Topeka — Key state officials on Monday said that increasing taxes for a new transportation plan would help the economy by providing jobs.
“This is an investment in our state, and our local districts, and with that, there is going to be a cost,” said state Sen. Dwayne Umbarger, R-Thayer, and chairman of a special House-Senate committee on transportation.
The committee reviewed various tax increases, including adding a sales tax to motor fuel sales, increasing the per gallon tax on fuel and various increases to vehicle registration fees. The committee is expected to make a recommendation next month.
The most recent 10-year transportation plan has expired and highway advocates are pushing for a new one -- in the $10 billion range -- when the Legislature convenes in January.
The effort comes at a time that the state is reeling from tax revenue shortfalls and four rounds of budget cuts — with another round expected soon.
Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, said he could support a tax increase for a long-term highway plan by perhaps slowly phasing it in over several years.
He and others said the tax could be sold as a way to create jobs and improve the economy by bettering the state’s transportation system.
Kansas Department of Transportation Secretary Deb Miller told the committee that putting in place a multi-year highway plan would help communities when the economy improves.
“Recessions don’t last forever,” Miller said.
State Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley of Topeka noted that the state has lost billions of dollars in sales tax exemptions passed by the Legislature during the past two decades.
“We’ve gone a long way in eroding our tax base,” Hensley said.
Joe Erskine, deputy secretary for finance and administration for KDOT, laid out various scenarios either to fund a full 10-year transportation plan, a less expensive maintenance plan, or a delayed plan that included maintenance and improvements.
“You could slice and dice this a thousand different ways,” Erskine said.
For example, removing the sales tax exemption on motor fuels, which was part of several scenarios, could produce $3 billion over 10 years.
Pat Hurley, executive director of Economic Lifelines, which advocates for transportation spending, said a new highway plan could help pull the state out of its current downturn.
“The state, we recognize, is facing an unprecedented fiscal deficit, and record high unemployment rates. So what is the answer? The state needs to enact a major economic development and jobs program,” he said, pointing to successes of previous highway programs.
The committee discussion followed a review of the state’s economy by Alan Conroy, director of the Kansas Legislative Research Department.
The state faces a $460 million deficit in the current fiscal year. He said although the national recession is over, the state’s economy has historically lagged the rest of the nation in coming out of a recession.
“We have a lot of concerns on when things will turn around in Kansas,” he said.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
KU_cynic (anonymous) says…
Tolls and fuel taxes. Make the primary users of the transportation system pay for it. And, toll more roads (e.g., K-10).
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
How about funding a transportation plan that doesn't involve roads? It's clear that there is never enough money or time to maintain a road network, and no one wants to spend the money on roads that don't need continual maintenance, so quit trying. Build an inter-urban passenger rail network with high-speed links between major cities, let freight rail take the rest, and leave local delivery to trucks. If there is sufficient demand for a car highway, someone will build a toll road.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
“The state, we recognize, is facing an unprecedented fiscal deficit, and record high unemployment rates. So what is the answer? The state needs to enact a major economic development and jobs program..."
So the response to fiscal deficit and record unemployment is for government to raise taxes and spend more money? Unbelievable.
bankboy119 (anonymous) says…
"He said although the national recession is over..."
Really? The DOW is up for a week so it's over? I hope they're right, still don't believe it.
Phillbert (anonymous) says…
I will never understand the obsession with highways that seems to exist in legislators from both parties. Though only Republicans seem to exhibit that extra bit of irrationality that leads them to only support tax increases when the taxes are used to lay more asphalt, usually in the middle of nowhere.
Our kids are crammed into classrooms because we've been laying off teachers, disabled people are on waiting lists for basic health services, and we'll probably have to start letting prisoners out early, but rest assured our legislators can always find the money to repave roads.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"I will never understand the obsession with highways that seems to exist in legislators from both parties."
Check into how much the trucking industry, the highway construction industry, the cancerous growth industries, etc, kick into campaign coffers, not to mention the revolving door for legislators in and out of these industries, and you'll begin to understand. Some might call it corruption.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
Beware the politician who says: "State Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley of Topeka noted that the state has lost billions of dollars in sales tax exemptions passed by the Legislature during the past two decades."
Note Mr. Hensley's use of the word "lost." The state "lost" money by sales tax exemptions.
I wonder why this politician doesn't just come out and say: "We the omnipotent rulers of Kansas have allowed the working people to keep too much of what they earn."
