Americans: Put $100 billion plus into new bridges

Safe and durable infrastructure, or a one time $300 tax rebate. Hmmmmm. Decisions, decisions.

Since Mark Silva sees fit to base his article on the Gallup Poll, perhaps we'll see another Swamp article on yesterday's Gallup Poll results showing Hillary with a whopping 22% lead over St. Barack (48%-26%), a lead that's almost doubled since Gallup's last poll.

The new results follow Barack Obama's journey from "I'll meet anybody" to "I'll go into Pakistan no matter what."

On the GOP side, Rudy Giuliani maintains a solid 12% lead over Fred Thompson, with McCain and Romney trailing.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/08/latest-usatgall.html

We need to fix our country and get out of the expensive business of nation building.

You're four days behind on us on this one. Please note this from our report on the Pew Research Center poll on Friday:

Among Democrats surveyed, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York holds a nearly two-to-one advantage over Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in this survey – with 40 percent of registered Democrats and independents who lean Democrat siding with Clinton and 21 percent Obama. Al Gore, who says he isn’t running, claims 12 percent, and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who says he is running, claims 11 percent.

Clinton held a more “modest’’ advantage over Obama in Pew’s April survey –34 to 24 percent. Since then, Pew reports, support for the former First Lady has grown most among independent Democrats, liberals and moderates, college graduates, middle-aged and older voters. Who does that leave? Young people.

Among Republicans, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has lost some of the advantage which he held over other candidates since Pew last polled, in April.

Giuliani is the choice of 27 percent in the new Pew survey, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson 18 percent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona 16 percent, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 10 percent. In April, Pew found that Giuliani had 32 percent, McCain 23, Thompson 10 and Romney 8 percent.

For this and much more contained in the new Pew survey, see the lengthy report on the poll.

Bruce...there is another poll you forgot to mention. It shows that people will prefer any burger that is wrapped in a McDonalds wrapper. Kinda like republicans wrapping their candidate with a flag and the "war on terror" lingo!
Those darn children.

Weinerbrain, what you consistently fail to recognize is that tac cuts INCREASE government revenue. Government revenues INCREASE when people have more money to spend and more money to invest.
Hey, rather than deny us our own hard-earned dollars, how about if the Boy Governor actually lived in the state's capitol like all the other Illinois governor's have instead of flying back and forth to the tune of $6,000 a trip? Or rather than trying to ram through new spending programs we can't afford, how about putting the money into what we already have so what we already have works and doesn't fail?
Also, weinerbrain, while some money for road projects does come from the Feds, even more comes from the state as roads are state's responsibilities. One would think since we have the highest gas prices in the nation that perhaps the money would be there for the roads.

This is a good article. I am much more worried about bridges collapsing than I am global warming--it is just an Al Gore cause to get him elected to something.
All American legislatures should take a hard look at infrastructure and don't raise separate taxes but allow a formula amount annually to keep up with deteriorating infrastructure and roads and bridges. Jerry White, Springfield, IL P.S. John D is right on on reducing taxes!

Do we spend our tax dollars on new bridges in Baghdad or in our cities?

I have to ask, why post the comments of this John D. His posts are wrong on the facts, and argumentative.

it is just an Al Gore cause to get him elected to something.
Posted by: Jerry White | August 7, 2007 9:05 AM

Once again Jerry...Good call. Right on.....what ballot is he on again Jerry?

I find it quite odd that an article about bridge safety digresses into yet another pointless, inane discussion about the candidates. This is a true insult to the victims of this tragedy. People cannot put aside their political crap for one minute? I think the effort to improve, correct or raze bridges is way too late. Go over, or under if it is a viaduct and look at the condition. We will be reading more tragedies like this in the near future.

Tax cuts increase government revenue? We've heard that one before. What happens to your theory when tax rates reach zero? Do we get infinite tax revenue or zero tax revenue? I think there is a problem with your mathematics. Your theory also doesn't take into account the fact that much of the growth resulting from tax cuts now takes place outside the US.

Tax cuts can be used to stimulate the economy, but they do not automatically generate more tax revenue.

I am for a strong infastructure. Otherwise, maybe Ford can make a comeback by making thousands of General Lees.

