you can find �em in Professor Paul Krugman�s (of MIT) 1994 book Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in the Age of Diminished Expectations, New York: Norton.)
Supply-side economic theorists (particularly those of a Reaganomics bent) believed that the growth from tax cuts would be so great, that total tax collection would increase and America would outgrow its deficits. This did not happen under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. Growth in the 1980s was no greater than growth in the 1970s, but Reagan did tripple the national debt.
In sum, the Reaganomics version of SSE has little in the way of theoretical underpinnings, is not recognized in academia as a serious theory, and has failed every empirical test it has been put to.
Pudster—try to do a little serious research before you post your bullshit.
Reply to 57, if you had those numbers and charted them, I think you would find that government spending fluctuates up and down within a fairly narrow range, when expressed as a percentage of GDP. It’s not like the Dow, which has steadily risen over time, and occasionally takes a big plunge. If you’re so concerned about the cost of government, I also wonder how you can support a president who has increased federal spending 12% a year during his tenure, compared to 4% a year under Clinton? You talk more like a Clinton voter, so logically that’s how you should be voting!
Reply to 58, you proved our arguments against Reaganomics are wrong? Really? When? Where? How? Even David Stockman, Reagan’s budget chief and the principal architect of Reaganomics, said afterward that Reaganomics doesn’t work. Reaganomics has virtually no support in the econmics profession. I forget who called it “voodoo economics” but that’s a very apt description. Reaganomics was nothing but clever public relations aimed at the American consumer mentality that wants something for nothing. You know — I’ll give you a $2000 rebate on this car if you pay me $4000 more for the car!
Reply to 59, your question has been answered MANY times! Eastern Washington gets back 7 times as much road money as they pay in gas taxes. No gas tax increase would be necessary if gas taxes paid in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties were kept in those counties to pay for the viaduct and 520 bridge, insteading of sending that money to Eastern Washington. Is that what you want? If so, say so, and if the gas tax repeal initiative passes, then the Legislature can carry out the will of the people by redirecting existing gas tax revenues from Eastern Washington to the Western Washington projects, and Eastern Washington can fend for itself after its road subsidies are taken away. Is that what you want? Answer the question, yes or no!
I would like to add to comment #68 that Reagan’s job creation record ranks below that of every Democratic President since the 1920s (in fact, no Republican president beats any Democratic president in that period), and the two Bushes rank at the bottom for creating jobs (only Hoover has a worse record).
As for what the general public thinks of the Republicans now, NBC News reported last night that a new NBC poll shows if the 2006 congressional elections were held today, 47% of the voters would vote Democratic and 40% would vote Republican. In the same poll, Bush’s job approval rating has sunk to 38%. If this continues, the Democrats could sweep the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Patrick@74
Arent you forgetting Carter the peanut man? Staggering unemployment as well as interest rates…
DJ: You are such a butthead. If you did your research instead of taking the first sentences of your heroes, you would have seen the issue that happened was the congressional democraps spent more than the supply side brought in. Then, the deficit increased, you blame Reagan of course, but the democrats spent approximately $2 for every $1 Reagan either brought in from the increased revenues or the spending reductions he proposed. SO the deficit exploded over their spending habits. Just like the WA Legislature, spend , spend, spend.
If he was so bad why did he win every state except the wackos in Minnesota in 1984? You are an ignorant, stupid, moronic person who can’t even fathom the issue of supply side economics. Look at the issues and think man. Putting it in bold doesn’t make it right.
Economics 101 – Give people more money to spend and more revenues come into the coffers. Take $$$ away from the populace and you lose money in the coffers. You listen to academia, who give us the Ward Churchill types, I’ll listen and read from Nobel economists.
IMBECILE!
Pudster
I-912
PuddyButt @ 77
”Then, the deficit increased, you blame Reagan of course, but the democrats spent approximately $2 for every $1 Reagan either brought in from the increased revenues or the spending reductions he proposed.”
