Class envy. Like when the French decapitated their own government in the late 18th century. I kind of interpret envy as “I think what you have is quite alright, and I want a piece of that.” I don’t see the upcoming American classwar as being about wanting to trade places with the filthy rich, so much as wanting to chop their grimy hands off the reins of government, and gnawing their feet off the necks of the proles. If that happens to mean the rest of us unwashed live a little better–and really, just a little better, as in being able to live respectably and spend the last 15 or so years of our lives enjoying the garden we worked so hard to create in the previous 40–then isn’t that only right?
It would probably be easier to justify raising the gas tax if all the money was actually spent on the roads.
About 85% to roads, about 15% to mass transit. Want to kill the mass transit? That puts more traffic on the roads.
Do we know how much this actually motivates voters? I’ve never been terribly concerned about rich people, but maybe lots of voters are. But maybe they feel like their quality of life has been improving regardless.
A bit like boiling a frog. Life feels normal, and has since the 70s, But normal has slowly changed. In order to live the same lifestyle as previous generations, to have vacations, reasonably-nice things, functioning cars, a college education, requires more direct spending of take-home pay at the expense of retirement savings. Indeed, we go further and incur massive credit debt.
At some point the frog actually boils and begins to realize damage. The non-rich are at or near that point.
I wonder how many people actually feel boiled. I’ve certainly heard more noise, but I think it’s relevance to the Dcrat brand will depend in part on how widespread those feelings are. I’d certainly take the $25k I made 2009 over living with an equivalent purchasing power in 1979. But maybe I’m the odd one.
When funding mass transit means Amtrak and high-speed rail I think the money would be better spent elsewhere.
In addition to mass transit there are earmarked expenditures for things such as sidewalks, bike paths, recreational trails, and environmental mitigation.
The federal tax was originally supposed to sunset in 1969. There’s nothing stopping states from raising their taxes to cover the loss of federal taxes that come to them with strings attached.
Nope. Local and regional.
First you said it should be spent on roads, and you got a cite that 85% of it is. Then you claim that the mass transit portion goes to Amtrak, without checking it.
Before we even discuss policy, can you be assed to find out what the facts are?
Of course there is. It’s the Republican Party. The party of Reagan, who convinced the flock that yes there is a free lunch and we’re going to eat it. The party that promised Grover Norquist that they will never ever under any circumstances raise any tax by one penny on anyone for as long as the party exists.
Well, if someone seizes control of the party who is NOT in the pockets of the oligarchs, I imagine the message goes something like: “Wake up, You’re being boiled!”
I’m doing better now than when I entered the workforce 30 years ago. Pretty much everyone is. But map yourself–your age, occupation, income–onto someone with the same profile (adjust the salary for inflation just to be fair about it) in 1985. Or even 1955. NOW how are you doing? Call out specific demographics and let them know how much better their counterparts 30 or 60 years ago had it. Point to relative incomes, housing costs, education costs, the disappearance of single-income households and speculate on what that has done to parenting. And then offer solutions that allow the industrious and ingenious to profit only fabulously as opposed to obscenely. Eventually, people will realize their life’s anxiety IS the feeling of being boiled.
The gas tax should go up, I agree. Highway funding, like SS, is in a trust fund with a dedicated funding stream. However unlike SS, people pay for it and use it at the same time. So if it’s got a shortfall, then gas taxes have to be raised.
However, that’s not to say that highway funding is spent wisely. As with any infrastructure there’s a bias towards new projects over maintenance. Congress must start requiring a certain percentage of funding to go to maintenance. Of course, Congress is part of the problem here because they use the Highway Trust Fund as a jobs fund, and new projects create more jobs than maintenance, so I’m not holding my breath.
Like I said, I’d rather have the $25k I was making in 2009 than the equivalent purchasing power in 1979. The question is how many people feel otherwise? Compensation has been rising since then. And we have the internet. And better hair styles, as another poster pointed out to me elsewhere. So I wonder if that’s going to play into party branding.
the future of the Democratic brand? Interesting question.
If the Democratic Party widens its support over Republican, which actually narrowed in 2012 from 2008, it has a bright future. If it doesn’t, which would happen by nominating a socialist like Sanders, the Dems are screwed.
Hillary Clinton is the best hope. The Dem party could do MUCH better in Appalachia and the non-deep South.
Still paging adaher! Still paging adaher!
Well, in Addy’s defense, he has been busy getting his ass handed to him by BobLibDem.
See post 132
Thanks but in all fairness to adaher, that’s a common misconception. I’ve worked for a DOT for 37 years and I know damn well we aren’t building many new routes (yeah, politicians love to cut ribbons) so it was a piece of cake to refute.
Total hijack … but given your expertise BobLibDem -
Thoughts you have about a mileage tax instead of gas tax? Ray LaHood had floated it during his tenure to a total lack of support but let’s be real, most of my miles in my plug-in hybrid are gas-free but I use the roads too. I am happy to benefit from others paying for it but fairness includes me paying my share. Without it gas taxes need to be raised substantially and on an ongoing basis as cars become more efficient.
Thoughts about how (semi)autonomous vehicles with V2V communication (that allow greater density on roadways as vehicles can function as “car trains”) will potentially impact capacity demands? Is that, to your knowledge, being modeled?
Ah. Able to find the latter bit myself.
Thought of this post again when I read this editorial. Not sure what I think of the specifics he discusses but the idea is valid: dramatically increasing inequality is long term not good for the wealthiest either. They can be allies in fixing it.