Our Supreme Court appointed President does not care about the U.S. or its citizens. That is plain clear and obvious.
Instead of spending money on the infrastructure of the United States, Bush is spending our money on the infrastructure of civil war ravaged Iraq.
Again, it's their country, let the Iraqi's deal with their own problems.

Joe, please tell me where I am wrong? Illinois, and CHicago in particular in the past few weeks has had the highest gas prices in the nation, even incluing Hawaii. Chicago and Illinois has some of the highest gas taxes in the nation.
The Boy Governor does not live in Springfield and flies back and forth. Each trip ocsts approx. $6,000.
Road funding comes from two sources: state coffers and the Feds. Roadwork is largely the responsibility of the state and local governments (depending on the road). They get the bids, hire out the work, etc.
So, tell me, Joe, where that information is wrong.

How about this: Joe's posts are ignorant, incoherent and not factual, as well as argumentative. So why post Joe?

Socialist propaganda! I'm cancelling my subscription to this commie rag! If your bridges are falling apart, move to where the bridges are sturdy. That's the American free market working at its best. Get government's greedy hands out of my pocketbook.

Let people fix there own bridges and quit screwing the taxpayers. You know, just like the levees. People shouldn't live where they need levees or bridges anyhow.

Government revenues INCREASE when people have more money to spend and more money to invest.
Posted by: John D | August 7, 2007 8:51 AM

Little Johnny,if revenues have increased since 2000,why are the Repubs running up trillions in new debt?

I don't have the references to all of the studies for proof, but what I know is that President Bush is the only president in history to reduce taxes (not a bad thing, except in this instance) when gearing up and fighting a war. In the mean time our national debt has increased over one trillion dollars in the six and a half years he has been in office.
$100-$150 billion dollars to improve our infrastructure here versus the conflict in Iraq that has already cost $500 billion and may ultimately cost $1 trillion.

I think we could improve our intelligence gathering capabilities, protect our borders and improve our infrastructure for $1 trillion dollars than send it down a rabbit hole.
By the way, the cost of a war also encompasses compensating the loss of soldiers lives (3,600+ and counting), caring for all of the 20k+ casualties of soldiers (that Bush says he supports, except when it comes time to take care of those that only had to sacrifice their limbs rather than their lives), replacing equipment (good for the contractors, not necessarily bad for the economy) and paying bonus' to entice new recruits (currently $20k for a short while).

Being a business man, where is the return on our money? Increasing Al Qaeda recruiting in a country where there was no Al Qaeda to begin with? $500 billion and we still haven't gotten what we set out to get in the first place: Osama Bin Laden's head. See the 9/11 commission report. See the Iraq study group report.
I want a refund.

Hey all you that cross the I-290 bridge over the Chicago river at the Post Office (140,000 daily). I was looking at the bridge ratings published by the Tribune a few days ago. The 1-100 rating was done by people who are proported to know something about bridges.

The minneapolis bridge = 50

I-290 @ the post office=2!!!!!!!!

Hello - is anyone out there???

The government needs to put more money into mass transit, roads, bridges and airports or really just our entire infrastructure of transportation.

I think what some of John D's critics are missing is that its in his own little world of imaginary uptopia that tax cuts automatically increase government revenue. Also in that world -- troop surges solve everything, Iraq is a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, everyone who disagrees with him is branded Loony and locked up, and Bo Derek is his wife.

OK, looks like this discussion needs someone who ACTUALLY BUILDS BRIDGES AND ROADS FOR A LIVING. For the record, I am a licensed professional engineer in both Illinois and Florida.

When a bridge is rated "structurally deficient", it doesn't mean it will collapse tomorrow. It means that it is in need of maintenance at some point in the future. Bridges are designed with what is known as a "factor of safety" as well as structural redundancy to account for some deterioration over its useful service life. At 40 years old, this bridge was not likely at the point of requiring replacement.

It is 99% certain (from my experience) that the collapse was due (at least in part) to the maintenance and construction work that was going on at the time of the collapse. When you add/remove loads to a bridge structure (as was apparently occuring at the time), it sets up changes in the reactions of the structural components. If not done carefully, this can result in movement of the structure. The reports by the construction crews of vibrations is a dead giveaway.

