The following editorial appeared in the Los Angeles Times on June 23:
1993, Bill Clinton was president, Seinfeld was on TV and a cellphone was the size of a brick. It was also the last time Congress raised the federal gasoline tax, which pays for roads, bridges and public transit. Over two decades, the cost of building and maintaining the nations transportation infrastructure has gone up significantly, while the tax designed to fund the work has stayed flat: Drivers still pay 18.4 cents per gallon at the pump for gasoline and 24.4 cents for diesel.
It should be no surprise, then, that the Highway Trust Fund is about to go broke. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that the fund could run out of money as soon as August, which means states will not receive the federal dollars theyve been promised until the fund is replenished. If that happens, federally funded transportation projects may have to stop or slow construction, and new transportation projects could be delayed, putting thousands of construction jobs at risk.
This is not a new problem. The failure to raise the tax to keep up with inflation, coupled with the growing fuel efficiency of the nations vehicle fleet, has whittled away the buying power of the fund over many years. The gasoline tax currently generates about $35 billion a year, but the federal government spends $53 billion on highway and transit projects. Since 2008, Congress has transferred in general fund tax revenue to cover the shortfall. This year, gas tax revenue is coming in even lower than projected.
Congress needs to fix the fund, starting with an increase in the fuel tax. Last week, Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee and Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut offered a common-sense proposal to raise the fuel taxes by 12 cents over the next two years and set future annual increases at the rate of inflation so it wont take another two decades and another transportation funding cliff to keep the money coming in. Usually any bill that raises taxes in an election year is a nonstarter. We hope Congress makes an exception for this bipartisan proposal. After all, President Reagan presided over a gas tax increase, as did Clinton. Americans place a high priority on infrastructure and should recognize that a user fee cannot stay flat for 20 years without repercussions.
The gas tax faces another long-term problem: Federal law requires automakers to double fuel economy by 2025, and that means less demand for fuel and therefore less gas tax revenue. There have been proposals to scrap the sales tax on fuel and replace it with a tax per barrel of oil or one on the wholesale price of oil. Those ideas are worth exploring, but oil taxes would face a similar problem as the gas tax namely, that increased fuel economy means less demand for oil.
Los Angeles Times