Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Even Bernie Sanders opposed the gas tax
Even Bernie Sanders opposed the gas tax
Dec 8, 2025 9:43 PM

As an estimated 50 million Americans plan to travel for Thanksgiving holiday celebrations, politicians across the U.S. and Europe have introduced legislation to increase the gasoline tax. Legislators should listen to an outspoken foe of those taxes: Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Gasoline tax revenues, which fell consistently before the COVID-19 pandemic, have gone into a free fall under government-mandated lockdowns. In the U.S., the gasoline tax funds the Highway Trust Fund, which pays for improvements to roads and bridges. But the fund has run a $16 billion deficit, and the lower rate of travel due to the coronavirus will create an additional $50 billion deficit by next November, according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Politicians created a problem, and now they want to punish citizens for following their orders. They now propose to solve the crisis which they created the only way they know how: raising taxes.

Last Tuesday, Chicago hiked its citywide gasoline tax by 60%, from 5 cents a gallon to 8 cents a gallon. Two days later, the Wyoming legislature’s Joint Revenue Interim Committee approved a 9-cent fuel tax increase. Louisiana State Rep. Jack McFarland has agreed to introduce a measure that would more than double the state gasoline tax, raising the state’s levy by 22 cents a gallon – 10 cents all at once, then two cents a year each year until 2033.

The idea holds sway on both sides of the Atlantic. Officials in the European Union wish to impose a unified fuel tax across all 27 remaining members “to make sure that our carbon footprint is fully reflected in our taxes.” Setting fuel tax rates “is very often [the responsibility of] national policy,” said European Commission Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans this month. “But if you want to be consistent on this … you will have to think about changing the tax system.” In the UK, which just exited the EU, Chancellor Rishi Sunak considered a 5-cent-a-litre increase to fuel taxes, although sources at 10 Downing Street reported in September that Prime Minister Boris Johnson intended to block any fuel duty rise. (Sunak is now contemplating other punishing transportation duties.)

Meanwhile in Washington, Joe Biden – who shares none of Johnson’s pro-market instincts – plans a bevy of proposals that would increase gasoline costs indirectly. “Traditionally, presidents had limited ability to move the needle at the gas pump, but in recent years that has changed,” said Patrick De Haan of GasBuddy, which recently analyzed 2020 campaign proposals’ impact on gasoline prices. Biden’s plan proposes “curbing U.S. oil production and end[ing] fracking, which could potentially send oil prices and thus gas prices higher.”

Biden’s advisers look at gasoline taxes as a way to discourage fossil fuel consumption and fund government programs. However, as gasoline costs rise and CAFE standards increase fuel efficiency, consumers buy less gasoline – and pay less tax. Politicians, who have grown accustomed to the revenue, now hike taxes. Gasoline taxes are a prime example of how governments levy “sin taxes” and then e financially dependent on the “sin.” Their taxes fall hardest on the poor and struggling.

Politicians along the political spectrum, in both parties, and across the transatlantic sphere could stand to listen to the anti-tax message of perhaps the world’s most prominent democratic socialist, Sen. Bernie Sanders.

“The gasoline tax is one of the most regressive and unfair taxes imaginable,” Sanders said in a typically impassioned speech before the House of Representatives in August 1991. The Vermont independent was serving his first term in Congress at the time.

While social engineers tinker with tax codes from on high, fueled by an endless stream of tax revenues expropriated from the productive economy, the poorest Americans find themselves and their families squeezed to pay the price. Richard Thaler, the co-author of Nudge, won the Nobel Prize for his contributions to behavioral economics. However, his proposed fuel tax increases forced struggling British citizens to sleep in parking lots, away from their families, because they could not afford the fuel to travel home every night.

Bernie Sanders, who is generally averse to trade, rightly rejected importing this idea.

Unfortunately, he couched his opposition in terms of class warfare rather than economic principle. And two years after giving that speech, Sanders voted to raise the gasoline tax. Sanders voted for President Bill Clinton’s Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which raised federal gasoline tax to 18.3 cents per gallon, and diesel tax to 24.3 cents a gallon. Nonetheless, when he’s right, he’s right.

At a minimum, “pro-market” conservatives may want to rethink their support of a tax hike opposed even by Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders’ full speech is reproduced from the Congressional Record for August 2, 1991, page 22442:

A MOST REGRESSIVE AND UNFAIR TAX

(Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, this Congressman is strongly in favor of Federal action which will pump billions of dollars into rebuilding this Nation’s deteriorating infrastructure—our roads, our bridges, our mass transit systems, and other transportation needs. I am not, however, in favor of raising the gasoline tax 5 cents per gallon in order to finance these projects—as current legislation proposes.