We engineers, however, do not move at the pace of the frenetic, ratings-driven media storm. When a catastrophe like this occurs, we circle the wagons and look carefully at all factors before rendering a final judgement. The story will be told soon enough, but there is no need for widespread panic at this point.

For the media to pull out reports of thousands of "structurally deficient" bridges and claim a crisis is poppycock, and inflames the public unneccessarily.

Having said all this, the answer is clearly an increase in gasoline taxes. This will provide needed funding for infrastructure and encourage conservation at the same time. But you will never find a politician with a spine to raise taxes of any kind, so we get the infrastructure we deserve.

That is, until Americans are asked to contribute their fair share for the fixes. We're currently wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on a pointless, illegal war, the cost for which the current generation of irresponsible people is passing on to future generations. No more tax cuts -- it's time you people started paying your own way.

Yes John D black is white, up is down, cutting taxes increases revenue, and I have nothing better to do than argue with fools.

100 billion dollars.
That is a lot of money for politicians to pay off buddies and campaign supporters. I am not being synical. Look at the history of our political wonders.
People let us ask where is all the tax money that we pay for infrustructure? This is going to cost all of us. When it should have been taken care of as the years took its toll on our infrustructure. But we spent money paying for senotors health insurance and pensions that could never be touched. Unlike ours. We the people have to be smoart on this one. We must hold our leaders. Well your right we have no more leaders. We must hold the politions accountable for every penny they spend. It is our money after all. We are the one that work hard. The few of us that still have a job that did not go to china.
Remember America is the greatest country in the world and it is not because of our so called leaders. it is because of "We the people". Just ask any soldier that is buried in Arlington Cemetary. I am sure they will agree. That is why they are there they believed in America and it's people.

Best of Life

guess there are about 100 million taxpaying families in the US. So these folks are saying they're willing to pay an extra $1000 apiece to fix the bridges. good for them. somehow, tho, I'm not convinced that they were asked directly about whether they were willing to pay for the Big Fix. Talk is cheap.

This is not about demacrats and repblicans. This bridge did not deteriate in the last 6 years. This is about "We the people".
Are not holding our politicians accountable. We always have to bring things to a left or right situation. Then the hatred goes flying. Stop the hate and the blame everybody else game. This is our America. "We the people" Remember. Lets accept resposability for who we put in office Rep. or Dem. And stop voting along party lines. Lets Vote for an American. A person that wants the best for America. The best schools, The best health care, JOBS. Real job where people want to work and be productive. Not the kind of job where you ship things to china so they make all the money with slave labor, and then send us back tainted goods that are killing our people. People Let get our heads out of our butts and see the real bull&#$^ that is being given to us. Oh and quit watching the media they are telling you what to think, who to vote for, what pills you need. Let's all think on our own but differently and respect each others thoughts and work to gether.

How about the canidates fork over all but $500,000 dollars of there campaign money and put it towards the 100 billion dollars.
Lets see if they can work on that pocket change.

Wow, "tax cuts increase revenue." We know that Wingers actually believe this, but to spell it out so clearly... wow!

So many things wrong with this statement its hard to know where to start. The previous poster who asked what happens when tax rates hit zero has a good point. Then there's the consistent trend since World War II that the HIGHEST taxation rates coincide with the HIGHEST growth rates and highest government revenue. And since taxes were RAISED ("Record Tax Increase!!") in the 1990's, well surely we should have had stagnant growth and high deficits as far as the eye can see in the 1990's.(Insert Terry's paean to the personal computer or some other deluded spin). Remind me, how did that turn out?

You could also choose a more modern analogy, say the Bush Administration. These fools consider it an accomplishment that they've cut the astronomical DEFICIT in half. And what does this mean? That we're hemorraging only half as much money to China ($200+ billion) as we used to and adding slightly less annually to the debt, while the debt has increased nearly double since these tax cuts that "increase revenue" were enacted by John's hero President Bush. (I'd be laughing if having this kind of absolute Voodoo conversation weren't so infuriating)

I guess calories make you skinny, water makes you thirsty, exercise makes you fat, spending money increases your account balance, reading makes you dumber, listening to this imbecile Dyslin makes you smarter...

I'm back. (Had to do some actual work, you know.)

