Gov. Branstad to raise gas tax (Cedar Rapids: how much, house, schools)

[saltine]

Neither party has the market cornered on tax increases Gov. Branstad Says He'll Back Fuel Tax Increase | KCRG-TV9 | Cedar Rapids, Iowa News, Sports, and Weather | Local News

[rayman29]

No, but this is a tax that specifically funds roads, and it has not been raised in 23 years. Roads are not being taken care of as well as they should be, and the money certainly not as far the money could have been used in 1989. An increase is necessary to make sure our roads are better maintained.

[mofford]

As it is now, they are using money from other sources to make up for the deficit in road maintenance. I would prefer the gas tax reflected the actual costs involved with the upkeep of the roads. If money is taken from other things, that is a transportation subsidy that comes from whatever service or project they cut it from.

The gas tax is a very fair tax, in that only people that drive pay the tax, and they pay according to how much gas they use. Of course the costs will be passed along to you from the trucking industry or any business that is transportation sensitive. Still, the marketplace would better reflect the true costs for getting those products to you, with road repairs included.

[hugepossum]

I have no great love for Terry, but can't hold this one against him. An increase is due; our roads and bridges are falling into disrepair and this will help.

Thankfully the Iowa house and senate work a heck of a lot better than their national versions and can still negotiate civilly enough to make laws which both parties are able to stomach.

[SharpHawkeye]

I agree, a gas tax hike is unfortunately necessary.

However, this won't settle the roads issue completely. Eventually, the state is going to have to look at other ways of raising money than the gas tax. Between the general increase in fuel mileage in the last 10 years and the rise of hybrids/electrics/LNG cars and trucks--you're going to have more cars on the road using less gas.

[capitalcityguy]

Originally Posted by saltine

Neither party has the market cornered on tax increases Gov. Branstad Says He'll Back Fuel Tax Increase | KCRG-TV9 | Cedar Rapids, Iowa News, Sports, and Weather | Local News

Just to clarify, this isn't "the party" (otherwise it would be part of the party's platform) position, this is the Governor's (who happens to be a Republilcan). There's a difference.

Since many areas of rural Iowa are losing population, I'd like to see some politicians with some kahunas start a plan to identify roads that should be classified for reduced maintance or at least start asking the question -- do we need the same infrastructure at the same level across the state they we needed 20 years ago?

[Tek_Freek]

Originally Posted by hugepossum

I have no great love for Terry, but can't hold this one against him. An increase is due; our roads and bridges are falling into disrepair and this will help.

Thankfully the Iowa house and senate work a heck of a lot better than their national versions and can still negotiate civilly enough to make laws which both parties are able to stomach.

What state do you live in?

[rayman29]

Originally Posted by capitalcityguy

Just to clarify, this isn't "the party" (otherwise it would be part of the party's platform) position, this is the Governor's (who happens to be a Republilcan). There's a difference.

Since many areas of rural Iowa are losing population, I'd like to see some politicians with some kahunas start a plan to identify roads that should be classified for reduced maintance or at least start asking the question -- do we need the same infrastructure at the same level across the state they we needed 20 years ago?

They can study all they want, but in the end it will cost more money than it saves. The question is does the state want people to visit smaller towns, and live in small towns, and help by keeping the roads in good shape, allowing easy access for smaller areas to commute to other places for jobs and commodities or basically say they are a lost cause and the state is not going to care about roads connecting to rural areas.

[Tek_Freek]

Who needs the corn moved after harvest anyway? The hell with it. And let's consolidate the schools then let the roads go to pot so the kids can't get there.

Like it or not this is a framing state. You either support it or let Brazil sell corn to the world.

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by Tek_Freek

Who needs the corn moved after harvest anyway? The hell with it. And let's consolidate the schools then let the roads go to pot so the kids can't get there.

Like it or not this is a framing state. You either support it or let Brazil sell corn to the world.

Well it's a farming state, but over the past 20 years the population of non-metro counties has decreased by 35,000, while the population of metro counties has increased by 320,000. The state has been in a quickening transition since around 1980 as far as having a population that's now approaching 60% metro.

The state use to heavily weight it's spending for roads on the rural communities, but starting in the mid to late 1990's it's really had to start switching that over as more and more people moved into and stressed the urban roads.

I certainly think we should spend money on rural roads as well, but as the total land area covered by those roads isn't shrinking while it's population has declined from having almost 100,000 more people than the metro counties in 1980 to having 420,000 less today.....the state really needs to figure up a new method for financing.