Chamber’s plan would penalize hybrid owners.
Let’s hope nobody in New Jersey, casting about for creative ways to replenish the near-bankrupt state Transportation Trust Fund, goes down the same road the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is taking in its quest to shore up the federal Highway Trust Fund.
The federal fund, it seems, is in trouble. Not as much trouble, mind you, as the state fund, which will run out of operating money in seven months unless the Legislature comes up with the revenue needed to keep it solvent. If that doesn’t happen, the fund will have only enough money after July 1 to pay down its debt without a penny for construction, repair or maintenance of roads, bridges, tunnels and mass transit systems on which New Jersey residents rely so heavily.
The U.S. Chamber estimates that the federal fund, which is financed by the 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gasoline tax, will hit a cash balance of zero in 2008. To avoid a complete breakdown of the transportation infrastructure thereafter, the Chamber hardly a bastion of tax-and-spend liberalism initially recommended increasing the gas tax.
This would, of course, be the most reasonable and responsible step to keep money flowing to transportation projects, at both the federal and state levels. The gasoline tax is essentially a user fee for motorists; the more you drive, the more you pay.
At the state level, there is some hope that reason will prevail. During the recent gubernatorial campaign, Gov.-elect Corzine, while admitting he would be reluctant to raise the state’s 14.5-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax (the fourth-lowest in the nation), nevertheless refused to rule it out. This contrasts sharply with the attitude in the White House; when the House Transportation Committee backed a plan last year to raise the federal gasoline tax by 4 to 5 cents a gallon, President Bush beat the measure down by promising to veto it.
With prospects of a federal gasoline-tax increase about as dim as Harriet Miers’ future in the judiciary, the U.S. Chamber has adopted a new approach one that seems likelier than anything involving the dreaded T-word to capture the imagination of the president. This idea lacks even an ounce of the fairness and appropriateness of raising the gasoline tax. Instead, it would penalize motorists who are trying their best to be environmentally responsible.
In a gesture that should easily make it onto David Letterman’s list of the Top 10 Dumbest Ideas of 2005, the U.S. Chamber has suggested owners of hybrids and other alternative-fuel vehicles be charged an extra fee. Because they use less gasoline than conventional vehicles, the Chamber posits, the owners of these fuel-efficient cars aren’t paying their fair share of the cost of filling potholes and fixing bridges a charge that should be evenly apportioned among motorists regardless of how much or what kind of fuel they use.
What’s frightening about this proposal is that, on the surface, it almost sounds fair. After all, why should someone whose car is powered by alternative fuels pay less to use the nation’s roads than drivers of conventional vehicles?
The answer, of course, is that they are making an enormous contribution to the environment. Hybrid vehicles produce 90 percent fewer harmful emissions and get 10 to 15 more miles per gallon than conventionally fueled vehicles. And owners of hybrids are already paying a premium for this; the sticker price for a hybrid is $3,500 to $6,000 more than for its conventional counterpart. To offset this, the federal government has been offering hybrid purchasers a tax break which is precisely the kind of incentive it should be offering. To reverse direction, as the U.S. Chamber suggests, wouldn’t merely send the wrong message to motorists. It would be wrong-headed public policy.