So sorry, dipshit, you are factually wrong. Under Reagan, there was a 60% increase in government spending that was almost entirely a result of direct Reagan’s budget requests (this is a matter of record, not opinion). Reagan’s “budget cuts” were cuts in projected spending, not cuts in current spending. Largely as a result of Reagan’s budget requests, the Federal debt, tripled from $900 billion at the start of his first term to $2.7 trillion by the end of his second term.
”You are an ignorant, stupid, moronic person who can’t even fathom the issue of supply side economics. Look at the issues and think man.”
Sorry, twit, modern economic science does not involve sitting around with the Pudster and bullshitting about the issues :-)
”Economics 101 – Give people more money to spend and more revenues come into the coffers. Take $$$ away from the populace and you lose money in the coffers.”
D- for you PuddyButt. Let’s try this. Economics 101: take in less revenue than you spend and you accrue debt.
Geez. . . I hope your wife manages the household finances for you!
DJ: I reread your statement of Paul Krugman. I love reading the National Review on-line take of Paul Krugman. They take apart his disembling columns every week. Such a noble economist, worthy of the Nobel Prize? NOT!
You listen to Krugman. I will not. Good luck.
Give me the next bullet item from MoveOn.Pork.
Pudster
DJ: Another ID10T comment. We are talking about supply side economics and you do a pivot jerk. I see now; you are the pivot man!!!
Pudster
PuddyButt @ 80
Pick whatever sources you wish. I can particularly recommend that you check out the collected works of “Milton Freedman” [*snicker*]
DJ: Do a little research. Look at Reagan’s original budget requests. Then look at what your democrapic congress provided as budgets. Reagan didn’t have the line item veto. He was told take it or leave it. Your choice, we’ll just not fund your projects. He was forced into accepting these high budget filled with pork. So now you blame the deficits on Reagan. That’s a laugh. You just admitted earlier that Clinton didn’t create the budget but Republican congress did, and now you say it’s all Reagan’s fault when the democraps created the budget. No, he tried to control the growth in programs and retool the military which was in a sad state after Jimmy Cahhhrter, and your side call it a cut. If the government has been funding a program over the rate of inflation lets say 7% per annum. Reagan said I am only going to fund it at 4.5% per annum. Your side screams bloody murder calling it a cut. It still was increased, but it’s a cut. That’s Paul Krugman economics.
Pudster
Here is what came in and here is what congress spent.
Year Receipts Spending
————————-
Carter
1978 18.5% 21.3%
1979 19.1 20.7
1980 19.6 22.3
1981 20.2 22.9
Reagan
1982 19.8 23.9
1983 18.1 24.4
1984 18.0 23.1
1985 18.5 23.9
1986 18.2 23.5
1987 19.2 22.5
1988 18.9 22.1
1989 19.2 22.1
Congress typically savaged Reagan’s spending requests as draconian and heartless.
Bill Clinton is the first president in over twenty years who has
outspent Congress.
ee the facts below!!!
Tax cuts had little to do with the explosion of the deficit. The deficits of the 1980s are often blamed on the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. But the problem was not government income. Government receipts had almost doubled, rising from $517 billion in 1980 to $1.031 trillion in 1990.
· Congress outspent Reagan in every year. Congress typically savaged Reagan’s spending requests as draconian and heartless. Then, the appropriators rewrote the budget for their priorities and spent a cumulative $209 billion above Reagan’s requests from 1982-1989.
· Congress spent substantially more on entitlements than Reagan requested. Reagan routinely asked for money-saving entitlement reforms. Congress ignored the reforms and increased benefits and eligibility for entitlements.
· Reagan’s budget requests for the military were consistently higher than the levels Congress appropriated. Congress spent about $80 billion less than Reagan requested on the military, but still spent around $390 billion more on domestic programs.
· Reagan recission requests were ignored. Reagan asked that $43.4 billion of appropriated funds not be spent. Congress approved only $16.5 billion, leaving $26.8 billion spent.
These frustrations have also plagued almost all recent presidents. Congress spent almost a half-trillion dollars of deficit spending above the requests of presidents from 1976 – 1993.
· Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is the first president in over twenty years who has outspent Congress. During Clinton’s first two years, the 103rd Congress spent $54 billion less than Clinton requested. The 104th Congress spent $58 billion less than Clinton asked.
