Normally I’m not a big fan of asking voters to do the legislature’s job, but I’m beginning to think that the transportation funding package currently under negotiation should be an exception. Governor Inslee had creatively proposed funding transportation improvements with a carbon tax, whereas the Republican-controlled senate prefers a good old fashioned regressive gas tax hike. (Not that most of their members will vote for it—they just want revenue-desperate Democrats to do their dirty work for them.) So why not put that choice before voters?
Whatever sucky transportation package Democrats ultimately sign on to—and it almost certainly will be sucky, because I just don’t believe that Democrats collectively have the balls to stand up in defense of labor, the environment, and transit—should be sent to voters with two options: A) a gas tax hike, or B) a carbon tax. If we really want to take all the partisan ideology out of the debate—as the editorialists disingenuously insist we should—then just let voters decide.
We’re the ones who will be paying the tax, either directly or through higher prices for goods and services from carbon intensive industries. So let us tell legislators which tax we truly prefer. Political problem solved.
But then, Republicans have never much been into solving political problems, so I’m guessing my constructive input will be once again ignored.
I’ve said it before and I mean it sincerely. The plebs are unworthy of your genius.
@1
And exemplfies the elitist attitude that everyone else in WA hates about the people in Seattle.
@2 Anybody with an I.Q. over 30 is “elitist” while hillbillys are running us into the ground.
Came across the ferry from Kingston to Edmonds this morning and noticed that Eyman’s got his minions shoving placards in drivers’ faces and asking for money to help “prevent raising taxes” while they’re stuck waiting in line. Power windows have never seemed more of an automotive necessity.
Gov proposed cap and trade which is a very differnt mechanism than a carbon tax. Carbon tax is just as regressive, if not more than gas tax, unless offset with other investments. See CarbonWa.
And cap can be regressive too, half the big polluters are utilities, so that’s directly passed on.
I’d add the way this is written gas tax vs. generic carbon tax is oddly framed. The distinguishing feature of a carbon tax is that is raises gradually year after year, creating increasing pressure to use cleaner energy. I’m pretty sure voters would say hell no to gas tax that goes on endlessly to fund transportation. That’s why revenue neutral in this case makes a lot of sense. Anyway, just seems to have been an error in conceiving of this piece. Thanks for trying.
Is this proposed as two separate initiatives, as suggested by an accompanying Goldy tweet?
Would that not run a risk of neither passing?
If it’s proposed to be an either/or/neither initiative, I guess same question applies and, if one of them is selected and passes, would an initiative like that be held constitutional?
@7 No, the legislature can refer a two similar measures to the ballot. First the voters vote yes or no on the transportation package, then they vote for A or B. Both can fail, but only one can pass.
@5 Didn’t have time for a detailed post, so just went shorthand.
@ 8
Thanks.
How are your goals furthered if both fail, how much time would be lost if both fail, and why is that outcome – failure of both – better than legislative passage of something like a gas tax increase that does less than you want it to do?
Perhaps not so related, but oil prices are 35% higher than the January trough. If oil hits, say, $80/barrel, how might your calculations change?
Puddy split up the links so this could be posted.
So it’s claimed we need to fix roads and we need more money. Puddy have always proposed that all DUMMOCRETINS open their wallets to deliver said funds to Olympia. Butt, this never happens as y’all just don’t follow through!
So, gas tax vs. carbon tax. Will a DUMMOCRETIN accurately answer these?
Carbon tax solutions seem to be central planning solutions or tax shifting… Puddy remembered reading this long ago… www. earth-policy.org/books/eco/ eech11_ss3. The only difference is that there will be no income tax reduction! Are you really offering this Goldy?
Yeah, more about those carbon taxes, are you DUMMOCRETINS planning a refundable low income carbon tax credit for the poor peeps? What income level will be the top threshold?
For a carbon tax what will be the payments per ton of CO2 emitted? How will this be measured per car? per motorcycle? per boat? per lawn mower? per house using natural gas? propane gas? What about the back yard barbie? per airplane flight?
How about those planes what spray pesticides? Double whammy there!
What carbon tax will you charge farmers for
ekimcow flatulence?ekimcow manure?Since a gas tax is up front and personal, shouldn’t WA State be up front and personal on how these new funds will be allocated to projects? No $155,000,000 billboard on I-405 for the general project butt a general breakdown on the project?
A gas tax always hurts the poor people. Butt, this will affect poor people in many more ways than just their car gas usage. We know that the WA State middle class is the fifth worst shrinking groups per the MSN study. So how will a carbon tax, which affects all things, help poor people?
Is this gas tax aimed to fix roads only?
Is this gas tax aimed to REMOVE cars from the WA State roads and reduce road congestion? The story of Atlanta here www .earth-policy.org/books/ eco/eech9_ss3 comes to mind. Since Seattle is somewhat water locked; is this another control mechanism?
Will these taxes be forever? DUMMOCRETINS always love taxes. The money comes in and magically it’s used for other things once the primary reason is “cured”! They never have sunset clauses. Think the NYS Thruway which was to have a sunset in 1996. IT NEVER HAPPENED! DUMMOCRETINS lead NYS and love taxes!
What does HA DUMMOCRETIN buddies Laura D’Andrea Tyson and James E. Hansen think about WA State having a carbon tax? Puddy remembers this too. http://economix.blogs.nytimes......ore-164986
That’s OK leftist pinheads. I wasn’t expecting a real answer to my post #10. I realize it’s too much to ask small minded people on this blog! Butt, I had to see how serious y’all were or was it double speak.
Since we are talking transportation it seems an outright carbon tax is not entirely appropriate. Not all transportation choices create equal amounts of carbon and it does depend on the amount of miles driven by that contraption. Should an old fashioned steam engine be taxed? It’s going to produce CO2 but if it’s burning wood isn’t that a renewable source of CO2 and the number of miles isn’t going to be high, and there is the educational value.
The problem is our cars have become more efficient and go more miles on a gallon of tax or some folks are driving electric cars. Some folks depend mainly on public transportation. Bike riders and pedestrians and some others are free riders in the current system. Though these folks do pay some property taxes. Once upon a time where a lot of money came from to build roads.
Ever since the US government built the first log road and charged a toll we have faced the choice of making those who use a road pay or everyone paying, and usually some of both is used to one degree or another.
It seemed the choice would come down to raising the gas tax or implementing some system where every vehicles miles are logged and a tax implemented based on those miles and type of vehicle. (Hey an 18 wheeler does more wear and tear on the roads than a VW beetle.) Is the rate going to be the same for commercial vehicles? Do miles on county roads count? Freeways? Does tracking miles mean I can be tracked?
The simple and more politically expedient answer is to raise the gas tax. Still as more people drive electric cars or use public transportation other sources may have to come to fore including an increase in property taxes. After all should bicyclists have free ride? Kayackers? Boaters?
And just what of the 18th Amendment to Washington States Constitution. Would seem a increase in the tax is required, Though a carbon tax could also be used to pay or the Amendment needs to be modified due to modernity.
Puddy noticed what is missing here. Maybe the reason this thread has 100% common sense. When a thread requires real thought and discussion… these standard left wrong libtards are MIA
… rujaxoffallthetimebuttnuthinappears
… vomit producer
… yellowishleakingbuttspigot
… teabagging buttbusting buttbigot
… worf
… worser
… very severe conservative
… mikeflubscout
Run along useless nobodies!
Maybe this one has memory issues… …senile schismatic IDIOT Wabbit
What surprised Puddy is dunceman’s scream of genius in #1 and the “genius” has not returned to discuss salient questions above! More DUMMOCRETIN taxation rhetoric!