It's way too early to start drinking, so I'll ignore Little Johnny. But an actual engineer brings up an interesting point RE: gas taxes. Just to toss another grenade, (and hoping he's still around), what would you think about a graduated tax for heavier vehicles? Specifically, my understanding is that big trucks are more responsible for damage simply because of their weight. While user fees in the form of gas taxes could be considered regressive, perhaps increasing them on the users that cause the most damage will help address this obvious problem. (And no, reducing taxes will not help.)

I'm not sure that Gallup asked the right question. It's normal for Americans to support spending money. What's hard is getting them to agree to pay for their spending with an appropriate level of taxation. The reason that America's infrastructure is in such a mess is that Americans have bought into the "small government" mantra of the Republicans. The problem is that small governments don't have big visions, nor can they can't deliver big results.

Fix the bridges, or spend millions on flowers, fireworks, and 'cultural centers'? State and local governments are awash in cash right now and waste at the same rate as the feds. Why should the federal government flip the bill on this one? Its all about priorities on the local level too. New Orleans received federal grants meant for those levees and spent it on building casinos instead. There needs to be more accountability for problems like this on the local and state level instead of always looking to Washington to blame and provide the fixes.

I probably should have addressed my last comment to Econ 101. But just to clarify, to my engineering friend: logic would seem to indicate heavier vehicles cause greater stress, correct? To Econ 101: regressive vs. progressive taxation makes my head hurt, but wouldn't higher taxes be appropriate for those users who cause the most damage? How best to accomplish? Cheers.

In the zeal for authorizing politicians to "rebuild the infrastructure" it would be helpful to emphasize that means fixing roads and bridges. Not using gas or general tax revenue for budgetary shell games, "member initiatives", "earmarks", rewarding campaign contributors or inventing new social engineering schemes.

Ok, folks, here is some real Econ 101:

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html

Look at how the blue line, REVENUES, jumps up after a brief fall off in 2001-2002, which was because of recession and yes, tax cuts. But as you can see beginning in 2003 revenues began to skyrocket.

Tax increases do not help the economy. Tax increases hurt the economy. The so-called boon in the 1990s occurred in the late 1990s. Clinton's tax increase occurred in 1993, in which the economy actually stalled some in 1994, which helped lead to the GOP winning Congress.

As has been stated before, the tech boom of the late 1990s as well as implementation of GOP's Contract with America, which called for balancing the budget (GOP wanted budget balanced within 5-7 years, Clinton said 10-12 years) helped create the economic boon and budget surplus. When the tech economy fell through the floor in 2000, the economy and tax revenues fell with it.

Raise taxes! The infrastructure of the nation is sound and also needs improvement in lots of areas. My great grandfather and his fathers generation built a lot of this aging stuff. I'd like to see things replaced/revamped - levees, roads, sewage and rail lines, etc. If we must borrow money from the Chinese (because our governments spending is higher than generated REVENUES), lets at least pay for some shiny new infrastructure (not in 3rd world countries). Cutting taxes will NEVER increase government cash flows or revenue the same way as raising them can. Its a myth perpetuated by the corrupt. Sure, it MAY indirectly help the governments bottom line over time - right now the government needs hard cash. Americans and politicians are afraid of contributing more for the things that will benefit us and need to get a clue! Lets get rid of the ghettos, the rickety rail lines, and that funky sewage smell that permeates many Chicago streets. Lets make our vintage highways suitable for todays traffic patterns and our cities safer from natural disasters and terr'r'rist attacks. Lets elect people who have a strong understanding of the world, finances, management, and economics. Raise taxes and get a clue!

To those who suggest it inane that tax cuts might increase government revenues, perhaps you should review the Econ 101 topic of the Laffer curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve).

In the free market philosophy of supply and demand, when in-demand products are scarce (e.g. gasoline) prices rise to either discourage consumption or, if the scarcity is artificially imposed, increase profits. It is ironic that the same folks who decry Big Oil's "obscene" profits suggest that we're depleting this resource. The supply continues to meet the demand so the higher prices are not - at this time - due to scarcity. When supply exceeds demand, prices decrease.

So, in free markets, there is an ideal price point that maximizes profit, relative to revenue from sales versus costs to produce.