Note as well the foolish notion that highway projects bring jobs to Kansas. There are very few in-state contractor's large enough to take on big highway projects. Consequently, a large percentage of contractor's who win the bids come from out of state. The I-70 bridge / interchange project is being done by a firm from Texas (who brought their own workers).
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
KU_cynic (Anonymous) says…
"Make the primary users of the transportation system pay for it."
If you read the story, all the proposals for increased taxes or fees are out of the pockets of the primary users.
But don't worry, the rest of you will pay more along the way, too, in increased prices on everything that moves by truck (which is pretty much everything), plus higher fees for ambulance, bus, trash, and other services.
*********************************************
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
"How about funding a transportation plan that doesn't involve roads?"
Since automobile users are the ones footing the bill, gcc, how about we spend the money in a way that will benefit us?
"If there is sufficient demand for a car highway, someone will build a toll road."
And if there was sufficient demand for passenger rail (currently about 1% of American long-distance travel, about where it's been for decades), we wouldn't have to make up half the cost of every train ticket with tax dollars. When you can figure out a way for passenger rail to pay for itself, let us know. Until then, maybe we shouldn't spend billions (or trillions) building a rail system nobody wants to ride.
***********************************************
Phillbert (Anonymous) says…
"I will never understand the obsession with highways that seems to exist in legislators from both parties."
Could have something to do with the 250,000,000 registered passenger vehicles traveling the roads in this country.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
"When you can figure out a way for passenger rail to pay for itself, let us know."
As if the road network doesn't cost the taxpayers anything.
"Could have something to do with the 250,000,000 registered passenger vehicles traveling the roads in this country."
The reason why people feel compelled to own cars is because the car companies bought up and dismantled this country's public transportation systems.
JackRipper (anonymous) says…
whistleblowers are coming out saying peak oil is here. building more redundant and diminishing returns roads is about as dumb as it gets.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Miles and miles and miles of new roads add miles and miles and miles and miles of additional NEW future tax hikes to our already over extended taxpayers. This is NOT smart economics.
Spend tax dollars to maintain and rehab what it seems we taxpayers cannot afford to fix now.
Why expand OUR tax bills for the future with miles and miles and miles and miles of NEW expenses?
This is the same crowd that cut taxes which makes us unable to take care of what we have. These are not the economic giants of our time.
Want new long term employment for the state?
Rebuilding economies:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
>>> “When you can figure out a way for passenger rail to pay for itself, let us know.”
"As if the road network doesn't cost the taxpayers anything."
Um - with the slight difference that with the roads, everybody contributes in taxes (although the bulk is paid by automobile and truck drivers) because everyone benefits from them, while with passenger rail, all of us are paying for that 1% to ride. And you seriously can't understand the difference?
"The reason why people feel compelled to own cars is because the car companies bought up and dismantled this country's public transportation systems."
Oh geez, another conspiracy theorist.
There is no other mode of transportation that offers the flexibility and convenience of a personal automobile. Nothing else even comes close. Cars weren't bought because the railroads were driven out of business, railroads died because people chose cars.
**********************************************************
JackRipper (Anonymous) says…
"whistleblowers are coming out saying peak oil is here. building more redundant and diminishing returns roads is about as dumb as it gets."
Well, not exactly - believing cars are not going to be part of our future is pretty much the epitome of dumb, jackie. We will always have cars - they may be powered by batteries, natural gas, hydrogen, bio-fuel, or banana peels in the Mr. Fusion powerplant, but we will always have cars.
JackRipper (anonymous) says…
nota we may have cars but you ought to take a look into peak oil. It isn't about running out of oil but about the cost when demand out paces supply and the cost is high enough that it will change society. To believe that we can replace the millions of barrels of oil that are relatively speaking easy to extract and use with any other option that isn't also going to have supply problems is ludicrous. We have been lucky to live at a time when a cheap relatively easy energy source existed but since it is finite and we have already burned through the easy oil now we will see changes as the cost of energy goes up. As luck would have it today a simplified overview of peak oil was put online-
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5969
timetospeakup (anonymous) says…
JackRipper - I'll bite. theoildrum is awful biased too, and full of a lot of wishful thinking.
