Raising the gas tax hurts, not helps, the economy

According to numerous news outlets, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) is suggesting an increase in the federal gasoline tax.

He believes that an increase will help close the budget deficit and create jobs. I think he's spent too much time in Washington's logic-free zone.

From The Hill:

In a letter to members of President Obama's debt commission, Voinovich laid out his argument for the increase.

"Fuel taxes today fund the vast majority of the federal government's investment in infrastructure projects," Voinovich wrote in the letter. "Due to dwindling fuel tax receipts, Congress has had to transfer billions of dollars from the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund to maintain our current level of federal involvement."

From a factual basis, Voinovich is correct. They are transferring billions into the Highway Trust Fund.

But the question shouldn't be 'how do we get more money into the Trust Fund?' We should be asking WHY government is spending more money from the Trust Fund than it is taking in?!? Can you say pork? Because it's all the 'earmarks' that members of Congress fund that leads to the overspending. And since Congress gets to decide whether or not to transfer money from the General Fund, they easily do so.

Voinovich should NOT be looking for ways to get more money to spend, but for ways to stay within the budget based upon the revenues they do have. (And this doesn't even get into the discussion of whether or not the Trust Fund is constitutional in the first place.)

He 'explains' that the gasoline taxes haven't been increased since 1993 when it went from 4.3 cents per gallon up to 18.4 cents per gallon. For reference, that's a 328% increase!

Too many politicians believe that a lack of increased taxation is somehow a problem. And it might be a problem for government, but it certainly isn't a problem for the taxpayer.

Increasing taxes on an item means people will use less of it - not more. Perhaps he believes that people will pay whatever they must to have the flexibility and freedom that driving provides them. But Voinovich is wrong if he believes that there will not be some decrease in consumption of an item whose price is raised.

Voinovich fails to account for the impact such an increase will have to the overall economy. If gasoline prices rise, so will the price of all items that are transported. Trucking firms and delivery companies (UPS and FedEx) will have to raise their prices to accommodate for their increased costs. Many firms tack on a fuel surcharge as it is, so the cost of that surcharge will be greater if Voinovich has his way.

Our senator is also mistaken when it comes to creating jobs. While government payment for construction and road work does employ people, it doesn't do so in a sustainable way. And with 'sustainable' being the focus of liberals these days, you'd think this would be an issue - but, strangely, it isn't.

When the government money runs out, as it always does, the jobs go away. This is not the type of 'growth' the country needs. What we do need is a low-tax environment that allows private companies and individuals to have the funds to spend as they see fit. The investment that results leads to more opportunities, more employment and more demand for services. That is what leads our economy - not higher taxation so government can create the illusion of growth.

Is Voinovich correct that we have a crumbling infrastructure? I don't know - and a look at Toledo roads might lead everyone to believe that is the case. But Toledo's roads are Toledo's problem - not the problem of the federal government.

So let's look at the root of the problem: the spending. The Highway Trust Fund was supposed to pay for interstates and highways, but today it pays for so much more. As Reason Foundation says:

" ... asking federal highway users to pay substantially more in order to fund expanded programs for sidewalks, bikeways, recreational trails and more transit is unlikely to succeed, since the large majority of highway users do not use, and would not benefit from, these mostly localized urban projects. Principles of federalism suggest that these kinds of projects are more appropriately funded at state or local levels of government."

This Washington Times article says it even more plainly:

We invented the federal Highway Trust Fund in 1956, promising motorists and truckers that all proceeds from a new federal gas tax would be spent on building the interstate system. They aren't. Congress has expanded federal highway spending beyond interstates to all types of roadways. And ever since 1982, a portion of those "highway user taxes" have been diverted to urban transit. Today, the federal role in transportation includes mandating sidewalks, funding bike paths and creating scenic trails.

As a result, spending exceeds gas-tax revenues and the Highway Trust Fund is broke. Some claim this is because the 18.3-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax needs to be raised. But drivers can fairly put the blame on the fact that 25 percent of gas-tax funds are diverted to non-highway uses.

A key to fixing the problem is to identify what should be federal and what should be state and local responsibilities. In principle, only the interstate highways - our key arteries for interstate commerce - should rise to the level of the federal government. Other highways, streets, sidewalks, bike paths, local transit lines, etc., are more properly state and local concerns.

So rather than push for a tax hike, if Voinovich were to push for an end to funding non-highway projects, the Highway Trust Fund would have about another $11 billion per year to address the aging infrastructure he's so concerned about.

That would be the conservative, fiscally-prudent thing to do. But that also means that a lot of politicians and individuals who've raided the fund for non-highway purposes might find that, on a local level, their pet projects don't make the grade.

