Our socialist neighbors over at the Rochester Post-Bulletin are at it again. Their editorial board is Hip-Hip-Hooray! giddy over the fact that Americans "have figured out ways to reduce our consumption of natural resources." I can't help it, so here are some excerpts with commentary. It's like shooting fish in a barrel but here we go.
The federal government is in a bit of a tizzy because people aren't buying enough gasoline. Americans have reduced their driving by nearly 4 percent compared to last year, which means fewer gas-tax dollars are flowing into the federal Highway Trust Fund.
That fund pays for a variety of road projects nationwide, and although it had a surplus of about $8 billion on Jan. 1, the fund is expected to be drained within 15 months. That could halt some projects and slow others down, as states would be forced to wait for funding to trickle in.
That’s when liberal schizophrenia kicks in, though it could be argued that it is a constant. Using less gas is good unless it results in less money for the government ti spend. Go figure.
But forgive us if we refuse to wring our hands over the fact that Americans, without any lawmakers forcing them to do so, have figured out ways to reduce our consumption of natural resources.
“[W]ithout any lawmakers forcing them to do so?” Do we now live in an America where elected officials would be justified to FORCE citizens to reduce fuel consumption? The P-B editorial board apparently think so? What else should lawmakers FORCE citizens to do, P-B editors? This statement explains their puff editorials and fawning stories about DFL legislators.
Cheaper gas is good for the economy, and there’s no doubt that decreasing demand by American drivers is having a direct effect on oil prices worldwide.
American drivers are solely responsible for the worldwide price of oil. It's a bold statement with no basis on fact. Increasing oil supply would also bring prices down. What’s their point? They don't have one. Just Obama-like talking points. This statement sounds much like Barack Obama's recent assertion that inflating tires properly and regular tune-ups (who goes takes their car in for "regular tune-ups" anymore?) will save all the fuel that would have been producing by drilling oil domestically. And makes just about as much sense.
And yes, this trend is affecting the highway fund. It’s possible the federal government will need to figure out an alternative revenue stream, and there’s even been some talk of “borrowing” from the fund’s mass transit account. That, however, would be a mistake. Every dollar earmarked for mass transit needs to be spent creating and maintaining a national transportation network that moves people far more efficiently than do individual automobiles.
“Alternative revenue stream” is liberalspeak for TAX INCREASES. How innovative! Or should I say “progressive?”
No, our concern is that the shortfall in the highway fund will be short-lived. If gasoline makes it back to $2.99, drivers and automakers might be tempted to return to their gas-guzzling ways.
What a horrible thing it would be for us to drive our own cars wherever we want or need to go and pay for the fuel with our own money using the roads our tax money built.
The P-B’s collectivist, government-dependent view of the world is anathema to the American democratic system.