What are you voting on the tax proposal coming up? Roads suck, but is this the way to fix them? Is it even possible to expect better from our elected officials?
If you're not familiar, the free press has a good primer here.
What are you voting on the tax proposal coming up? Roads suck, but is this the way to fix them? Is it even possible to expect better from our elected officials?
If you're not familiar, the free press has a good primer here.
That sounds like a case of make it so complicated no one understands it.
Toyman01 wrote: That sounds like a case of make it so complicated no one understands it.
Ugh, no kidding.
Michigan roads are absolute garbage, and they cost residents money because they are so bad. Flat tires, suspension wear, etc. They also affect commerce and business. In short, they HAVE to be fixed, and I am willing to pay extra as a taxpayer to see that happen.
But this bill appears to be a giant, compromised piece of E36 M3. I don't know how I'm going to vote.
I can tell ya the answer, if it's going to "fix" the roads, the sheeple will vote for it.
The only way to fix the roads in MI is to quit building more gridlock in DeToilet.
I'm in a no-win thought pattern on this as a drive between GR and Lansing regularly.
I'm voting no. I see a sales tax increase, gas tax increase, and registration increase. Maybe if they stopped wasting the tax money they get now and held contractors responsible for sub-par work things would improve.
No.
The commercials they are running insult my intelligence.
I find interesting the logic presented in the article of, "if you have issues with this plan, just imagine how bad the re-write, second revision plan would be."
I see that oddly akin to, "you think there are a lot of typos in this final copy, just imagine how many typos there will be if I have to re-write it."
All in all, seems to be a classic example of special interest.
"Lets raise money for roads."
Yeah, but schools need money too...and public transit needs funding...and the poor are getting poorer...etc.
We here in SC just said 'no' to a faux "penny tax" for the roads. Michigan, you have hope!
Of course now they're trying to raise the gas tax instead...
The government squanders the money that they already collect. This will just give them more to waste and less for me to fix my cars. I will vote no.
I just came across this timely article at the Cato Institute.
Everyone from the American Society of Civil Engineers to the AFL-CIO tells us that we face an infrastructure crisis and we must raise federal gas taxes to save our highways, bridges and other infrastructure. However, as comedian John Oliver reminds us, asking civil engineers how much we should spend on infrastructure is like asking golden retrievers how many tennis balls we should throw
Read the rest here: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/truth-about-infrastructure
pilotbraden wrote: I just came across this timely article at the Cato Institute. Everyone from the American Society of Civil Engineers to the AFL-CIO tells us that we face an infrastructure crisis and we must raise federal gas taxes to save our highways, bridges and other infrastructure. However, as comedian John Oliver reminds us, asking civil engineers how much we should spend on infrastructure is like asking golden retrievers how many tennis balls we should throw Read the rest here: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/truth-about-infrastructure
The same critique could be leveled at any profession. If we want to assume that everyone is only out to get their's then we are doomed to extinction.
Doctors want $$ so over medicate and schedule un-needed procedures.
Plumbers want your home to have bad plumbing made of gold pipes.
Institutes make up crazy controversal stories to just get money from advertising.
I know you are probably joking but what I find funny is how commentary can trump math, science, and engineering. Funny humans.
This commentary brought to you by Big Oil, National Democratic Party, Carl Rove, ACLU, Every military contractor, Sierra Club, and the Clinton Foundation.
Um forgot to mention that we just wanted to confirm if you wanted 2 cokes and 3 sprites for a total of 5 drinks, if yes that is $6.63.
In reply to bastomatic:
Vote either way. I would say yes. It is the best the bums can do at this point.
The point of the article you posted is that instead of trying to educate the voters that just like their cost of living goes up so does everyone elses. So while you could build a road for $1 30 years ago inflation makes that $5 now. Add in the fact that we want better roads not just the same roads from 30 years ago then it will cost more. Can't just use any material to make the road, we want our kids to have somewhere to live and breathe so we want to do it with some environmentally friendly projects which can cost more sometimes doesn't. Then you voters want the government to pay top dollar to the poor people whose land we must take under imminent domain in order to give you what you want, better roads. Then we don't want just roads we want better maintenance so we have to buy better newer equipment.