Do you need more real information? Please DJ ask for more. I’ll give it to you, “But you can handle the truth.”
While the Reagan administration certainly shares the blame for the national debt of the 1980s, having never submitted a true balanced budget, more of the blame rests with Congress. The deficit would have been an average $30 billion lower each year if Reagan’s requests were taken seriously.
Conversely, while Bill Clinton routinely takes credit for the shrinking deficit, Congress has been far more tight-fisted than the White House. Clinton now takes credit for deficit reductions caused by budgets he once said were “wrong for
America.” Had Congress approved all of Clinton’s requests, recent deficits would be much higher, not lower.
Copyright (c) credit where credit is due :)
Pudster
Puddy @ 83
Are you really that fucked up? You are claiming a copyright on the text in post 83?
You lifted the text directly from here: http://www.ipi.org/ipi%5CIPIPu.....penElement
dj I said copyright is where copyright due, Stupid. Yes I did pull that up.
You again like lump things together. If Congress overspent Reagan by $390 Billion in domestic programs and underspent him in military by $80 Billion that’s close to $470 Billion. Your own numbers don’t add up, $200 Billion difference, and you call me vitriolic names? Ha!!! And no Reagan didn’t get the spending he wanted or the full cuts he wanted.
If you don’t understand a spending increase and then when it doesn’t add up to that spent in earlier years, the democrapic party runs to the press and calls it a cut, I can’t help you. Remember the school lunch program in 1995 or so? Tom Daschle said the Republicans were cutting school lunch lunch program when it was not being funded at 8% but around 5%. You forgot that slight of hand also?
More DJ Stupidity.
You are stupid.
Yes, you are stupid.
Pudster
PuddyButt,
“dj I said copyright is where copyright due, Stupid. Yes I did pull that up.”
First, you need to learn how to properly attribute intellectual property, you fucking moron. When you borrow text from sombody, you need to cite the source by providing enough information to identify the owner. And in a discussion, you need to provide a way for your reader to get to the information. Not put a (c) down followed by your name. That implies that you are the copyright owner, idiot!
“You again like lump things together. If Congress overspent Reagan by $390 Billion in domestic programs and underspent him in military by $80 Billion that’s close to $470 Billion. Your own numbers don’t add up, $200 Billion difference, and you call me vitriolic names? Ha!!! And no Reagan didn’t get the spending he wanted or the full cuts he wanted.”
Do you work at being so stupid? Or is playing dumb a hobby for you? I gave the total budget requests and the total budgets passed (this is a matter of public record, dipshit). I acknowledged that Reagan didn’t get everything he wanted. But, he still asked for $7.4 trillion without the ability to pay for that. That is called “fiscally reckless” regardless of whether or not congress added very slightly to the problem.
“The deficit would have been an average $30 billion lower each year if Reagan’s requests were taken seriously.”
Oh. . . gee, the national debt would have gone from $900 billion at the start of his first term to $2.5 trillion by the end of his second term instead of $2.7 trillion. That is so much better.
DJ One word answer for your wonderful economics: NEXT! He asked for 7.4 Billion and Congress spends 7.6 Trillion. Yes the deficit is his fault. ID10T!!!
Pudster.
HEre is the link: http://www.ipi.org/ipi%5CIPIPu.....penElement
All I ask is that everyone please read this, and make the decision for yourself if Reaganomics was bad for the country. If the Democrats in the Congress did the supply side economics and cut the spending back, we may have had a different scenario, but DJ doesn’t want to fathom that due to his bloody hatred for anything Republican. The article says Clinton wanted to spend more money than congress allocated and DJ said Clinton was wise in his spending patterns. History proved otherwise, yet DJ, in all his economic glory forgets that point too. Well, well, well, if you can’t get them to see you leave them to their own devices, in this case, revisionist Krugman economics. Eventhough DJ you claim to be independent in thought your answers are right out of his mouth.
