Senator Deb Fischer was on FOXNews Sunday and talked about the proposed Iran deal as well as the reasons for her vote against confirming Loretta Lynch as Attorney General.
See it here:
Her response on the “no” vote for Lynch was pitch perfect.
The OWH took a deep dive into the Gas Tax issue in the Sunday paper, and there were a few takeaways.
First, the point that the Gas Tax doesn’t “buy” as much as it used to is an interesting way to put it. That is going to be the case for ANY hard number tax, right? If you are taxing at a specific amount, and don’t gauge it to some other variable, your tax receipts will be static — while the cost of stuff and labor goes up.
Is it possible to simply have a price of gas, minus the tax? Like on everything else you buy? It’s $40 for that Stanley hammer (geez, are you aware how much a hammer runs?), but that’s before your tax — which everyone understands.
Apparently Indiana and Georgia already do this. Obviously there are those who don’t want to increase the tax at all, and others who just want to add extra pennies to every gallon — until it needs to be done again. Suppose you came up with a new method of taxing — but it was currently the same total amount as it is now. But it would essentially be indexed to inflation, or however you wanted to do it.
Therefore it could go up incrementally in the future (thereby delaying those nasty-tasting tax increase votes!). Would this be a tax increase? Yep. But it would arguably be more palatable in the long run.
Not saying such as increase would be a good thing, or should be done at all — just pointing out the political ramifications on something like this.
FWIW, the Wall st. Journal noted a few years back:
“Even so, a sales tax would be a volatile source of transportation funds given the wide swings in the price of gasoline. And it doesn’t address the long-term threat to revenue posed by increasing fuel efficiency.”
They seem to lean towards tying any tax to the Consumer Price Index.
But here is the other takeaway from the OWH’s article:
They note that a gas tax increase is (essentially) supported by “The OpenSky Policy Institute, a Lincoln think tank focusing on tax policy“.
Open Sky was started by people from the Center for Rural Affairs — Democrat Governor candidate Chuck Hassebrook’s group, The Sherwood Foundation — whose mission is promoting “equity through social justice”, and counts Howard W. Buffett, among others, on their board.
You oftentime hear Open Sky mentioned in the same breath as the liberal Nebraska Appleseed organization.
So wouldn’t it be helpful to have a moniker attached to Open Sky?
Maybe the liberal Open Sky foundation.
How about, the Democrat leaning Open Sky foundation?
How about the Open Sky foundation, which often clashes with the Platte Institute.
Whoa whoa whoa, would be the likely response from the OWH!
That would be the CONSERVATIVE Platte Institute.
Ah the descriptive newsroom adjectives.
Funny how those get used — or not – eh?
Interesting deal: Omaha’s MECA Board will write a “formal policy” about what the MECA Board will make public about the MECA Board.
If a tree falls in the C-Link, and no Board Member wishes to talk about it, did it ever really fall?