Bruce Lunsford's Gas Tax Problem

While I'm on this kick of kicking The Courier-Journal, take a look at Joseph Gerth's column on page B1 of today's paper. Gerth claims that "the biggest problem with" Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's television advertisement attacking Bruce Lunsford's gasoline tax increase

is that McConnell blames Lunsford for a recent increase in the state gas tax but leaves out key points: 1) the hike was 1.5 cents a gallon, a small percentage of the skyrocketing prices lately, and 2) Lunsford worked on the law 30 years ago, though the ad makes it seem it was yesterday.

Let's address each of those points.

First, that Lunsford's tax increase is a small percentage of the price of gasoline doesn't change the fact that it is still a tax increase that brings in literally millions of dollars in tax revenue for the state government, which gives politicians the perverse incentive to do everything to keep gasoline prices high so that tax revenues go up. That might explain, for example, why Lunsford and other Democrats are against drilling for more oil: more supply would mean lower prices for gasoline, which in turn would translate into lower tax revenues. The gasoline tax is a regressive tax, hitting poor, rural Kentuckians the hardest because they are generally the people who have to drive the most. Multi-millionaires like Lunsford feel no pain in their pocketbooks from his gasoline tax increase, but regular people do.

Second, that Lunsford set the mechanism in place 30 years ago to raise gasoline taxes does not change the facts that (a) his bad policy decision is having a real impact today, and (b) rather than renounce the tax increase, Lunsford in recent days has actually boasted about it. Instead of admitting he was wrong and supporting legislation for more domestic drilling that would lower gasoline prices, Lunsford is proud that he has had a part (albeit a small one, Gerth says) in getting them to the sky-high level they are today and he refuses to support anything of substance to bring them down.

The "problem", as Gerth puts it, is not with McConnell's ad; the problem is that big-bucks Bruce is out of touch with the harsh impact of high gas prices on ordinary Kentuckians.

Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.

Lex. H-L, C-J Push Back on McConnell Ad

The Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader have published editorials that purport to show the fallacy of the Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's current ad. Predictably, both are illogical and biased.

The C-J editorial isn't even consistent with its previous own analysis of the ad. Just this week, the C-J confirmed the truth of the ad's main point:

Lunsford, as Brown's chief legislative liaison, did push for a change in the gas tax formula.

A few days later, the C-J reiterated the point:

The ad makes two claims: Lunsford was behind legislation in 1980 to index the state's gasoline tax to the price of gas and that he will raise taxes if elected to the Senate. In 1980 Lunsford was Gov. John Y. Brown Jr.'s chief legislative liaison on the issue and helped push the new gas tax formula through the General Assembly.

The Herald-Leader's editorial relies on a straw man argument. (Oh, wait, the H-L only uses straw-persons.) It compares the price of gas to the date of Bush's inauguration. How about comparing it to the date of FDR's inauguration? That would be just as relevant.

Voters understand that the price of gas has shot up in a matter of months. That's why Barack Obama said he preferred a more "gradual" increase in gas prices. And in those months, the Democrats have "led" Congress, most notably by the Pelosi-Reid plan to oppose any new drilling anywhere.

Unlike the C-J, the H-L pretends that Bruce Lunsford was somehow not the cause of the automatic Kentucky gas tax:

Furthermore, McConnell accuses his opponent, Bruce Lunsford, of being responsible because he was part of the John Y. Brown administration 28 years ago when the legislature approved the gas tax formula.

Most disturbing about both editorials is that they whine that the country needs a solution, and a coherent energy policy and yet ignore the bill that McConnell authored that would give consumers relief at the pump, with more drilling, while we develop long term solutions of conservation and alternative fuels.

The McConnell bill has 42 Republican sponsors; roughly a dozen Democrats have come round on domestic drilling. Even the New York Times noticed (see previous posts). And yet neither the C-J nor the H-L says a word about the bill.

That's downright dishonest, and a disservice to the (declining) readership of both papers.