Pudster
puddy butt buddy. looks like you should stay in Frisco. Here they are shooting holes in every lie you state, and there they must be shooting something else into your holes. enjoy
Patrick:
The Viaduct and 520 are commuter convenience roads, whether you like it or not. The Viaduct takes people to and from Seattle to the North. It simply ends on the waterfront. It may be a good road for the local delivery truck, but does nothing for moving freight from the port to markets in the east. Commuters use it The State has a lousy record on transportation taxes. The MVET (remember the $500 license fee) got spent in a lot of places, but was ‘for transportation.’ This history of using ‘transportation’ money for meat inspectors and other uses unrelated to transportation (OK, the meat inspectors focused on road-kill) will tarnish the credibility for a long time to come. Are the gas tax monies funding meat inspectors? I don’t know, but it would not be surprising. Money is pretty fungible
Tacoma Narrows will have two lanes of traffic each way. It will also have bicycle and pedestrian lanes, artwork, and a car-pool and bus lane. It will also have tolls. It will still be a two lane bridge, unless you own a bicycle or a bus. No trucks need apply.
If Seattle wants the Viaduct and 520 Evergreen Point Floating Bridge replaced, why not use the same approach used at Tacoma Narrows? Supposedly the State has spent little or nothing on Tacoma Narrows, with bond funding managed by the contractor used to build it and the contrator collecting the appropriate toll for 20 years.
The I-5 corridor fom Olympia to Everett has a dense population within 10 to 25 miles of I-5, after which it thins out quickly. Add Thurston County to your list.
Do roads cause people and traffic and congestion? Do people live in Ellensburg and work in Bellevue because the commute is easier? Do they live along Hood Canal and work in Seatte because the drive to Bremerton is easy and the ferry ride cheap and pleasant?
Name calling and character assasination are an art form in the comments on this blog, but they still add little of substance to the argument presented. You can do better.
Terry, J.: I stated it once before from Dr. Desmond Tutu:”Don’t raise your voice, improve your argument.” When the facts state otherwise, they arm their small minds with vitriol and nasty name calling.
Reagan was an evil man to them, because he brought down their good friends in “The Evil Empire”, the Soviet Union. I bet Putin was one of the good leaders that John Kerry said wanted him as president. Even Gorbachev said Reagan changed their way of thinking. When the real economic facts overshadow their small dark closeted truth as protrayed at the alter of MoveOn.Pork, name calling thrives on the Goldy blog. Notice there has not been an example of a well known economist left leaning economist besides the ever funny Paul Krugman, who they can state has discredited what Reagan was trying to do with SSE. Friedman blamed the democraps for their spending practices and what did Professor Emeritus DJ say, basically equate Fredman as being a quack. I think I’ll stick with Dr. Friedman. I still await these great academic minds who want to refute Nobel laureates. They even said Samuelson didn’t like SSE, (I even provided an excerpt – ignored), but when he studied the effects of Reagan tried to do, and was inhibited by the democrapic congress, he talked positively about it.
U2: I doubt it very much. I’d stack my Nobel winning economists against Krugman, et. al, any day of the week. Yours and others problems are that if MoveOn.Pork says this is it, George Soros has to be right. Sorry, but I don’t listen to them, never have and God willing, never will.
Regarding SF, I’m just passing through. Did my job, received high marks, got referrals, going home. God is good all the time! All the time God is good!
Pudster
PuddyButt @ 92
”Notice there has not been an example of a well known economist left leaning economist besides the ever funny Paul Krugman, who they can state has discredited what Reagan was trying to do with SSE.”
Umm. . . Pudster, that is because Reaganomics is not considered a serious economic theory by any academic economist—left or right (perhaps a dozen exceptions out of tens of thousands of economists in the U.S.). SSE, on the other hand, has a small following within academic economic circles, but it is still considered a rather fringe theory.
”Friedman blamed the democraps for their spending practices and what did Professor Emeritus DJ say, basically equate Fredman as being a quack.
I said no such thing about Fredman, Freedman OR even Friedman. I said Friedman was a respected economist who “leads” one particular school of economics (the monetarist school). (Oh . . . you can drop the Emeritus part for more accuracy.)