I'm not saying peak oil is bogus - it's not. But theoildrum sensationalizes to one extreme
JackRipper (anonymous) says…
When you look around you do you see many, if any, who have the foggiest clue of what could be coming if peak oil plays out? No one has any idea what could happen but after what we have seen in the financial world should we not be giving it some serious consideration, after all, the entire world as we know it today is based on cheap oil. The actions of the legislators and even the president seem to be ignoring what is factually quite sound.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
JackRipper (Anonymous) says…
"... after all, the entire world as we know it today is based on cheap oil."
How much was oil last selling for last year, jackie? I don't seem to recall the world coming to an end.
Alternatively-fueled vehicles are already a reality, jack. Yes, for the most part they're more expensive. But that will change as the economies of scale shift more in that direction. Like it or not, jack, mass transit is not the future. You will never, ever convince the 300 million (and growing) people in this country to go only where mass transit will take them only when it will take them there.
But hey, if you're so convinced, invest in passenger rail companies - if you're right, you should be a trillionaire when the oil runs out - what, next month?
sci4all (anonymous) says…
So the moral of the story is that it's okay to raise taxes in order to spend more money on roads, but not to invest in our kids' education or in services to those in dire need.
Yep, typical Kansas legislature. Keep those roads smooth for their Beemers and oversized trucks, and keep the populace ignorant enough to keep voting them in.
JackRipper (anonymous) says…
nota you may recall as the oildrum mentioned when oil goes over a certain amount the economy goes into recession which is what happened. peak oik says oil will stay over that amount and then what?
other alternatives exist but none of them will replace oil. there is nothing on the horizon that will allow us to continue on as we are and will require major changes in our ways.
you left yourself wide open on the trains, one of the richest people in the world just bought bnsf. he has been pretty good at anticipating the future, maybe he knows something you don't?
JackRipper (anonymous) says…
pilgram you do have problems connecting dots but remember the price of gas that added the unplanned expense for all those suv driving burbites was the final straw that broke the back of the fantastic game we had been playing. and since you couldn't understand that you have noticed people switching to fuel efficient vehicles even though gas is cheaper haven't you?
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
"Could have something to do with the 250,000,000 registered passenger vehicles traveling the roads in this country."
There are 150,000,000 cats and dogs owned as pets in this country, should we be dedicating tax dollars to more dog parks?
JackRipper (anonymous) says…
pilgram like i said you can't connect dots. it was the other factors and oil was what set it off. of course it sounds like you only see things as rebubbacans and demoncraps, how about taking a walk on the wild side and look at the situations and not party affiliations?
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
Pilgrim,
Why am I not surprised that you don't know about GM's systematic dismantling of public transportation?
75x55 (anonymous) says…
"You will never, ever convince the 300 million (and growing) people in this country to go only where mass transit will take them only when it will take them there."
Just depends on how you intend to "convince" 'em.....
JackRipper (anonymous) says…
won't have to convince them, when it is too expensive they won't have a choice. American pay has been stagnant for years adjusted for inflation and the the great swindle is dying, we flat out won't be able to afford carcentric living in the way we are familiar.
JackRipper (anonymous) says…
pilgram you should have spent more time in class instead of the gym. it is well known that a tire and bus building did what g said. it even went to court.
KSManimal (anonymous) says…
OK, let me see if I got this straight.
We can't increase taxes to pay for schools (despite the constitutional requirement to do so); because taxes are "bad for the economy". Laying off education employees is somehow better for the economy.
But, we can talk about increasing taxes to fund a $1 billion per year for 10 years highway plan; because it will be "good for the economy" and "create jobs".
I'm missing something here. Perhaps education jobs aren't "real" jobs. Perhaps teachers, school bus drivers, custodians, etc., don't actually spend the money they earn, thus their jobs don't stimulate consumer spending.
Or maybe the problem lies within the legislature itself. Cephalic rectosis, perhaps. Or Ischiocranial obstruction syndrome.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
United States v. National City Lines
JackRipper (anonymous) says…
Have you heard of Firestone pilgrim? Guess you aren't really that anxious to find out what is readily available. It doesn't matter though, I'm guessing you are young enough to find out.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
I'd call taking out electric trolleys and switching them to less durable, noisier, smellier, and less comfortable busses an effective dismantling.
JackRipper (anonymous) says…
Pilgrim, guess you are still having troubles using the web for anything other than looking up sports scores, here is a starting place for you:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2006/12/...
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
JackRipper (Anonymous) says…
"you left yourself wide open on the trains, one of the richest people in the world just bought bnsf. he has been pretty good at anticipating the future, maybe he knows something you don't?"
*I* left myself wide open, jackie?