Taxes behave in a different way. Taxes serve to suppress free market behavior and those most affected are those with the highest relative tax burden.

Taxes are necessary for carrying out the governments responsibility "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." But, just as there is a sweet spot for competitive pricing versus cost effectiveness that will maximize profits in the private sector, there is a sweet spot for taxes that will maximize government revenues.

This is intuitive. One writer pointed out that a 0% tax rate would bankrupt the government. But so would a 100% tax rate, as it would so discourage investment, not to mention the general work force that no one would have an incentive to better themselves.

What politicians and a well-informed, well-intentioned citizenry debate, therefore, is what tax rate will maximize government revenues? Some conservatives and most libertarians argue that maximizing government revenues ought not be the goal -- bigger government (from maximized tax revenues) means more central control and less freedom. They believe the government should be starved (even if it means deficits) to force it to shrink. Responsible government, in their view, must live within its means and, if there are less means, then the government must do less.

Those more given to socialist thinking (not meant in a derogatory sense) believe that the government is a reflection of the society and, therefore, has a responsibility to address the needier members of society. They are compelled by the Marxist axiom, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Therefore, if the needs are greater, then we must work harder through the tax rolls to meet the needs. They, too, believe we must live within our means. However, if the needs are greater, the solution is to raise taxes.

Some view taxes as a means to balance the playing field in the private sector. To them, it's about fairness. Therefore, those who earn more should be penalized with a higher tax rate. The verb could be changed from "penalized with" to "responsible for" or something else to void a reaction. The result is the same. Thus, we have a graduated income tax.

On a side, isn't it interesting that gasoline is the only product sold with taxes already figured in to the advertised price? That's because it is so heavily taxed, citizens would demand greater accountability from the generated revenues. We should be requiring greater transparency on the pricing of this product.

Those who suggest that increasing gas taxes is the ideal solution for addressing infrastructure issues as well as the added benefit of reducing consumption and the associated pollution miss the point. Higher prices will eventually suppress demand. It will also reduce private sector profits -- and associated jobs -- and reduce government revenues.

Remember the promises made when toll ways were first introduced? The tolls would be used to pay off the bonds used to build the roads. Once the bonds were paid off, the tollways were to become freeways. How many Illinois tollways were converted to freeways -- decades after the road bonds were paid off? None. Zero. Why? Because we got used to paying the tolls. We absorbed them into our lifestyles. When the bonds were paid off we were told that the revenues would be used to maintain the rest of the roadway infrastructure -- including our thousands of bridges. OK, who's holding government accountable?

http://www.cbpp.org/7-12-05bud.htm
"The increase in revenues does not confirm the “Laffer Curve;” tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Some tax-cut proponents have begun claiming that the recent rise in tax revenues proves that the tax cuts of recent years are increasing revenues and that the “Laffer Curve” is working.[3] According to this argument, revenues could be higher than they would have been in the absence of the tax cuts. However, the consensus among economists and financial analysts, and the empirical data, are strongly consistent with the basic, common-sense notion that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They result in less, not more, government revenue. Not only do the several recent years of revenue declines suggest this, but the experience of the 1980s and the 1990s does as well. The average economic growth rates for those two decades were virtually identical. But the rates of revenue growth diverged sharply. Revenue collections grew much more robustly in the 1990s — when taxes were increased — than in the 1980s, when taxes were cut sharply. Not coincidentally, the nation’s fiscal position improved substantially in the 1990s, after deteriorating in the 1980s."

"YEA, ITS A GOOD THING, NOW IF WE CAN GET BEN BERNAKE TO GET OFF OF BUSH'S COUCH AND RAISE INTEREST RATES TO OFFSET THE RICH MAN FROM JUST SHAKING THE TREE EVERY FRIDAY.

YES DAY TRADERS - SUCK YOU IN AND KICK YOU TO THE CURB ON FRIDAY.

BUT GOOD SHOT AMERICA AND CONGRESS. MAYBE THERE WILL BE SOME PRIVACY AT LEAST WHILE CROSSING A BRIDGE.

Weinerbrain wants to tax truckers some more. Sorry, weiner but truckers are having a rough enough time making money due to high gas prices. Taxing them even more will just put most out of business.

