Deseret News | Reader comments: Fuel tax a necessary evil

Reader comments
Fuel tax a necessary evil

Lew Jeppson | 12:44 a.m. May 4, 2008

Indeed, McCain and Clinton show themselves to be transportation illiterates. Morover, they demonstrate their failure to see energy policy (including energy independence) and transportation as two sides of the same coin (60% of oil is used to make gas). Their respective proposals invite increased consumption when we least need it.

I can't help but speculate what our energy and transportation picture would be like absent the Interstate Highway Act. We probably would still have private sector, self-sustaining mass transit like Bamberger and the Utah Light and Traction, without most of our destructive sprawl.

If McCain and Clinton want to show some IQ they should describe ways to get us back to more of a true transportaion market.

Anonymous | 7:23 a.m. May 4, 2008

We do not need a fuel tax levied by the federal government. Rather than a federal tax holiday we should just retire the federal gas tax. Even if the state of Utah levied the same tax we would have more money because we wouldn't have the waste of federal red tape, earmarking, etc.

Let's get serious and get the federal government out of the transportation business. We would finally be able to cut congestion.

wrz | 7:46 a.m. May 4, 2008

Cutting the federal gas tax by 18 1/2 cents would merely increase usage, thus demand. And within a few short weeks the increased demand would send the price right back up, erasing any cut. Then, come fall, when the cut expires the price would not only be back to pre-cut levels, but that plus 18 1/2 cents.

Dumb idea.

If McCain wants to do us a favor he should, as a minimum, figure out how to break the oil monopoly and get some competition into the energy market. A product so indispensable as fuel should either be controlled by stiff competition or by the government. We have neither. We are left to the whims of a foreign cartel. How do you control OPEC? That would be a job for McCain to figure out. Perhaps more domestic exploration would be a start.

Comments continue below

Michael | 8:11 a.m. May 4, 2008

Good editorial. We need a federal policy to lead us away from oil dependence. This is not possible till Bush/Cheney are gone, but that will happen in less than 8 months now- the world is eagerly waiting.

As to doing away with federal involvement in transportation- that is not a bad idea if we want to do away with the interstate system. There is no way the states would ever pick up where the feds left off.

wrz | 12:25 p.m. May 4, 2008

>>As to doing away with federal involvement in transportation- that is not a bad idea if we want to do away with the interstate system. There is no way the states would ever pick up where the feds left off.<<

The interstate was justified for national defense purposes.

Anonymous | 1:05 p.m. May 4, 2008

wrz is incorrect. The states already manage and maintain the interstate system. In fact, the states invest more revenue in the interstate system than the federal government. Getting the feds out of the transportation business would eliminate an extra layer of unnecessary bureaucracy.

The interstate system doesn't provide any meaningful national defense purposes anymore. Air transport has replaced it.

Stop Living in the 50's | 1:17 p.m. May 4, 2008

Sounds like wrz is still living in the past. Anonymous is right. The states can do highways better and cheaper than the federal government. Plus we can get rid of the corrupt earmarking process where Congress tells us our how spend our own tax dollars and then acts like they did something special for us. We can't afford Congress. It is bankrupting America.

Anonymous | 1:26 p.m. May 4, 2008

A temporary repeal is a dumb idea. A permanent repeal is a good idea.

Promote Conservation | 4:55 p.m. May 4, 2008

The oil tax ought to be increased, not decreased in order to discourage conservation.

In order not to hurt the poor, each year, this tax should be distributed evenly to each citizen.

This would not hurt the poor and would encourage all citizens to conserve.

Stewart | 4:58 p.m. May 4, 2008

This is nothing but political pandering at its best, or worst, however you look at it.

wrz | 10:03 p.m. May 4, 2008

>>wrz is incorrect. >Getting the feds out of the transportation business would eliminate an extra layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. >The interstate system doesn't provide any meaningful national defense purposes anymore. Air transport has replaced it.<<

It never did provide any defense purposes. It was only justified for defense. Otherwise there was question that it could ever be funded. No one believed at the time that it would ever be needed for that purpose.

wrz | 11:19 p.m. May 4, 2008

Furthermore, from Wikipedia:

"Initial federal planning for a nationwide highway system began in 1921 when the Bureau of Public Roads asked the Army to provide a list of roads it considered necessary for national defense, resulting in the Pershing Map."

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.