Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As it is, gas taxes fall far short of the cost of maintaining the roads. A mileage tax will become necessary. Not just in California.
Funny thing about that, here in MD we embarked on a 4 or 5 year program to raise the gas tax in increments enacted last year. The reason was because "the gas tax isn't keeping up with costs". Of course, had the highway user fund not been raided to balance the General Fund for the first 6 years of the O' Malley Administration it wouldn't have had a $3B shortfall and would have actually had a surplus.
The kicker is that, even with the increase, there's still not enough money for roads since 75% of the increase is going to subsidize mass transit in Baltimore and the DC suburbs.
To be fair, the O' Malley Administration also raided the State Pension System during the same time frame (as did the last three of the immediate former Governors), taking that fund from 105% of projected outlays to 58%, endangering the pensions of thousands of retirees. The individual contribution to that was increased by 2% and was earmarked not to the Pension System but the General Fund.
I haven't read the entire thread so maybe I am repeating someone else.
Gas consumption is a complex, multi-factorial thing. Here is a tidbit to consider (not the entire reason for California's gasoline consumption, whatever it is).
For two years in a row (2012 and 2013), the Toyota Prius was the largest selling car in California, whereas nation-wide it was something like 12th or 16th (sorry, cannot remember exactly). So for whatever reason(s) the mindset of people in California runs more in the direction of saving gas, or perhaps just saving money in the long run.
Funny thing about that, here in MD we embarked on a 4 or 5 year program to raise the gas tax in increments enacted last year. The reason was because "the gas tax isn't keeping up with costs". Of course, had the highway user fund not been raided to balance the General Fund for the first 6 years of the O' Malley Administration it wouldn't have had a $3B shortfall and would have actually had a surplus.
The kicker is that, even with the increase, there's still not enough money for roads since 75% of the increase is going to subsidize mass transit in Baltimore and the DC suburbs.
To be fair, the O' Malley Administration also raided the State Pension System during the same time frame (as did the last three of the immediate former Governors), taking that fund from 105% of projected outlays to 58%, endangering the pensions of thousands of retirees. The individual contribution to that was increased by 2% and was earmarked not to the Pension System but the General Fund.
Sounds like what happened to me, locally at my government job in Florida. At least our Mayor couldn't touch the state pension system. Sooooo... The Governor did, and messed with then pension system to save themselves money by making the employees contribute to it to help offset the general fund, and at the same time caused us to take a pay cut too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider
I haven't read the entire thread so maybe I am repeating someone else.
Gas consumption is a complex, multi-factorial thing. Here is a tidbit to consider (not the entire reason for California's gasoline consumption, whatever it is).
For two years in a row (2012 and 2013), the Toyota Prius was the largest selling car in California, whereas nation-wide it was something like 12th or 16th (sorry, cannot remember exactly). So for whatever reason(s) the mindset of people in California runs more in the direction of saving gas, or perhaps just saving money in the long run.
That could be part of it - people in rural areas tend to drive pickup trucks and large vehicles. A function of what is needed to live by. Can't exactly load the hay, feed, and seed in the back of a prius. But you can sure drive to work in an office building in one. (I own both a Diesel Pickup and an EREV)
And that, I think, is a parallel to how it's been for many Americans. In 2008 when gas rocketed up to heights never before seen by Americans, the two best-selling vehicles in America were the Ford F-150 and the Chevrolet Silverado. You'd think it'd be little fuel-sipping cars... nope... big trucks with big engines that haul big things. The reason for this is not because Americans like spending three-figure sums of money to fill their tanks... it's because they NEED those trucks. Someone who has owned a pickup truck needs no explanation of this - there is nothing that matches the all-around utility and versatility of a pickup truck. Once you've had one, and used it the way a truck is meant to be used, you can never go back. Trade your truck in on a Prius and you will be thinking, inside of your next one month of good weather, "Man, I wish I had my truck so I could [.......]".
You've made a good case for people who need a large vehicle for their work. But I've never had a problem with that (and neither does anyone I've ever encountered who advocates cutting American's gasoline usage). Rather, the issue to me is the paragraph above. People do not NEED a large vehicle for their personal use: they WANT a large vehicle for their personal use. Before 1990, the vast majority of the American population had no problem driving cars without 4WD for personal use. And most people who drive cars (myself included) don't spend their days pining for something that can haul. Also, the gas prices in 2008 were not particularly high, didn't stay that way for long, and arguably had some effect (witness the number of crossovers replacing SUVs in the American vehicle fleet).