Apparently Mr. Buffet knows something about railroads than you don't, jacquie - like, for instance, that Burlington-Northern-Santa Fe is a *freight* rail company, not passenger rail, jacka**.
By the way, it sure does look like Ol' Warren is betting against oil - since BNSF makes a lot of their money hauling coal.
Gee, sorry I lost track of this thread - you're always good for a laugh, aren't you, jacquie? Off your aricept again? You just can't help yourself from continuing to post about subjects you know absolutely nothing about, can you:
"nota you may recall as the oildrum mentioned when oil goes over a certain amount the economy goes into recession which is what happened. peak oik says oil will stay over that amount and then what?"
Uh, right.
As pilgrim already tried to explain to you (and you were incapable of grasping), the entire rest of the universe knows what precipitated the recession, jacquie. Oil prices were driven up by the collapses of the housing and stock markets, not the other way around. Large institutional investors with no experience or expertise in the oil market (such as state retirement and insurance funds) tried to become players in oil because the bottom fell out of stocks and real estate. They panicked at every little blip and drove the price of oil well past double what every expert said demand could support. When the idiots got out of the game, the price stabilized.
Oh, and despite oil tripling in price, demand for passenger use only fell off by 10%. Doesn't look like too many folks were lining up for long-term train tickets.
"won't have to convince them, when it is too expensive they won't have a choice. American pay has been stagnant for years adjusted for inflation and the the great swindle is dying, we flat out won't be able to afford carcentric living in the way we are familiar."
Uh - right.
Again, how much did people cut back on their driving when oil prices skyrocketed? Oh, and for extra credit, jacquie - how much of that was picked up by passenger rail?
Your precious choo-choos are dead, jacquie - D*E*A*D. You're never going to be able to put your conductor's hat on and blow your whistle again. Deal with it.
"and since you couldn't understand that you have noticed people switching to fuel efficient vehicles even though gas is cheaper haven't you?"
Yes, jacquie - they're switching to newer and more efficient *CARS*. What part of that do you think suggests the end of the reign of automobiles?
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
Bob_Keeshan (Anonymous) says…
"There are 150,000,000 cats and dogs owned as pets in this country, should we be dedicating tax dollars to more dog parks?"
As soon as you can start riding one to work, numb-n*ts.
JackRipper (anonymous) says…
Nota, nice but you forget, most of those other alternatives aren't going to replace oil, there just isn't a way to replace a relatively cheap energy source with any of your alternatives which will cost much more to produce. Go ahead and be blind to what is quite factually the end of cheap energy, it was finite and we have burned up what was relatively easy to recover but now what is found and developed is going to cost much more.
All the other sources have limitations also. The resources used for electronics and batteries is finite also.
You think we can switch over and at the same time India and China with their massive populations join us and it will go on? Seriously, we have already used up the easily recoverable stuff and now we are going increase the demand at least 2 fold and you think it will work out as it is going today?
I suppose you know Warren and what his plans are? I don't think a person plunks down that much dough just to move his coal around. Obviously it makes sense for freight but it use to make sense for passengers too before the government became involved in encouraging the demand for cars. The funny thing will be when you are riding the train, I think you just may be old enough. Depending on the other little ticking time bomb, our oil is suddenly reduced because either producing countries won't take dollars or they make exclusive deals with China or India. Or it could happen if we decide we know what is best for the Iranians and war breaks out and who knows what happens then. You can dream about your electric car all you want but there is no way can continue to drive the way we do today using electricity when we are many times short on power during the summer. Live in your fantasy world though.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
JackRipper (Anonymous) says…
"I suppose you know Warren and what his plans are? I don't think a person plunks down that much dough just to move his coal around. Obviously it makes sense for freight but it use to make sense for passengers too before the government became involved in encouraging the demand for cars."
And of course you're a personal confidente of Warren's, right, jacquie? Please, jack, just in case someone knows who you are and to save your family further embarassment, why don't you quit while you're behind? Buffet didn't get as rich as he did betting on dead horses like you do:
http://www.economist.com/businessfina...
>>> 'but the deal also looks like a bet on many less stirring ideas, including ever-higher imports from China, heavier traffic through the Panama Canal, higher oil prices and the preservation of coal’s big role in power generation in America.'
>>> 'And railways, as a greener means of moving freight than trucks, stand to benefit from stricter environmental regulation, especially if, as seems likely, Congress goes soft on America’s coal industry, a big customer of Burlington Northern.'
http://cjonline.com/news/local/2009-1...