Hey I am a big hater of toll roads as they don't seem to achieve the goals they just allow politicians and voters to ignore the responsibility of replacing infrastructure and instead have a bad guy to yell at every time they toss the $2.50 in quarters into the basket or get their EZPass bill.
So if you want better roads you need to accept that it comes with a price tag.
I would like to hear that said more eloquently, but still directly, by the Michigan State politicians. I would like to see that taught to kids in schools. If you like the library pay taxes, if you like schools pay taxes, if you like roads pay taxes, etc..
Yes oversight to avoid waste is always needed. But that shouldn't mean don't give the government money, just make sure the oversight is good.
Advan046 wrote: I know you are probably joking but what I find funny is how commentary can trump math, science, and engineering. Funny humans.
Likewise... it doesn't matter how valid your words are, it's just how good they sound.
On the other hand, you will see people whose rationale against any initiative is "They just want my money". Who do you trust with your money more, the guys who want to fix things, or the guys railing hard against that?
Amazing how "follow the money" is always an argument against anything until it gets pointed back at the people telling you to follow the money.
As far as I can see- Michigan cut taxes so far that they are having a tough time running a fully effective goverment. Yes, there's waste, and I'm sure there are things that we should not be spending on (to everyone's opinion).
But we should be spending money on roads.
IMHO, this is a good example of why term limits are bad. The state legislature isn't willing to do their jobs when it's tough.
Should we be fixing the roads? Yes.
Do I think the proposal will fix the roads? Unlikely, especially after reading that.
I too find the commercials insulting to my intelligence, I hate "save the children" whining. To me it's an admission that you have a poor argument that needs to be propped up with emotion to get anywhere.
From what I know of the issue, the problem isn't funding as much as it's ludicrous load limits on trucks (more than double the federal limit) tearing up the roads.
Kenny_McCormic wrote: I too find the commercials insulting to my intelligence, I hate "save the children" whining. To me it's an admission that you have a poor argument that needs to be propped up with emotion to get anywhere.
They use emotional appeals because they work. Remember, they are trying to reach the lowest common denominator, and fear is a powerful motivator.
From what I know of the issue, the problem isn't funding as much as it's ludicrous load limits on trucks (more than double the federal limit) tearing up the roads.
I've been hearing that for years, decades, even. But it doesn't explain how back roads that barely see any truck traffic are in such bad shape. I suspect it's a bit of both.
In reply to Tom_Spangler:
Perhaps money that would be going into back roads is being diverted to the highways to combat truck damage?
In reply to Kenny_McCormic: Considering the amount of truck traffic out there already, I'm ok with the higher limits. But design the roads to take it.
The new I94 seems to be able to deal with it pretty well- where they put a new surface on it every couple of years. But that has nothing to do with my neighborhood road, nor the potholes between my home and downtown AA. Or the degradation of the bridges.
That's my point, if there weren't a need to do a full overhaul of 94 every few years, there'd be a lot more money to fix the lunar surface grade side streets and country roads.
In reply to Kenny_McCormic:
It's not a full overhaul. Just a resurface in a weekend.
I think I'm voting no. I agree the roads suck, they need fixing, and the way to do that is through increasing revenue.
What I don't agree with is the way this was brought about. A simple gas tax increase was vetoed by the majority speaker, who came up with this unnecessarily complex measure that may or may not raise enough money to cover everything, and can be diverted down the road.
Also don't like that the congress turned it into a ballot measure so they can skirt the blame either way.
Also, seems the Governor really likes it too, which automatically makes me suspicious.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to Kenny_McCormic: It's not a full overhaul. Just a resurface in a weekend.
You guys get a resurface in a weekend? Wow!
I think in Ohio, a resurface doesn't take much less time than ripping things up and laying down fresh. Which they have to do every few years.
In reply to Knurled:
They're always resurfacing some section of it, in weekend sized stretches, and sometimes doing spot repairs on the concrete underneath.
You'll need to log in to post.