Methane and carbon are elements that have existed since the formation of this planet, no one has any idea what existed on this planet before about 6,000 years ago (pre-history), so your assertion does not hold water. If there have been "large shifts" in the earth's atomosphere that have lead to environmental devastation, as you say, it is a natural phenomenon (much like the creation and subsequent melting of the ice age theory). Again there is no hard EMPERICAL evidence that anything that humanity is doing is having any significant, long term affect on anything. That is simply propaganda that has beens spewed for so long by the media, that there are people, such as yourself who actually believe it.
20yrsinBranson
Science.
Modern Science has never been proven wrong, because when it is wrong it is considered out-dated, incorrect, and replaced with something new that works better. Keep in mind when you say, "Theory" things like "gravity" and "thermodynamics" are also just "theories". The Empirical (correct spelling) evidence is abundant.
Yes, it is a natural phenomenon, in that it naturally occurs in the universe, but it naturally occurs over millions of years. It does not naturally occur at the pace it is occurring today. The fact that the bible's lineage suggested 6000 years does not make it so. Do you know what Carbon dating is? Do you know what red-shift is? Do you know about the radioactive decay of uranium? Have you looked at the glaciers in Greenland or the walls in the Grand Canyon which have effectively recorded the timeline of our planet? Have you considered the rift on the ocean floor and the presence of the same species in different continents that are limited only to areas that would have been connected "theoretically" in Pangaea?
The science is very clear on the history of the earth. It isn't "pre-history", it is pre-"human recorded history". Even though we didn't record it, there are several geographic factors on earth that did create a natural record. We are now able to tell a great deal about it.
I mean no disrespect, but the oil companies are working hard to mislead the public in this regard. Remember leaded gasoline? Remember the idea of "safe levels" of lead? You do know, now, that it is absolutely and definitively toxic to human beings, right? There is a history of lies for profit. I'm not against profit, but I'm against pillaging the future generations to raise our standard of living.
Modern Science has never been proven wrong, because when it is wrong it is considered out-dated, incorrect, and replaced with something new that works better. Keep in mind when you say, "Theory" things like "gravity" and "thermodynamics" are also just "theories". The Empirical (correct spelling) evidence is abundant.
Yes, it is a natural phenomenon, in that it naturally occurs in the universe, but it naturally occurs over millions of years. It does not naturally occur at the pace it is occurring today. The fact that the bible's lineage suggested 6000 years does not make it so. Do you know what Carbon dating is? Do you know what red-shift is? Do you know about the radioactive decay of uranium? Have you looked at the glaciers in Greenland or the walls in the Grand Canyon which have effectively recorded the timeline of our planet? Have you considered the rift on the ocean floor and the presence of the same species in different continents that are limited only to areas that would have been connected "theoretically" in Pangaea?
The science is very clear on the history of the earth. It isn't "pre-history", it is pre-"human recorded history". Even though we didn't record it, there are several geographic factors on earth that did create a natural record. We are now able to tell a great deal about it.
I mean no disrespect, but the oil companies are working hard to mislead the public in this regard. Remember leaded gasoline? Remember the idea of "safe levels" of lead? You do know, now, that it is absolutely and definitively toxic to human beings, right? There is a history of lies for profit. I'm not against profit, but I'm against pillaging the future generations to raise our standard of living.
Lets not forget one thing, those oil companies have a lot of scientists working for them, where do you think they come up with all the misleading statements? Scientists, bought and paid for and not unlike many others who sit on the other side of arguments claiming this and that.
Global warming became climate change which is now becoming climate disruption since there probably isn't a human being on earth that doesn't know the climate changes, it always has and always will. Climate disruption is so much more dastardly sounding don't ya know.
Scientists forgot to convert measurements from one system (metric) to or from another (imperial) and trashed 125 million dollars of space craft. Oh, the science was perfect, the application of it, flawed. So it is with global/climate/change/disruption or whatever it is being called today.
When you say modern science has never been proved wrong, that only goes to show how wrong scientists are in the application of science.
i dunno, i'm just always encountered by people who claim it's too difficult for them to use less gasoline.
What's the end game here? When will you be satisfied? We have gone from driving cars that got 12mpg to 30 mpg, but that is still not enough. It is never enough. The real agenda is zero gallons. You'll love this.
I'm not against profit, but I'm against pillaging the future generations to raise our standard of living.
Every generation will solve their own problems. Nobody in the 1700s worried that they are burning all the wood and nothing will be left for future generations. Nobody in the 1800s worried that they are mining all the coal and nothing will be left for the future. When our turn came we found newer sources, developed new technology and found new supplies. It will happen again. Go enjoy your life while you can.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