We've seen it here in Toledo - opposition to bike paths when the money could be better spent actually improving the roads and eliminating our pot holes. But the excuse our city government has given us is that the funding for bike paths is 'federal money.' That just means that the federal politicians have substituted their will for the will of the people in terms of priorities for how tax dollars are spent. Eliminating these non-highway projects also advances the opinion of our Founding Fathers - that such decisions are better made at a local level, not the federal one.

If Sen. Voinovich were truly interested in the federal deficit and the Highway Trust Fund, he'd look for ways to reduce spending - not for ways to fleece the taxpayers. And he'd work to eliminate non-highway projects for the HTF so that the limited dollars it takes in can be spent on the problems the highway system faces.

Of course, this kind of common-sense reasoning is completely ignored by the people making the decisions. Perhaps it boils down to the fact that we need different people in the decision-making role.

Full court press for the 'porkulus' bill

Knowing that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill is in trouble, various groups and individuals are urging citizens to support passage of the pork-laden spending plan.

Gov. Ted Strickland authored a plea for support to "community leaders" saying that without the stimulus bill, Ohio's budget is in danger, especially 'the children.'

I've been outspoken in my opposition to all the bailouts, so it should come as no surprise to readers of this blog that I oppose a bailout of the states as well - no matter what they call it in Columbus and Washington.

The Cato Institute has a great publication, "10 Reasons to Oppose a Stimulus Package for the States," that expresses much of my beliefs on the subject. It also emphasizes that accepting a bailout goes against the long-held belief by state residents that their state should live within its means and exercise fiscal restraint. As proof, there are some states who oppose the bailouts because they have done just that and don't want tax dollars from their citizens going to reward other states for their overspending.

In light of the full court press for the porkulus, call Senator George Voinovich and tell him no on the bill, no on any compromise, no on any negotiation, no on the long-term debt this will create.

Portman's campaign stop in Toledo

Yesterday Rob Portman was in Toledo at Tony Packo's to announce his candidacy for the senate seat currently held by George Voinovich. Voinovich has decided to retire and will not be seeking re-election.

Because of the extremely bad road conditions due to the weather, he was about 15 minutes late in his arrival, but was greeted by a crowd of about 35 - a good number considering the travel conditions.

Upon arrival, he participated in a Tony Packo's tradition of signing a hot dog bun for display.

Because of the weather and hot dog signing, he got a late start on his comments which meant that I was not able to hear his entire presentation. What I did hear was his emphasis on his small business experience and his understanding of what it's like to be a small business owner in Ohio.

Side Note:

When I was little, my parents would take a weekend in November and meet up with friends from Tennessee for a weekend at the Golden Lamb Inn in Lebanon, Ohio. My siblings and I always looked forward to their return because they would bring us a gift of a Christmas ornament. When I moved out of the house, my mother packaged up all the ornaments she'd given me over the years and I still have all but a few of them to decorate my tree. My husband has continued the tradition of giving me a new ornament each year.

If you're wondering why this has anything to do with Portman, it's because I learned, during his kick off, that his family started the Golden Lamb Inn and he and his siblings still own/run it today.

End Side Note

Portman's early entry in the race is clearly designed to discourage others from running and avoiding a primary battle for the seat.

He served Ohio as Congressman for the seven counties of the Second District for 12 years, held two Cabinet-level positions (U.S. Trade Representative and Director of the Office of Management and Budget), and was on the White House staff of the first Bush Administration. He is currently an attorney with Squire, Sanders, and Dempsey.

Portman was well-liked by almost everyone in Washington. A New York Times reporter wrote in 2003 that he couldn't find a single Democrat on Capitol Hill who would say anything unfavorable about the congressman. The closest he came, he said, was an anonymous member of the Ways & Means Committee who whispered that Portman was, despite his nice-guy image, really a conservative.

Portman to stop in Toledo as part of campaign for Senate

Rob Portman will be in Toledo tomorrow as part of a state-wide announcement that he will seek to replace retiring Sen. George Voinovich.

He will be at Tony Packo's on Front Street at 5 p.m. Wednesday. I do not know how long he plans to stay.

I'd try to get him on Eye On Toledo tomorrow, but we're pre-empted for a UT Basketball game.

It's official: Voinovich will not seek third term

Below is a statement from Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-OH):

After prayerful consideration and much thought, my wife Janet and I have decided that I will not seek a third term in the United States Senate.

As I spent time with my family during the holidays and celebrated Janet’s birthday, I reflected on God’s blessings on our family: my wife, our three children, our seven grandchildren and our health.

