No 'victory' for drivers
No ‘victory' for drivers
The Maryland General Assembly just passed a tax hike on gasoline that will, by 2016, increase the price by 13 to 20 cents per gallon. An April 5 Washington Post editorial, “Maryland's gas-tax victory,” says the gas-tax hike “is expected to raise about $4.4 billion ... over six years” and describes that as “a relatively modest amount, given the need.”
Relative to the number of stars in the sky or grains of sand in Ocean City, Md., I would agree that $4.4 billion is a “modest” number. In terms of the amount of money being sucked out of the pockets of Maryland drivers, it is a significant amount, certainly a little north of “modest.”
An April 4 news story from the Newark Post in Newark, Del., seems to view the tax as a “victory” for sellers of less expensive gasoline in states neighboring Maryland, rather than for anyone in Maryland.
This gasoline tax hike comes at the same time as Maryland's new tax on inclement weather — a tax on anything (roofs, driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc.) that prevents rainwater from seeping into the earth, thereby causing stormwater runoff.
The fact that The Washington Post calls this tax increase a “victory” tells us anything we might want to know about the politically “progressive” intelligentsia who dominate opinion-staff positions of the liberal media outlets.
Andrew N. Mewbourn
The writer is currently living and working in Ulan Baatar, Mongolia.
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.
- Out of ‘other people’s money’
- Getting bad advice
- Care for our children first
- Obama’s VA
- Corbett better choice
- UMW’s silence
- Expanding their options
- UAW won in Tennessee
- Stop the idiocy
- Anything but ‘e-fairness’