”I think I’ll stick with Dr. Friedman. I still await these great academic minds who want to refute Nobel laureates.”
You do that, Pudster. But, it means you better (1) learn how his name is spelled, and (2) learn what he really stood for intellectually. In fact, Friedman was in favor of tax cuts to an extreme, but he also thought that all government services should be privatized—in other words he was an extreme type of libertarian (although he once said that he begrudgingly voted Republican). Friedman as an academic economist was not a SSE, even though the SSE supporters were heavily influenced by the monetarist school (particularly by specific criticisms of Keynesian economics).
”They even said Samuelson didn’t like SSE, (I even provided an excerpt – ignored), but when he studied the effects of Reagan tried to do, and was inhibited by the democrapic congress, he talked positively about it.”
Samuelson did so many things in economics that he is hard to characterize other than brilliant. However, one thing he was for sure was a Keynesian (that would be opposed to a monetarist or a SS economist). Here is an historical essay I found online (by one of the few pro-SSE economists) Mark Skousen that may help you understand Samuelson. That essay points out that in one (of 15) version of his famous textbook Economics .’ . . .Samuelson offered a favorable reaction to the burgeoning deficits in the early 80s: “As federal budget deficits grew sharply over the 1982-1984 period, consumer spending grew rapidly, increasing aggregate demand, raising GNP and leading to a sharp decline in unemployment. The torrential pace of economic activity in 1983-1984 was an expansion, fueled by demand-side growth, in the name of supply-side economics” (12th edition:192). But in that same edition, The AT&T comparison disappeared, the Reagan deficits were labeled as “skyrocketing” (12:349-50), and the crowding out of capital became “the most serious consequence of a large public debt” (12:361). By the fifteenth edition, Samuelson and Nordhaus were declaring “a large public debt can clearly be detrimental to long run economic growth. … Few economists today have words of praise for America’s large and growing debt” (15th edition:638-9).’
In other words, Samuelson did once say something favorable about Reaganomics, but contradicted it in the same book, removed it in the next edition, and inserted even more criticism of large public debt.
Oh, PuddyButt, in your post @ 88. You say, “He asked for 7.4 Billion and Congress spends 7.6 Trillion. Yes the deficit is his fault.”
You meant, 7.4 Trillion, right? In that case, we agree that both the deficit and (more significantly) the out-of-control growth in national debt was largely Reagan’s fault while he was President.
PuddyBuddy :
@ 76 “DJ: You are such a butthead. “ “IMBECILE! “
@ 80 “DJ: Another ID10T comment. “
@ 86 “More DJ Stupidity. You are stupid. Yes, you are stupid.â€
@ 88 “ID10T!!! “
And @ 92 “I stated it once before from Dr. Desmond Tutu:”Don’t raise your voice, improve your argument.†When the facts state otherwise, they arm their small minds with vitriol and nasty name calling. “
The irony! The irony.
Reply to 91, your statement contains so many factual errors I hardly know where to begin.
“The Viaduct and 520 are commuter convenience roads, whether you like it or not.”
Both the Viaduct and 520 carry truck traffic. I have stated this several times, yet you keep repeating the same falsehood that SR 99 and SR 520 are not freight routes. That is false, false, false. Since when is commuting to a job a “convenience?” Do you think commuting to a job is a frivolous activity? What do you think will happen to the economy if people can’t get to their jobs? What will happen to commerce if the trucks carrying goods are stuck in commuter traffic jams? You are beyond ignorant; you are willfully stupid.
“The Viaduct takes people to and from Seattle to the North. It simply ends on the waterfront.”
False, false, false! SR 99 is a continuous thoroughfare from Everett to Sea-Tac Airport. I have personally used it to get from south Seattle to north Seattle, and vice versa. It is used by commuters in Normandy Park, SeaTac, Des Moines, and south Seattle; and by commuters in Lynnwood, Edmonds, Shoreline, and north Seattle. It does not “end on the waterfront.” It goes clear through downtown Seattle. Have you never been in Seattle? Where do you live, in Cleveland?
“It may be a good road for the local delivery truck, but does nothing for moving freight from the port to markets in the east.”