I also spent time thinking about the health of our country. In my lifetime of public service, I have never seen the country in such perilous circumstances. Not since the Great Depression and the Second World War have we been confronted with such challenges, as a nation and as a world.

Those of us that have been given the honor to serve in these times must step up to the plate and put this country on a course that will see it through these harrowing times and make it strong and viable for the 21st century.

These next two years in office, for me, will be the most important years that I have served in my entire political career.

I must devote my full time, energy and focus to the job I was elected to do, the job in front of me, which seeking a third term – with the money-raising and campaigning that it would require – would not allow me to do.

In addition, Janet and I have concluded that once my second term is complete, we should devote ourselves to our children and grandchildren. We have been blessed with good health, but we’re no spring chickens. In 2010, I will be 74 years old and will have served 44 years in public office, having been elected to more public offices than any other person in Ohio history.

I am grateful for the opportunity that I have had to serve my statehouse district, my county, city, state and nation and feel good about the fact that with the help of some extraordinary people, many of whom are no longer with us, I have made a difference and will, with God’s help and a great team in my Senate office, continue to make a difference during these next two critical years. We intend not to wind down—but to wind up, just like I did in the Mayor’s office as well as the Governor’s office.

We have a great deal to do in this Congress, and I will continue to focus on the areas that matter most: providing the nation a responsible stimulus package; jump-starting our credit markets; re-establishing confidence in the housing market and stemming the tide on mortgage foreclosures; harmonizing our nation’s economic, energy and environmental policies; ensuring safe and stable highways; and continuing to improve the personnel and management of the federal government.

After the next two years, it will be time to give someone else the opportunity to serve our great state in the Senate, someone who can devote full time to organizing their campaign and raising the money necessary to win.

This has not been an easy decision for us. I still have the fire in my belly to do the work of our nation, but after serving the next two years, it will be time to step back and spend the rest of our time with our children and grandchildren, siblings and extended family and friends.

We both are confident that God has a plan for us to use the time, energy and talents that He has given us to make a difference in another way.

Voinovich to not seek re-election

Politico is reporting that Sen. George Voinovich will announce Monday that he will not seek another term.

"A Voinovich spokesman would only confirm that he will make an announcement Monday on his future. But a Senate Republican leadership aide said that Voinovich’s planned retirement is “real” and an announcement will come soon."

This rumor has been swirling around for about 10 days now...names suggested as replacements are John Kasich and Rob Portman, with many throwing out Kasich's name as a candidate for governor as well.

Did Voinovich misrepresent Hensarling's position on the auto bailout?

Today I received the following email from Sen. George Voinovich's office:

According to this Bloomberg story, the head of the Republican Study Group in the House, a staunch conservative, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, has endorsed using sec. 136 money to provide a bridge loan to the American auto industry – essentially the Voinovich-Levin-Bond bill:

Representative Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, said he is “more than happy” to allow the automakers to use the energy-bill funds to avoid bankruptcy. “If this is such a dire emergency,” he said, the Democrats could waive or delay requirements in the 2007 legislation that the money be used exclusively to develop more fuel-efficient vehicles.

This seemed completely out of character for Rep. Hensarling, so I called his office to clarify his position.

I spoke to Debbee Keller who explained that Rep. Hensarling is in favor of allowing the $25 Billion already passed by Congress to be used to help the Big 3 with their financial issues. The funds were supposed to be for certain purposes, and he agrees that Congress can re-purpose those funds to be used for their operational expenses.

He does not support allocating any of the $700 Billion to the automotive companies. According to Keller, Rep. Hensarling has not taken a position on the Voinovich-Levin-Bond bill.

So you tell me - is this a misrepresentation of Rep. Hensarling's position on the auto bailout?

Voinovich says he'll support auto bailout

I read an Associated Press article that claimed Sen. George Voinovich was the only Republican confirmed to support the proposed bailout of the automotive industry.

So I called his office to ask if it was true and the staff person who answered told me it was.

I, of course, expressed my opinion and urged him to vote NO on this - and any other bailouts.

But the only way he can be pushed to vote no is if he gets enough calls and emails instructing him to do so. He works for us, after all.

So, here is the contact information. Let him know what you think! (remember, be firm but polite...)

Washington office: (202) 224-3353
Toledo office: Phone: (419) 259-3895 Fax: (419) 259-3899
Cleveland office: Phone: (216) 522-7095 Fax: (216) 522-7097
Cincinnati office: Phone: (513) 684-3265 Fax: (513) 684-3269
Columbus office: Phone: (614) 469-6697 Fax: (614) 469-7733
Southeast office: Phone: (740) 441-6410 Fax: (740) 753-3551

His contact form

Matt at Weapons of Mass Discussion has more on this.

