By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, Jan. 19, 2014, 9:00 p.m.
The significant increase in Pittsburgh-area gasoline prices this year proves that PennDOT Secretary Barry Schoch's claim that the state's wholesale gasoline tax hike wouldn't necessarily be passed on to consumers was a disingenuous pretext to win passage of the $2.3 billion transportation-funding package.
But added pain at the pump has only just begun.
Confirming that the 9.5-cent tax hike is to blame are pump prices rising by about the same amount and a lack of similar hikes in neighboring states; a Ross petroleum distributor says “any tax or fee whatsoever is going to pass through.”
Expect much the same this time next year as Pennsylvania continues to gradually lift its wholesale gas-tax cap. And expect the federal government, facing an approximately $20 billion shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund that provides about half of states' transportation funding, to inflict even more pump pain.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., wants to nearly double the federal retail gas tax to 33.4 cents per gallon. And Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has proposed a wholesale-level federal fuel tax that would be passed on to consumers, just like Pennsylvania's wholesale tax hike.
Pennsylvanians thus face a double or even triple gasoline-tax whammy, the further draining of their wallets and an even slower economic recovery.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Junk nutrition
- The secret ballot: Protect it
- Lever A-1: Pot-infused brownies
- Sunday pops
- Another IPCC warning: More sci-fi
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Liquor privatization: Now’s the time