"Otherwise, maybe Ford can make a comeback by making thousands of General Lees.

Posted by: Firstname Lastname | August 7, 2007 9:54 AM"

The car called the "General Lee" in "The Dukes of Hazzard" television show was a Dodge Charger, not a Ford.

John D, So if trucking companies do the most damage to highways and bridges, we should continue to subsidize their operations by paying a larger share of their true costs? That sounds like the loonie leftist solution for keeping truckers employed rather than the free market solution. It's good to see you coming around to our side...

My gradfather was killed by a truck driver in 1981. The driver's cdl license had been suspenped over a year before. The load he was carrying was: not loaded correctly, exceeded the trailers documented capacity exceeded the weight limit for the sreet he was on. His rig had been approved by all "inspectors". He was driving for a company, not idependently, showing that the company did not care about anybody's safety, only in profits to help them pay off the people they needed to to maintain such an illiegal operation. How else could a man with a revoked license (dui, reckless homicide {prior to my grandpa's accident}, many other violations) get on with this company.

I mention this, not to seek pity over the loss of a loved one, but to demonstrate why I have trouble sharing John D's empathy for truckers. It is my humble opinion that more trucks, and truckers, fit the description of the man that killed my grandfather than not. MOst truckers still falsify their travel logs. Most companies still cut as many corners as possible, relying on payoffs and kickbacks to get away with it. The trucking companies need to held accountable for all of their crimes/damage, not just to bridges.

Truckers who own their rigs are some of the wealthiest people I know. Sorry to bring facts and perspective to the equation little Johnny D.

Appreciating Joe's comments, his claims do lack evidence. While the Laffer curve is a useful tool to exhibit that there are taxing schemes that will maximize governmental revenues, it is nevertheless a simple tool to illustrate the point.

Supply siders argue that lower marginal rates will result in greater economic activity. Therefore, revenues not captured from worker paychecks will be more than compensated by increased investment activity and consumer purchases. For conservatives and libertarians, this is more principally in line with a free market economy.

Critics of the Laffer curve correctly object that marginal rates that are too low will result in government deficits that will take too long to recoup through the increased economic activity. Thus, there is an ideal (or perhaps multiple ideal) tax strategies that will maximize government revenues (if that's the goal) while avoiding a political tax revolt that results in a Congressional party shift.

The question of whether the Reagan/Bush versus the Clinton tax policies yielded greater revenues is not so easily determined. It is more easily argued that the Keynesian tax policies of the Johnson (Great Society), Nixon (Wage-Price controls), and Carter (malaise, energy "crisis") eras stifled tax revenues and led to a severe recession. Contrasted with the more Reagan-like tax policies of Kennedy, we get a better picture, at least during that era of relatively small government, that the Kennedy's policies worked better than Johnson/Nixon/Carter.

Was the recession early in Reagan's presidency a consequence of Carter's policies? Was the Bush(1)/Clinton boom a result of Reagan's policies? (Or was it the welfare reform Clinton was backed into by Newt and is Contract allies?) Was the Bush(2) recession a result of Clinton's policies (exacerbated by 9/11 and the tech fallout following Y2K)? This will be argued for years.

Joe, one cannot say, given the complexity of economics that either tax cuts result in lower revenues or that tax increases yield higher revenues. Economies are very dynamic and sensitive to the mood swings of the economic contributors (be they taxpayers, consumers, producers, etc.). The Fed has an important role both in establishing monetary policies that will avoid or reduce the impact of recessions (keeping inflation below the percentage GDP is thought to be key) and controlling who can access loans for investments (through marginal interest rates).

It's fairly simple to see the contributors to the positive economies of the past (e.g. the recent tech boom has created demand for a new genre of products that have become increasingly cheaper -- like a tax cut in the private sector that spurs greater economic activity elsewhere because you'll buy more stuff or, hopefully, invest with the additional cash). Government needs similar pressures as the private sector to innovate and do more with less. Unfortunately, it exhibits the opposite behavior, doing less with more. Rather than eliminating obsolete or ineffective programs, politicians continue to barter the future by not merely perpetuating these programs but by expanding them. Shrinking government is not in the politician's prime interest. That's why you see government expanding under both parties. Government spending and obligations, as a percentage of GDP, has been growing at an accelerated pace, despite increased revenues -- and yes, the government takes in more revenue than it ever has.

Thus, argue conservatives and libertarians, the problem is not that we aren't taxed enough, it's that the bloated government consumes even more than we feed it. Stop giving it more money -- argued no one less than Keynes -- and the government will eventually be forced to consume less. Though no one like deficits, Keynes also argued that manageable deficits resulted in a private sector incentive to work harder to eliminate it. It was a tangible target to shoot for.

Federal department budgets were growing at a 7% annual rate. When Bush suggested that the growth of government be curtailed to the rate of inflation, the cries of agony were trumpeted on the cover of the NYT of how Bush was going to force the poor and elderly to choose between food and medicine. Yet Bush's Medicare reform and his and Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind programs amounted to the largest growth in government since Johnson's Great Society initiatives.

The next batch of politicians promise even greater expansion. More government equals less freedom, for us and our posterity due to the capital burden it will place on us. Dollars spent on higher taxes cannot be spent on paying higher college tuition, housing, food, or in contributions to the charity of Your choice.

To respond to wienerdog:

You are correct that heavy trucks impart greater loads and therefore more stress on the infrastructure. The way we account for this is in calculating the percentage of trucks that will use a given facility, and extrapolate that into what are called Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL's) over the useful life of the facility.

Unfortunately, the reality of the trucking industry is that those costs will be borne by the small, independent truck driver disproportionately. Taxes on diesel fuel are already different in some states as compared with gasoline.

Tom O, please explain how my belief to tax truckers more is a left wing approach?
Weinerbrain wants them to pay more to help fund the roads. I am saying they are being stretched to the limit as it is.

Anyway, Rob S., sorry about your grandfather. No doubt there are plenty of jerk truckers on the road, but no more than there are jerk cardrivers on the road. However, much of this nation's commerce is shipped by trucks. Taxing them will not help their economy or the nation's economy any.

Actual, thanks for the cogent response.

Nevertheless, doesn't your point that independent truckers bearing more of the cost extend down to the traveling public as well? In other words, are not those of us who drive autos subsidizing ALL forms of trucking? What about motorcycles? Certainly, they cause infinitesimal damage compared to other vehicles.

Those that cause the vast majority of the damage should pay the most, should they not?

Thank you John D. for your thooughts. Yes there are jerk cabdrivers, schoolbus drivers, drivers et.al. Heck, as a Social Worker I have seen people with PACE certification to drive clients that I would not let them drive my cat.
Unfortunately, it takes a disaster like Minnesota's to wake people out of their apathy. I know raising the taxes on truckers is not the answer. We have the answer right here, right now. Just try to pretend and utilize the existing regulations. There is everything on the books to address all of the issues presented here. They are simply to easy to pay off, bribe or weasel out of.

"Appreciating Joe's comments, his claims do lack evidence."
Outside of the defense department, the largest budget item is the interest payment on the debt. When Reagan came to office, he trumpeted the great tragedy of the federal debt, and then proceeded to multiply that debt, as have his predecessors. My claims lack evidence? Sorry dag, your claims are farcical. The current times are much like the end of Rome, wherein powerful special interests came to see the government as an impediment, and undermined it by eroding its taxing authority. One day they awoke to see Huns waiting for the river to freeze, and no army to defend them. I for one do not believe that it is a good idea to drown the federal government in red ink, and you'll excuse me but I decline to indulge the tendentious reasoning of those that think it is a good idea.

I'll type slow John. Subsidizing the trucking industry by having other road users pay for the damage they do to the roads amounts to a form of welfare for that industry. It penalizes other forms of transportation like railroads if they do not receive equivalent government assistance. I applaud your concern for truckers and will refrain from any further cracks about your joining the lefties.

The Swamp is acting weird, not sure if this is going to post multiple times. If so, I'm sorry.

"Stop giving it more money -- argued no one less than Keynes -- and the government will eventually be forced to consume less."

That's a great theory for an individual consumer who can't simply print money. However, our government is not encumbered by needing to have the funds on hand to cover expenses. The government, aided by the Chinese who are hoarding our cash as fast as we can print it, just keeps lending us money. The break that Keynes expected does not exist, because foreigners are willing to finance our debt (seemingly) indefinitely.

"Though no one like deficits, Keynes also argued that manageable deficits resulted in a private sector incentive to work harder to eliminate it."

The first part of that sentence is simply not true: Republicans believe in deficits.

"O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired." http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm

Furthermore, I have a huge problem with the concept that the best way for America to grow is to dig itself a really big hole to climb out of, so it will focus the minds, to paraphrase Keynes (according to dag's interpretation). This is like saying that the best way for an individual consumer to prosper is to drown him or herself in enormous credit card debt, so that they can then focus like a laser beam on getting out of it. Convoluted to the core, yeesh.

There are two concepts that, in my opinion, have led and will continue to lead America to prosperity: Pay-Go and progressive taxation.

Pay-go means that we stop taking on debt (or at least dramatically reduce it) by taxing people the populus at a level that at least comes close to supporting the government we have (warts and all). Progressive taxation means that those who benefit most from the spoils of the economy pay the most, with those making the least money paying the smallest share of tax revenue.

dag brings up an interesting point about the optimal tax rate, and its safe to say that America will never agree on what that is. But I find the conservative argument on this topic extremely difficult to swallow, and based in the same kind of clinical thinking that has produced enormous budget deficits and the rush to war in Iraq.

The tax rates right now are near the lowest they have been in America in the Industrial Era. In 1950's under Eisenhower, the top marginal rate was 91%!! Remind me, were the 1950's a time of economic hardship? Umm, hardly. This chart illustrates the point quite nicely: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Historically, the marginal rate has been above 30% for all but 10 of the years since World War I. Three of those years correspond with the Bush I recession (or the Reagan recession, if you prefer). Of the rest, all in the 1920's and early 30's, 4 correspond with the end of the Gilded Age and the last 3 with the start of the Great Depression.

So the argument that Americans are overtaxed is both inaccurate historically, as well as ignorant of other developed nations. If increasing taxes, in particular on the wealthy, the reverse of supply-side theory, resulted in calamity, the 1990's should have been a second Great Depression. The Bush I tax increase should have killed the economy, with Clinton's increase being the final nail in the coffin. Remind me, did America suffer a depression in the early 90's that I don't know about, and that is not supported by government economic data?

My point is, the proper level of taxation lies somewhere between the unsustainable (even IF we can grow ourselves out of DEFICIT, we're nowhere near even looking to bring down the DEBT which will provide an enormous burden on this generation and future ones) current levels, and a top rate of 40-45%, weighted heavily toward progressivity that leaves a very small tax burden for those earning wages at the bottom.

The Europeans have gone a bit too far towards socialism, and America has gone way too far towards DEBT. I realize its politically difficult to suggest raising taxes, but it would be refreshing to hear the head-in-the-sand ideologues explain why an economy based on taking on more and more debt is going to eventually work its way back to even.

If an individual treated their household expenses like the government does, they would have been bankrupted long ago. Or to put this in the perspective of our "CEO President," if he were a CEO (assuming the company were still solvent), the board would have ousted him long ago for failure to produce.

Its amusing that Republicans tout this "great economy." Jeez, I'd hope we'd get SOMETHING for the nearly $2 TRILLION of stimulus (debt) from the tax cuts and the increased defense spending

Civil Engineer - thanks for some facts about the bridge.

Jim,

"We're currently wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on a pointless, illegal war, the cost for which the current generation of irresponsible people is passing on to future generations." Speaking of passing on costs to fguture generations, how is social security doing?

Econ 101 - you know what happens when tax rates hit zero. Do you know what happens when they hit 100%? I guess you haven't had Econ 102.

Weiner, heavier vehicle do pay more in gas (fuel) taxes since they get less MPG. By the way, who do you think would pay those taxes on heavy vehicles that deliver the goods we consume?

The laffer curve explanation is excellent. It depends on which side of the curve you believe we are in. Those that want to raise taxes must realize that a tax is another raised cost and capital will look to avoid it.

We all avoid taxes when we have to pay them. How many of us have driven to the next county/state to pay less for gas due to lower taxes. We all do it.

As far as rasining teh gas tax, you libs do realize that the gas tax is a regressive tax and hurts teh working poor the most.