From the left-leaning Virginia Organizing Project, which disdains gasoline taxes because of their regressivity:
The Virginia Organizing Project has proposed as an alternative a two-part transportation funding plan. First, we would raise new revenue by imposing a small income tax surcharge. A five percent surcharge (not a 5 percent rate increase but a 5 percent charge added to existing tax liabilities) would raise approximately $450 million. We recommend using up to $400 million of this amount to finance ongoing maintenance deficits, with the balance dedicated to interest payments on newly issued revenue or general obligation bonds in the amount of $600 million. The proceeds from these bonds should be sufficient to finance the new transportation investments for Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads and throughout the Commonwealth. Such an approach would also finance these investments as they should be financed—on the basis of ability to pay—and it would rely on the state’s sterling credit where it should be counted upon—to finance relatively long-lived state assets.
Well, it’s an idea. Trouble is, Virginia’s tax structure also is “regressive and outdated,” according to . . . the Virginia Organizing Project.
Reader Comments:
Correct. I can’t remember the details of that silliness.
I think I reacted the same as today, namely that to suggest conservatives don’t have smart and capable leaders and good ideas is utter nonsense, but to suggest the premier universities are staffed with whizzes (I remember Harvard and Princeton named specifically, no offense to other institutions of higher learning) and then not see a liberal bent as a red flag, is to cherrypick your conclusions.
That was a long sentence. Is bad writing a sign of superior intellect ?
You would know Roger, cause you are my hero. Yeah you are. I know you have let me down on numerous occasions, but that does not mean I have given up on you.
There has to be some reason why smart people like liberal ideas. Maybe all smart people are dumb. (Yogi Berra)
And that entire conversation was preceded by a column Bart posted proclaiming that the reason liberals outnumber conservatives on university faculties 1000000 zillion to 1 is because liberals are smarter than conservatives.
But apparently their memories ain’t so good. Maybe all that super intellect has taken up the space where memory is supposed to be?
Curiosly, you weren’t so skeptical of that claim.
Rlos-the-foul,
Who says I took it personally ? I see a big problem when something as respected as the Hoover Institute sponsors such nonsense. That goes beyond mere silliness into insidious. That is nothing personal, nothing to do with me personally.
Plus, as indicated, like surveys, even disreputable surveys. Interesting factoids.
Not all Centrists are flip-floppers, just cynics, skeptics, or even people with strong opinions but who fall into the middle of the spectrum.
For myself, think folks who insist all views must be set into concrete or else you lack strong character and good values, are creepy. Life is a continual path of learning where adjustments are made as new insights open up and inconvenient facts accumulate.
What liberal junk scholar claimed libs are smarter than cons ? Not aware of that study. I stated sometime back that the fact Harvard and Princeton faculties are overwhelmingly liberal was a red flag to you conservatives that you refuse to see as a red flag.
Does that mean only Princeton graduates can claim to understand simple facts ? No, of course not. It only means there is a red flag when so many intelligent people are flocking to the other cause, and so many Rush Limbaugh devotees are flocking to your cause. Does it prove anything ? Just a warning.
It isn’t junk science, just an observation and a bit of opinion. You may have a good explanation for it.
Yet, when a liberal junk scholar claims to prove that liberals are smarter than conservatives...well that’s REAL science!
What’s funny is how personally you took it, even though you’re a “centrist” and I was merely pointing out the silliness of such surveys, be they conducted by the left or the right.
...and centrists are the people who wait to see which side is winning and then jump on board the band wagon until the wheels start falling off. The it’s back to the other side.
Rlos,
Who says I put faith in that crap. I put faith in science, even some soft social science, but I don’t think these surveys qualify as such.
They ask leading questions and then obtain massively speculative conclusions from only a thimble-full of data. That isn’t reputable science. It’s politics disguised as something else, from, you guessed it, another conservative thinktank, the vacuum cleaner institute.