Ask the shipping and trucking companies what they think of closing the Viaduct.
“The State has a lousy record on transportation taxes. The MVET (remember the $500 license fee) got spent in a lot of places, but was ‘for transportation.’ This history of using ‘transportation’ money for meat inspectors and other uses unrelated to transportation (OK, the meat inspectors focused on road-kill) will tarnish the credibility for a long time to come. Are the gas tax monies funding meat inspectors? I don’t know, but it would not be surprising. Money is pretty fungible”
In a previous post, I asked you to provide proof that gas tax money was spent on meat inspectors or other non-transportation purposes. You answer, “I don’t know,” then support your assertion that WSDOT misused gas tax revenues because “it would not be surprising” and “money is pretty fungible.” In polite company, that’s called idle speculation; here on HorsesAss, we call it BULLSHIT.
“Tacoma Narrows will have two lanes of traffic each way. It will also have bicycle and pedestrian lanes, artwork, and a car-pool and bus lane. It will also have tolls. It will still be a two lane bridge, unless you own a bicycle or a bus. No trucks need apply.”
Two lanes + bus lane + HOV lane = 4 lanes. ‘Nuff said. Apparently in your world, buses and HOV lanes don’t count as “transportation.” That doesn’t even deserve a reply, so I won’t make one.
“If Seattle wants the Viaduct and 520 Evergreen Point Floating Bridge replaced, why not use the same approach used at Tacoma Narrows? Supposedly the State has spent little or nothing on Tacoma Narrows, with bond funding managed by the contractor used to build it and the contrator collecting the appropriate toll for 20 years.”
It’s fine with me if folks want to pay tolls to drive from Wenatchee to Chelan, or Ellensburg to Yakima, or Forks to Aberdeen, in exchange for eliminating the gas tax and MVET. But don’t ask for gas tax money for your roads if you’re not willing to pay gas taxes for our roads. If Seattle drivers have to pay tolls, they shouldn’t have to pay gas taxes to build or maintain roads in other counties. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. Instead of getting $7 for every $1 of gas tax they pay, Eastern Washington will have to pay the full cost of their roads themselves at the toll booth. That works for me.
“The I-5 corridor fom Olympia to Everett has a dense population within 10 to 25 miles of I-5, after which it thins out quickly. Add Thurston County to your list.”
If there’s a point here, I missed it. I didn’t include Thurston County because it’s much smaller population-wise. And unlike Pierce and Snohomish counties, it’s not a bedroom suburb of Seattle. Many Seattle commuters live in Tacoma, Federal Way, Lynnwood, and south Everett because housing is more affordable there. Hardly anyone commutes to Seattle from Olympia, or vice versa; it’s not a feasible commute.
“Do roads cause people and traffic and congestion? Do people live in Ellensburg and work in Bellevue because the commute is easier? Do they live along Hood Canal and work in Seatte because the drive to Bremerton is easy and the ferry ride cheap and pleasant?”
The issue is not getting people to Bellevue from Ellensburg, or from Hood Canal to Seattle. The number of people making this commute is miniscule. The issue is getting people from Seattle’s residential neighborhoods, and the surrounding suburbs, to their jobs. To some extent, the issue is getting people living with the metropolitan area to jobs in Everett, Tacoma, Bellevue, or other work locations within the metro area. The issue is not a couple dozen people driving from Ellensburg to Bellevue every day, but getting the 3.2 million people who live and work in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties to where they have to go.
“Name calling and character assasination are an art form in the comments on this blog, but they still add little of substance to the argument presented. You can do better.”
I have no obligation to sugarcoat my responses to someone who makes (and is continuing to make) false statements. This is a liberal blog, and when you come here as a troll and post bullshit, you must expect to be corrected.
The strongest aggument against could lie within the DOT. If somehow they could convince the public that they have been honest and competent stewards of the Taxes they have received in the past. I personally have little faith that the State as a whole is fiscally honest and effecient. Obviously I don’t have the information or skills,as do many other citizens to know about the Washington bureaucrats. People often,as do I vote on issues based on a gut feeling. Thank You