>>> '"Today's announcement affirms the importance of freight rail to our nation's economic health," said Holly Arthur, spokeswoman for the Association of American Railroads.'
>>> 'BNSF spokesman Steve Forsberg said day-to-day operations will remain the same.'
>>> 'The company made almost a third of its money in the last quarter from shipments of consumer products from the West to major hubs like St. Louis, Kansas City and Chicago. ... Its next largest segment was coal, at 27 percent of revenue, followed by industrial products -- like farm equipment, lumber and chemicals -- at 21 percent. The agricultural products segment -- 20 percent of its total revenue -- includes major crops like corn, wheat and soybeans, with much of that exported to China.'
http://www.startribune.com/business/6...
>>> 'Buffett is betting that the freight industry is poised for recovery, though it hasn't shown much rebound yet. The best that most rail executives have said about volume is that it seems to have hit bottom. BNSF and other top railroads are considered a barometer of economic activity because of the breadth of goods they carry, and Buffett has said he uses weekly railroad data as a proxy for the economy's health.'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33599744/
>>> 'He thinks railroads are a key economic indicator because of the amount of retail and manufactured goods they haul across the country. "They do it in a cost-effective way and extraordinarily environmentally friendly way," he told CNBC. "I basically believe this country will prosper and you'll have more people moving more goods 10 and 20 and 30 years from now, and the rails should benefit."'
[continued]
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
[continued]
>>> 'Burlington has been one of the least optimistic among major railroads about the pace of economic recovery. CEO Matt Rose said consumers will be the driver of any improvement in the economy, but no one is buying yet. And coal shipments to power plants have fallen off sharply because of lower electricity demand. Burlington Northern hauls enough coal to power one out of every 10 homes in the U.S.'
>>> 'The coal hauled by Burlington Northern is mined from places like the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana. It's lower in sulfur than the coal found in the eastern U.S., so its less polluting and in greater demand now that stricter emissions standards are being imposed on coal plants.'
>>> 'Berkshire owns major utilities that rely on coal through its MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co.'
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsSto...
>>> 'Such a purchase into the railway system leads investors to believe that Buffet is confident in the outlook of American industries which heavily involves the railways.'
>>> 'Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the freight rail transportation business.'
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/200...
>>> 'He told CNBC in an interview that railroad operators cannot do well unless American businesses were producing goods and customers were buying them.'
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Buffett...
>>> 'Burlington Northern is the biggest hauler of corn and coal for electricity, making it an indicator of the country's economic health.'
>>> 'Buffett has said he realized a few years late that railroads were an appealing investment. As diesel prices rise, shipping by rail instead of truck becomes more attractive, and it would be extremely difficult for a competitor to build a new railroad.'
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/tra...
>>> 'miller: Buffett has been investing in railroad stocks for years and freight loadings are one of his favorite economic indicators. '
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bi...
>>> 'Chicago freight rail expert Gerald Rawlings says he anticipates Mr. Buffett’s purchase will not mean any changes in Metra service or in the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency group, known as Create, a project that aims to reduce rail congestion.'
- - - - - - - - -
Funny, jacquie, I must have missed where Warren said he bought the railroad to bring back passenger travel by train.
"You can dream about your electric car all you want but there is no way can continue to drive the way we do today using electricity when we are many times short on power during the summer."
Maybe that's why Buffet invested in a way to move coal, jacquie. Get back on your meds. Seriously.
JackRipper (anonymous) says…
oh nota silly as usual, yes we all know the here and now reasons he bought it but considering as peak oil changes the world as we know it a large part of the importing everything from overseas is going dry up and it isn't going to be replaced with more coal transportation. dream all you want about coal but your romantic world of a man being defined by his cowboy image of taking on the world alone in his car is going to change. just like you didn't see the crashing down of the financial world, full of people who thought they were just as smart as you (is it an east coast thing?) the world of transportation is going to change and the resources won't be available for you and your electric car but i do admire your delusional positive thinking. maybe some time on a train will do you good and you won't be so bitter.
nonetheless the point of this story is building more roads is nuts in a state with stagnant population growth. the roads we have are plenty and all we need is to maintain them. at a time when we have more important priorities we again see how pathetic our politicans are as they continue to line the pockets of the contributors. isn't curious a company that bought hamm's is from dc? what companies are headquartered in dc?