Two can play that game.
I’m willing to believe some personality traits do correspond to political beliefs. Cons are always portrayed as sunny optimists and libs pessimists. I suspect this is (in general) true, but in real life there is no right answer. A little pessimism might have kept us out of all the trouble G.Bush got us embroiled in. A little optimism might hold the line in our present economy. There is no right answer.
Are cons happier than libs, or are cons just more inclined to “say” they are happy when they really are not, and more libs are inclined to “say” they are not happy when in fact they are, because in fact all you are measuring with this survey is one’s inclination to answer a survey question a certain way.
Even if you had verifiable evidence that cons are happier would it mean what you want it to ? In other words, it might only mean all the grumps and grouchs of the world skew the statistics by joining up with the left, but it does not imply that leftist thinking itself has somehow poisoned these people because of their flawed values, a leap of logic, or that leftist thinkers, apart from their rabble followers, are any less happy or well adjusted.
This leads to another possibility. What if the con stats are skewed heavily by the fact that cons attract mindless sheeplike people who go to church, have babies, and have no complexity. It does not mean that Karl Rove or Dick Cheney is not a very complex and evil man, only that his voters are contented cows.
None of this automatically invalidates certain thinking or beliefs as the author would like us to agree. I get cheesed that this type of character assassination is so prevalent at the highest levels, and Hoover Institute is pretty high up in the food chain. It really is an insult to characterize apprx. 50% of the population as damaged goods, which is exactly what the author is saying.
How do you account for Centrists ? That is an academic question only, because I already know how the jackal accounts. He seems to feel we don’t exist if we dare not to agree with him.
The following post from the UK forum sums up the other wildly speculative side of the fence (which is no more true or scientific than the conservative bilge):
“Right wing people seem to think issues are simply “Black or white” and don’t bother to look the whole picture when inflicting their misinformed opinions onto the public. It appears to be that, that from the point of view of a person with right wing values, immigration is bad, criminals are inherently evil and people on benefits are lazy.
Liberal values are about compassion towards others and understanding of people, their cultures and way of life and not, as some right winged people believe, about letting people getting away with murder and living in a responsible-free environment. Liberal minded people are forward thinking and open minded whereas right wing people are stubborn, stuck in the past, unwilling to change and narrow minded.”
- James, Derby, 15/6/2008 14:32
None of this pseudo-science strikes me as being worth the time of day; shameful it shows up so much on the blogs.
Churchill weren’t ver medya savvy.
If he’d stuck an M16 in her face ala Elian, the dems would have awarded him their highest honor...the “Order of Che”.
(it’s a human tooth from the product of a Cuban firing squad stuck into the end of an AK casing and attacked to a stylish and eco safe hemp braided neck chain!)
Yeah, but Rlos - consider the source. Everyone knows the Daily Mail is a Tory rag. And did you see the picture of Churchill smiling gleefully as he slapped that poor, innocent little girl right in the face?
Ed. here’s another one of those “conservatives vs liberals” studys you seem to put so much faith in.
Yor good friend Rlos the Jackal
Scott,
Do I want you to answer ? Sure. Why not.
If you have something to say, say it.
Thanks for the clarification. You meant heavier vehicles, not just SUVs.
It isn’t self-flagellation to suggest SUVs and sprawl are scapegoats. It is called an opinion. Is namecalling adding anything of value to the discussion ?
Truckers already pay a hefty tax on their diesel fuel.
That’s why there are different pumps for truckers and regular folk who drive diesel cars. The stuff for the trucks has a purplish dye in it and if a truck driver gets caught with undyed fuel in his tank, the state police are authorised to execute them road side because this means they are using untaxed fuel.
I mean, screaming down the interstate at 85 mph during rush hour 2 feet off the butt of the VW in front of you might be considered “abusive driving” to less enlighted people but, using untaxed fuel? Well, that’s simply unacceptable.
Post Your Comments:
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.