HOPE ON - He's not just the 'Messiah'; He's a Socialist

Weapons of Mass Discussion has today's post from the HOPE ON (Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now) project, with help from NeverFindOut.org, a project of Let Freedom Ring.

As Matt explains,

"Obama isn't just a liberal, he's to the left of the only declared socialist in the US Senate!

What shall we use as a measuring stick? How about a politician who is a declared socialist? There is one in the United States Senate and his name is Bernie Sanders. The National Journal has Sanders ranked #4 in 2007. Barack Obama was top of the class. But it might interest you to know who else was "to the left" of the socialist. Barack Obama chose him to be his running mate: Joe Biden finished third. Even George Voinovich gets this one:

"There's a guy in the senate, Bernie Sanders" said Voinovich, "who brags about being a socialist. And if you compare Barack Obama's record with Bernie Sanders' record, they're not too far apart."

Obama's response to Joe the Plumber's question about why Obama wanted to punish him if he were to achieve the American Dream and achieve success was that he wanted to "spread the wealth around." If that isn't a restatement of the socialist doctrine of redistribution of wealth, I don't know what is."

Ohio senators demonstrate their priorities

The Senate voted 68 to 26 today to kill the "The Children's Health Care First Act" today. This amendment would have required Congress to prioritize providing health care to children rather than pork projects for politicians. Senate Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Tom Harkin has stated that the Labor-HHS-Education bill would 'demonstrate to the American people what our priorities are.'

Ohio Senators Brown and Voinovich both voted to table this amendment, effectively killing it for now.

Guess we know what their priorities are...

Ohio senators vote for Rangel's 'Monument to Me'

Amanda Carpenter, National Political Reporter for Townhall.com, included this interesting item in her column today:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.) tried to persuade his fellow Senators to remove a project sponsored by New York Rep. Charles Rangel (D.) that would give $2 million in federal money to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Policy, the Rangel Conference Center, and the Charles Rangel Library at the City College of New York.

Freshman Rep. John Campbell (R.-Calif.) has sarcastically called the earmark Rangel’s “Monument to Me.”

Promotional literature describes the project as “kind of like a presidential library, but without the president.”

Final vote on the earmark was 61-34 with 13 Republicans voting to keep it in the bill. The wording was to "provide a limitation on funds with respect to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service" so a NAY vote was a vote to keep the $2 million earmark...Ohio's Senators Brown and Voinovich both voted nay. Perhaps they have plans for their own personal monuments at some point in the future?

I just hope they both remember this when they complain about a lack of funds for their own pet projects - remember the Corp of Engineers, Sen. Voinovich?

Sen. Voinovich missed an opportunity

Sen. George Voinovich toured areas of Northwest Ohio yesterday, viewing flood damage and meeting with officials to discuss their response to the storms and their needs going forward.

According to this Blade article, Voinovich says our nation's spending priorities are wrong, bashing the spending in Iraq while criticizing the President for trimming "infrastructure-related budgets - those that deal with items such as rivers, highways, and bridges - because they are too costly."

Voinovich said, "he is frustrated because Americans don't realize how vulnerable the country's infrastructure is and how far behind improvements are.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which addresses flood control, is operating with less federal money and too few engineers, he said."

Unfortunately, Sen. Voinovich seems to have forgotten that the President doesn't spend the money, Congress does. The President requests and submits budgets, but it's Congress who makes the final decision.

And the opportunity the Senator missed? His vote on the recently passed Transportation bill.

I've previously blogged about Sen. Tom Coburn's amendments to cut pork out of this bill. Sen. Coburn's amendment to halt earmarks until all deficient bridges and roads were repaired failed. His amendment to eliminate federal spending on bike paths also failed. His amendment to remove three specific earmarks (baseball stadium, peace garden and tourist 'discovery' center) totaling $1.35 million also failed. In fact, the pork in this bill totaled $8 Billion - yes, Billion with a B - and that's 13.5% of the Transportation Department's $63 billion spending plan.

According to all media reports I could find, Sen. Voinovich voted against these three amendments and then voted for the bill, basically agreeing that $8 billion in pork was more important than other priorities of the federal government - like the Army Corps of Engineers which he says is short money and engineers.

Sen. Voinovich certainly got good press coverage by comparing spending in Iraq to spending on infrastructure, especially in The Blade. But his complaint sounds a bit hollow when his actual votes are taken into consideration.

If it's true that Congress has their spending priorities mixed up - and I'm the first to agree this is the case - it's because of votes like those cast by Voinovich. Sen. Voinovich - if you're going to complain about lack of funds for priorities, you need to vote against non-constitutional spending like baseball stadiums, peace gardens and bike paths.