White House At Least Considering Increasing Gas Tax, Needs to Consult Congress

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

The United States’ 18.4-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline and 24.4-cent tax on diesel hasn’t changed since 1993. Despite this, the opinion that it should be hiked as a way of funding public works was nowhere near the White House’s official infrastructure strategy. But Donald Trump isn’t averse to the idea. In fact, he proposed a 25-cent increase to senators during a Wednesday meeting as a possible funding solution.

White House officials claim the president says “everything is on the table” in terms of finding a solution for America’s growing infrastructure problems. But how serious the rest of the Trump administration is about raising the fuel tax is debatable.

Delaware senator Tom Carper, who attended a meeting between the president and lawmakers, told Reuters he hadn’t expected a tax hike to even be an option during Wednesday’s discussion.

“To my surprise, President Trump, today in our meeting, offered his support for raising the gas and diesel tax by 25 cents a gallon and dedicating that money to improve our roads, highways, and bridges,” Carper explained. “The president even offered to help provide the leadership necessary so that we could do something that has proven difficult in the past.”

However, Carper also said Trump repeatedly expressed concerns that it was a difficult proposal for legislators to support unanimously, and he would need to find a way to convince congress it was the right strategy.

Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao voiced similar concerns on Tuesday when she spoke to reporters at the White House. “The President has not declared anything out of bounds, so everything is on the table. The gas tax, like many of the other pay-fors that are being discussed, is not ideal,” she said.

“There are pros and cons. The gas tax has adverse impact, a very regressive impact, on the most vulnerable within our society; those who depend on jobs, who are hourly workers. So these are tough decisions, which is why, once again, we need to start the dialogue with the Congress, and so that we can address these issues on this very important point.”

Meanwhile, Oklahoma senator Jim Inhofe publicly condemned Carper’s characterization of the meeting, saying he had confused Trump’s openness to multiple solutions with outright support of a gas tax increase. “He was not advocating that. He was looking at all the options,” Inhofe said. “All he said was we need to do something and that is still on the table.”

The White House presented an infrastructure plan on Monday that intends to convert $200 billion in federal funding into $1.5 trillion by tapping into local and state tax dollars and private investments. Its plan does not specify how it will source the federal revenue at all. Instead, it suggests local governments and private entities find their own through tolls and user fees, which could win them federal grants needed for use on projects.

Congress also doesn’t appear to be too optimistic about passing an increase in the gas tax. While Democrats insist any infrastructure plans have to include include new revenue sources, not all of them appear willing to support a tax hike on fuel. Republicans are, on average, substantially less excited to back the idea of additional taxation, and some have already come out saying they would oppose such a proposal.

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

Consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulations. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, he has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed about the automotive sector by national broadcasts, participated in a few amateur rallying events, and driven more rental cars than anyone ever should. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and learned to drive by twelve. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer and motorcycles.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
8 of 72 comments
  • 87 Morgan 87 Morgan on Feb 15, 2018

    I love this debate and enjoy reading the comments. I too would support an increase if the funds would be allocated to roads. I wonder if there was a way to raise the tax with language written into the bill that guarantees the increase can *only* be used for repair or replacement of existing infrastructure. Basically put a lid on the spending of the dollars on anything but roads and bridges that already exist and are in need of repair or replacement. I am certain that new highways and bridges to nowhere need to be built, but it would be nice if we could get the ones that we already built to somewhere up to a safe standard.

    • See 5 previous
    • Big Al from Oz Big Al from Oz on Feb 16, 2018

      @DenverMike Um, DiM, I do believe the EU has larger choice of vehicles. Plus, you can grey import. This notion you have regarding the US vehicle market is inaccurate. As always research prior to spruiking nonsense.

  • Big Al from Oz Big Al from Oz on Feb 16, 2018

    Its a good idea to use fuel tax to maintain the push toward more economical vehicles and hopefully the money does go towards improving and developing transport infrastructure. Trump and the GOP will need to get money from somewhere with their tax cuts the US to maintain it's current rate of expenditure will need to find money from somewhere. So, maybe the tax increase will offset the rich and famous 1% tax cut they will be getting.

  • 28-Cars-Later “1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries....It would be better to dump the whole stinking system and take the consequences”― Theodore J. Kaczynski, Ph.D., Industrial Society and Its Future, 1995.
  • FreedMike "Automotive connectivity has clearly been a net negative for the end user..."Really? Here's a list of all the net negatives for me:1) Instead of lugging around a road atlas or smaller maps that do nothing but distract me from driving, and don't tell me where to go once I've reached Point B, I can now just ask my car's navigation system to navigate me there. It'll even tell me how long it will take given current traffic conditions. 2) Instead of lugging around a box of a dozen or so cassette tapes that do nothing but distract me from driving, I can now just punch up a virtually endless library of music, podcasts, or audiobooks on the screen, push a button, and play them. 3) I can tell my car, "call (insert name here)" and the call is made without taking my hands off the wheel.4) I can tell my car, "text (insert name here)" and the system takes my dictation, sends me the text, and reads off any replies. 5) I can order up food on my screen, show up at the restaurant, and they'll have it waiting for me. 6) I can pull up a weather map that allows me to see things like hailstorms in my path. 7) If I'm in trouble, I can push a "SOS" button and help will be sent. 8) Using my phone, I can locate my car on a map and navigate to it on foot, and tell it to turn on the heat, A/C, or defrosters.None of these are benefits? Sorry, not sorry...I like them all. Why wouldn't I? Consumers clearly also like this stuff, and if they didn't, none of it would be included in cars. Now, maybe Matt doesn't find these to be beneficial. Fair enough! But he should not declare these things as a "net negative" for the rest of us. That's presumption. So...given all that, what's the answer here? Matt seems to think the answer is to "unplug" and go back to paper maps, boxes of music, and all that. Again, if that's Matt's bag, then fair enough. I mean, I've been there, and honestly, I don't want to go back, but if that's his bag, then go with God, I guess. But this isn't the solution for everyone, and saying otherwise is presumption. Here's a solution that DOES work for everyone: instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, clean the bathwater. You do that very, very simply: require clear, easy-to-understand disclosure of data sharing that happens as the result of all these connected services, and an equally clear, easy-to-understand method for opting out of said data sharing. That works better than turning the clock back to those thrilling days of 1990 when you had to refer to handwritten notes to get you to your date's house, or ripping SIM cards out of your car.
  • Funky D What is the over-under for number of recalls in the first 5 years of ownership?
  • Normie Dayyum! Great White Woman!The car, I mean. I could feel kinda safe in it.
  • Slavuta "The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. " --- 1984
Next