The gasoline tax is one of the most regressive and unfair taxes imaginable. Clearly, this tax e down heavily on working people, like the workers in a rural State like Vermont, who often have to travel long distances in order to get to work. Raising the gas tax last year by a nickel per gallon was wrong, and raising it another 5 cents per gallon this year is even more wrong.

Mr. Speaker, the wealthiest people in our country have grown much wealthier during the last decade, yet at the same time they have seen a significant decline in their tax burden. The working people and the middle class have grown poorer, but they have seen an increase in their tax burden.

Let us say no to the 5-cent gas tax and return, after the recess, with a new revenue raising proposal which will be fair and progressive—not another tax on working people.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Gleaner Tech #1: Solar Bottle Lights in the Philippines
[Note: This is the first in an occasional series on gleaner technology.] In the Philippines, the cost of electricity often means poor citizens are left in the dark—even when the sun is shining. Social entrepreneur Illac Diaz e up with an indigenous and ingenious solution for lighting problems in the country’s e areas: He use plastic bottles, water, and chlorine to lighten up the dark homes of poor. The solution provides both a cheap source of lighting and environmentally friendly...
Creeping Crony Corporatism
In this week’s Acton Commentary, “Corrupted Capitalism and the Housing Crisis,” I contend we need to add some categories to our thinking about political economy. In this case, the idea of “corporatism” helps understand a good deal of what we see in the American system today. Adding corporatism to our quiver helps us to make some more nuanced distinctions than simple “socialism” and “capitalism” allow. Take, for instance, Mitt Romney’s contention this week while campaigning in Michigan that the bailouts...
Welcome to the PowerBlog, Joe Carter
When we launched the PowerBlog in 2005, we had little idea that it would grow into one of the Acton Institute’s most popular and munications channels. Nearly 4,000 posts, and ments later, the PowerBlog is still going strong. And for that, we heartily thank our many readers, contributors menters. Now we have for the first time a dedicated editor to help sustain and grow the blog for the advancement of the “free and virtuous society.” Veteran journalist Joe Carter is...
Subsidiarity vs. Soft Totalitarianism
While the recent contraceptive mandate controversy has exposed the Obama Administration’s disregard for religious freedoms, it has also reveled their natural disdain for subsidiarity. As George Weigel notes, this incident tells us “something very important, and very disturbing, about the cast of mind in the Executive Branch.” It is no exaggeration to describe that cast of mind as “soft totalitarianism”: an effort to eliminate the vital role in health care, education and social service played by the institutions of civil...
The “Right to Be Insured” Trumps Religious Liberty?
New York pundit Al Sharpton and California Senator Barbara Boxer agree: The “right” to insurance paid for by an employer trumps freedom of conscience and religion. Senator Boxer warned yesterday that if the HHS contraception mandate was repealed it would set a dangerous precedence of religious rights trumping the right to be insured. On MSNBC’s Politics Nation with Al Sharpton last night, Boxer affirmed that under the proposed amendment proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt, an employer would not be forced...
How Conservatives Fight Poverty
At Public Discourse, Ryan T. Anderson reviews Lawrence Mead’s From Prophecy to Charity: How to Help the Poor: The loudest voices in our national debates about political economy tend to be libertarians and social welfare statists. To our detriment, most public policy discussions are filtered through these two lenses. At the same time, we tend to conflate the policy issues facing our nation as if they were one and the same. But consider the range of America’s political-economic challenges: How...
Politicians and the Pursuit of Happiness
In this week’s Acton Commentary I conclude, “The American people do not need politicians to tell them what happiness is and how it should be pursued.” I admit that I didn’t have this quote in mind (or I would have used it!), but Art Carden (follow him here and read him here) notes the following from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations: What is the species of domestic industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely...
The End of Secularism and the HHS Mandate
The primary point of my first book, The End of Secularism, was to demonstrate that secularism doesn’t do what it claims to do, which is to solve the problem of religious difference. As I look at the administration’s attempt to mandate that religious employers pay for contraceptive products, I see that they have confirmed one of my charges in the book. I wrote that secularists claim that they are occupying a neutral position in the public square, but in reality...
Gleaner Technology
Gleaning is the traditional Biblical practice of gathering crops that would otherwise be left in the fields to rot, or be plowed under after harvest. The biblical mandate for the es from Deuteronomy 24:19, When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work...
Befuddled Bureaucrats on the Bayou
I’ve tried to stay on top of the federal government’s response to natural disasters here at Acton. I’ve written a number mentaries, blog posts, and a story in Religion & Liberty covering the issue. “Spiritual Labor and the Big Spill” specifically addressed the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. For extensive background on this short clip of Bobby Jindal at CPAC 2012, see my post “Bobby Jindal on Centralized Disaster Response.” ...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved