Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Pump Up the Gas Tax

By

Pumping up the gas tax by 19 cents a gallon hasn’t met with universal acclaim in the four western counties, even though it would give public transportation in this part of the world a real shot in the arm. So here’s a video of my friend Leo Maley explaining why the proposal is good news for Western Massachusetts. Leo is the executive director of Progressive Massachusetts PAC and (full disclosure) he managed my successful 2004 bid for the Governor’s Council.

You can also access the video via my blog, the Vickery Voice.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1.    We drive those gas-guzzlers. I prefer to be independent. Your gas tax discriminates against us.

    • I’ve heard it suggested that there be a tax rebate for those who need certain vehicles for accessibility purposes.

      • If I have to wait until tax filing time to get any rebate for a heavy gas user that I have no choice but to use, it doesn’t make up for stressing me out financially the rest of the year. Offer me a carrot to reduce gas use, don’t whack me with a stick. I hate the use of government policy and the tax code to coerce me into the desired behavior by financial punishment. I respond much better to argument and explanation.

        • this may be ‘regressive’ for the disabled. However, the very same people who support his are the ones who are supporting increased public transportation and other priorities for numerous communities, including the disabled. Which group of politicians are discriminating more against the disabled — those who support a modest increase to the gas tax, a sizable portion of which goes to public transportation, or the community that says no to new taxes or anything else, including services that benefit the disabled? I would think those who are disabled need increased access to services, not the other way around.  

          • Deval’s modest gas tax increase is visionary, in part, because over half of the 19 cents would go toward funding public transportation (MBTA, RTAs, and commuter rail expansion).

            <

            p>Regional Transit Authorities would see a 66 percent increase in state funding.  That is transformative and worth getting behind for that reason alone.

            <

            p>–Leo

    • The disabled do not drive those gas guzzlers.

      <

      p> * The blind don’t drive
      * Many with mental disabilities don’t drive; the rest don’t need gas-guzzlers
      * Many with cognitive disabilities don’t drive; the rst don’t need gas-guzzlers
      * Some with physical disabilities don’t drive; many with physical disabilities don’t need gas-guzzlers
      * The disabled in Boston metro have The Ride, with an annual budget of $57,000,000, which is available 365 days a year from 6am to 1am, and has a 0% trip denial rate within their 729 square miles of coverage.

      <

      p>It’s true, there is a small percentage of the disabled community who must drive a gas-guzzler to have transportation, and I suspect that if you took a positive approach about the specific needs of this small percentage of the disabled community, that you’d find nothing but sympathy and agreement around here.  Why, I suspect you’d find universal support for a tax structure which removed that additional tax from your gasoline use, subject to a doctor’s approval, much like a handicap placard.

      <

      p>Instead, you’ve come on multiple threads claiming to represent the disabled when in fact few members of the disabled require gas-guzzlers for their transportation, and you’ve framed it as if society has it out for you.  It’s not about you.  It’s got nothing to do with you.  It’s about climate change.  It’s about trade balance.  It’s about funding public transportation infrastructure for everyone.  It’s about environmental and economic sustainability.  Why not encourage public policy which improves our sustainability while also making things better for those with disabilities, including the small percentage of the disabled which require gas-guzzlers?  It’s not an either-or problem; we can do both.  Doing both, however, requires folks like you to approach the problem like an adult, not a five year old brat who sees every single issue as “for me” or “against me”.

    • I work part-time as a personal care assistant (PCA) for a long-time friend of mine who is in a wheel chair.  She is an amazing, strong, independent woman.  She favors the gas tax increase.

      <

      p>There are obvious remedies for the concern you raise….A tax rebate, for instance, for those who need to drive a van with a chair lift.

      <

      p>An underfunded transportation infrastructure benefits no one….except, perhaps, a small group of anti-government ideologues (think CATO Institute) who perversely and short-sightedly want public structures to fail.

      <

      p>–Leo

    • This comment is better than most of your rants against the gas tax, but it’s still got that pouty five-year-old tone to it. Try dropping the sarcasm and the anger. Don’t get me wrong, I know you have a lot to be angry about. But anger almost never gets you anywhere. Especially not expressed as sarcastic comments on a blog.

      <

      p>How about instead just saying, “Chair-equipped vans use a lot of gas, and disabled people are often people of limited means. How about we put in place some sort of exemption?”

      <

      p>Constructive comments will get you a lot farther than sarcastic comments.

  2. The gas tax is an investment in our future.  We should be talking about 50 cents a gallon, phased in 2 cents a month over the next two years.  First 19 cents could be distributed as the governor says.  

    <

    p>As for the next 31, well, each penny will generate about $30 million in revenue.  

    <

    p>16 cents could be used to eliminate the regressivity of the tax, by providing $480 million to give back in tax rebate direct payments to the state’s 1 million poorest individuals.  Each person would get $480, as $40 a month.

    <

    p>15 cents could be used to dramatically expand proven, effective public transportation in the Commonwealth. High speed rail from Boston to Springfield, and new light rail networks, one around Worcester, the other in Springfield, Chicopee and the Pioneer Valley.  Rail from Plymouth to Provincetown, too, to take the pressure off Route 6. The commuter rails need to upgrade with high-speed electric trains that can move people faster, using renewable sources.

    <

    p>Major improvements in and around Boston, including the construction of an Urban Rings, built as light rail.  One possible alignment would link Logan-Chelsea-Everett-Somerville-Cambridge-Brookline-Roxbury-Dorchester-Southie-Logan.  Another possiblity would run Lynn-Saugus-Melrose-Malden-Medford-Arlington-Belmont-Watertown-Newton-Roslindale-Mattapan-UMassBoston.

    <

    p>Of course, the need to enact major reform — ending 23-years-and-done MBTA pensions, getting rid of the ridiculous “final 3 will make me (rich)” rules for state pensions; ending the sweetheart deals, etc., is required.

  3. I guess you can profess a preference for one tax over another but the conversation is pretty pointless unless it is in the context of the budget and compared to other options on the table.

    <

    p>You have stated your desire for a gas tax, meals tax, candy tax, income tax (I think?) etc… It just makes Dems look bad. Yes, we want to raise all of the taxes!

    <

    p>We need to discuss the best ways to raise revenue for the state while working to stimulate the economy. All this discussion about what your favorite tax is just plays right into the stereotype and that is how we end up with Republican govs…

    <

    p>

    • Deval was the only major gubernatorial candidate in 2006 to say that we should NOT “honor the pledge”–as it was framed by Gabrieli, Reilly, Mihos, and the pathetic Republican candidate who’s name, honestly, slips my mind this morning–to the voters and lower the income tax to 5 percent.

      <

      p>By telling the truth about the value of our public structures–OUR roads, OUR schools, etc.–Deval changed the debate, noticeably shifted public opinion on the tax issue, and, as I recall, won both the primary and general elections in a landslide.

      <

      p>Making the case for the value of public structures and pushing back against knee-jerk anti-tax rhetoric and frames was a large part of his appeal.

      <

      p>Incidentally, Deval’s political stock plummeted when he got off message and lined up behind predatory gambling as a first-choice option for raising revenue.  In refreshing contrast, the Deval of the last three weeks is the Deval of the campaign.  It is good to have him back.

      <

      p>–Leo

      <

      p>P.S.  I am a board member of Casino Free Massachusetts.

      <

      p>

      • I’m not an anti-taxer. I do believe the we probably need to raise taxes. BTW – give me a choice between a casino or a tax, I’ll take the tax thank you.

        <

        p>My point is that it’s counter productive to release a cavalcade of potential taxes and discuss them in individual terms. This discussion should be about what the right revenue solution is in the aggregate for the budget this year and in the future. As I said, having a what’s your favorite tax discussion and rolling out potential tax suggestions is counter productive and stereotypical.

        • I agree.

          <

          p>Deval is a great communicator.  But the roll-out of Deval’s gas tax proposal, as well as the modest taxes that were part of the Governor’s “House 1” budget, clearly leaves much to be desired.

          <

          p>Looking back a bit, the Administration’s handling of the casino issue last year was textbook ineptness from the day the proposal was floated until after(!!!!) the vote in the House.

          <

          p>As a board member of Casino Free Massachusetts I gave thanks for those missteps every day.  But as an early supporter of Deval Patrick, a progressive and deeply partisan Democrat, and someone who wants to see Deval suceed, I could only cringe.

          <

          p>But we are where we are….And we play with the hands we are dealt.  Our revenue crisis is real.  Time is short.  A gas-tax vote could happen within weeks.

          <

          p>That’s why I’m pushing so hard on the gas tax now.

          <

          p>Longer term, I’d like to see us go back to the ballot with a constitutional provision to allow a graduated/progressive income tax.

          <

          p>–Leo

    • That memory of last year is still way too fresh.  I definitely do NOT want to go back to that price range, thank you very much!

  5. However, I have a few concerns. First of all,  Most of us already use as little gas as possible.  I own a Dodge Neon. The only driving I do every week is to work, and to run household errands.  I couldn’t possibly cut back on my driving any more than I already have, as you propose would happen with a gas tax.  What this tax would do is take money out of our stagnant weekly household budget.That would be about $6.00 per week in total for my husband and myself.  I think we could afford this as long as OPEC doesn’t decide to play games with production again, and now that the oil twins no longer control of the country.

    <

    p>Secondly, I live in South Central/Western Massachusetts. Thank you for acknowledging that this area has not received it’s fair share of public money for infrastructure and public transportation. Improving bus service would be welcomed, but the roads need major repairs as well. Currently the buses bump and heave over potholes and uneven surfaces on our roads.  Not only is it costly to maintain the buses, but it is truly a safety hazard as they swerve to avoid the worst bumps and potholes. If this area has been so easily neglected and left behind to date, why on earth would I believe for a second that it would be anything more than the same in the future.  Perhaps you can promise us 3 cents of the 19 cent tax, but it’s almost certain that some emergency in Eastern Mass will occur that will surely take precedence and delay any funds for Western Ma.  I don’t feel this way because I choose to. I feel this way because I’ve seen the same story replay itself time and time again.  And it doesn’t help to see this list of earmarks recently presented for the stimulus package that doesn’t include anything for Western MA.

    <

    p>Taken from http://www.boston.com/news/loc…

    <

    p>(granted it said partial list, but I’ve searched high and low for what is earmarked for Western MA and can’t find anything, if you know of anything, please let me know)

    <

    p>~Fitchburg commuter rail improvements, $30 million
    ~John F. Kennedy Presidential Library addition, $22 million
    ~ Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate,     $5.8 million
    ~Oak Bluffs ferry terminal, $1.9 million
    ~T2 Biosystems in Cambridge, water contamination detection  system, $1.4 million
    ~Fall River bus terminal, $950,000
    ~Long Island ferry dock, Boston, $950,000
    ~Children’s Wharf landing, Boston, $950,000
    ~Wonderland transit improvements, Revere, $950,000
    ~Longfellow Bridge gateway, Cambridge, $900,000
    ~Chelsea transit center, $855,000
    ~Beverly and Salem transit stations, $783,750
    ~Tufts-New England Medical Center equipment, $618,000
    ~Kendall Square clean technology organization, Cambridge, $475,750
    ~Commonwealth Avenue pedestrian and bicycle safety, $475,000
    ~Whittier Street Health Center expansion, $475,000
    ~Becker College facilities and equipment, Worcester, $357,000
    ~Brandeis University research program, $319,000
    ~Simmons College youth sports program, $300,000
    ~Boston Medical Center research $285,000
    ~Haverhill downtown streetscape, $285,000
    ~Tufts University obesity research, $254,000
    ~Girl Scouts at-risk youth initiative, Boston, $250,000

    <

    p>Please know that I’m am not trying to be difficult for the sake of being difficult.  I’m just trying to speak out to what the reality is of life in the western part of the state, not to the detriment of the eastern part of the state.  I love Boston and its suburbs, I love the culture, the ambiance, the fun and excitement of the whole area.
    But Western MA is a huge part of Massachusetts that has to be maintained and cared for as well. It is declining, just in case you didn’t know that. So I would jump up and down for joy if the improvements to Western MA did come to pass.

    <

    p>

    • I live in Western Mass (Amherst) and drive main and back roads in all four Western counties.

      <

      p>Regional equity is a real and legitimate concern.  Deval’s bill–for the first time ever–legislates regional equity.  A minimum of 75 percent of gas tax revenue raised in a region would be spent in the region.

      <

      p>This is a game changer, as it would guarantee year-in-year-out money for Western Mass. transportation projects.

      <

      p>I worry that if the legislature “compromises”(translation:  continues to underfund transportation infrastructure) and passes a much lower gas tax increase, that Deval’s regional provisions necessarily will fall by the wayside.

      <

      p>Our state’s unconscionable and unsustainable transportation debt–highest in the nation–gets paid down first, metro Boston (where most people live and whom most legislators represent) gets first crack at what is left, Western Mass (as usual) gets the crumbs.

      <

      p>If you don’t (as I don’t) want that to happen, it is critical to get behind a gas tax increase at least in the neighborhood of what Deval is proposing.

      <

      p>–Leo

      • Please speak out about that. If we could get commuter rail to cross the state from Boston, through Palmer and points West, it would have a such a positive impact on the region, and therefore the entire state. I would agree to a .19 gas tax if it were going to be use wisely, to benefit all of us.

    • printed in a Boston newspaper.  Local news in Western MA has highlighted a number of earmarks — big ones, for Western MA — which also has a couple of members of Congress and two Senators.

      <

      p>While your general point is certainly well taken, this is a post about a state gas tax and how it would be applied in-state.  

      <

      p>I think that the details bear greater scrutiny than they seem to have received.

      <

      p>That darned devil is always in the details, isn’t it?

      <

      p>

      • I have looked everywhere for them and can’t find any.
        I did find this one…
        http://www.legistorm.com/earma…
        but it is hard to break it down into regions. Masslive.com
        doesn’t have any information.  So if you could pass along a link I would really appreciate it.

  6. … our average income is lower, by far, than those in Boston metro.

    <

    p>-Things are farther apart, so we drive further for the basics, like groceries, underwear, etc… (today I am driving half an hour to buy a door closer for our storm door that was damaged in a storm)

    <

    p>- Many of us live in the hills, so 4×4 transportation is hardly a soccer-mom luxury.

    <

    p>- Our public transportation sucks. Absolutely sucks. if you do not live near a highway, forget about it. And even then, you are lucky if the bus comes once an hour during the busiest periods. – and it will be 95% empty because it does not work for the vast majority of those who could use it. Infusing a “66%” increase on a system that currently does nothing will amount to nothing.

    <

    p>- and, as most so called “progressives” understand, sales taxes are, BY FAR, the MOST regressive taxes – They affect the poor disproportionately, and we are demographically among the poorest in the state.

    <

    p>If you want to raise the tax on our gasoline, which IS a necessity, you might as well tax our bread, milk and eggs. It will have the same effect. And given the precarious state of the economy, especially in western MA, screwing us is a really stupid thing to do.

    <

    p>Western MA’s infrastructure has suffered for two generations due to the Big Dig. And now you think that removing 25% of the gas tax raised in the poorest area in the commonwealth (that’s an Oyxmoron these days) is “progressive”?!?!?!? Bite me!

    <

    p>The best solution for the Big Dig – You use it, you pay for it. We’ll be here to wipe you kid’s noses on your skiing vacations and visits to our museums.

    <

    p>Boston has the power to make Berkshire County affordable for only the rich. That is a logical consequence of policy like this.  

    • The roads in Berkshire County suck.  (Which I can confirm, having worked in Berkshire County.)

      <

      p>Public transportation in Berkshire County sucks.

      <

      p>Therefore, let’s continue with more of the same?!?!?!

      <

      p>The gas tax has not been raised in 18 years.  It has lost 33 percent of its value during that time.

      <

      p>That is a huge effective tax cut.

      <

      p>But you seem not to like what that effective tax cut got you…crappy roads and limited public transportation.

      <

      p>Or maybe it is easier to just complain about “Boston” and the Big Dig?

      <

      p>If the legislature had increase the gas tax by half a cent a year over the last 18 years we wouldn’t be facing this transportation funding crisis.

      <

      p>–Leo

      • … regional distribution in western MA is a non-starter. maybe we should borrow a few billion dollars on the state’s credit and then make the rest of the state pay for our new roads and bridges. Oh wait, the metro area would never let that happen…..

        <

        p>And this is the wrong tax to raise. Pretty simple. Hike the income tax. Raise an excise tax. Raise the hotel tax. I don’t care.

        <

        p>But whatever you do, don’t raise a highly regressive tax that is collected passively and call it progressive. It is insulting.

  7. Because we’re used to it?

    <

    p>Why is the price of gas now a weekly news item?  Why not announce the price of milk or bread every week?

    • …regarding why it’s news:

      <

      p>It fluctuates rapidly compared to other prices.

      <

      p>It’s also the only thing most people buy several gallons at a time.

      <

      p>When I first got my own car in late 2001 gas was ~$1.20 per gallon.  Last year it topped out at ~3.5 times that.  I can’t think of any other product that jumped by that much in that amount of time.  Inflation was higher than in the 1990s, but not by that much!

  8. Obviously cheap gas reduces spending for those (and I am one) who drive, but cheap gas encourages rational individual decions that collectively lead to extraordinary environmental damage.  Cheap gas also cannot last, so it is ultimately unsustainable both environmentally and economically. So when are we going to give it up?

Archives