User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
They don't have to "buy a line of 'trickle down'" to oppose the tax increase - excuse me, "reset". All they have to do is to figure - rightly or wrongly, and whatever that means - that your state is already getting more than enough of their money in general and they see no reason why it should get even more. This is not necessarily connected with highway maintenance, as they may feel that your state is getting so much of their money that it ought to find some elsewhere in its budget.
Except the common complaint is the conditions of the roads.
As I said...a disconnect.
As an aside, the fall of 2003, a local candidate and I had this rather interesting 'discussion' (it was civil, just a very strong difference in opinion). Her position was: the problem that would have to be grappled with is having enough cars for (low-income) people who wanted them (so they could "go to their jobs" which she also hoped to encourage by being on the local council).
Here we are at local election time and four years later. Gasoline has gone up by 75% (meaning highway tax revenue has also increased). Can't say there have been many "new jobs" created but it sure is much more expense to drive to work than it was four years ago (for those that don't car pool or ride the bus, though the mass transit system has improved somewhat).