Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Even Bernie Sanders opposed the gas tax
Even Bernie Sanders opposed the gas tax
Dec 13, 2025 4:20 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
Spirit-and-Body Economics
Over at the Kern Pastors Network, Greg Forster points to Rev. Robert Sirico’s speech from this year’s Acton University, drawing particularly on Sirico’s emphasis on Christian anthropology.“One may not say that we are spirits inside of flesh,” Sirico said, “but that we are spirits and flesh.” Forster summarizes: Christianity teaches that the human person is, in Sirico’s words, both corporeal and transcendent. We cannot make sense of ourselves if we are only bodies. How could a strictly material body think...
Disability and Discipleship: God Don’t Make No Junk
In this week’s Acton Commentary, “Disability, Service, and Stewardship,” I write, “Our service of others may or may not be recognized by the marketplace as something valuable or worth paying for. But each one of us has something to offer someone else. All of us have ministries of one kind or another. Our very existence itself must be seen as a blessing from God.” During a sermon a couple weeks ago at my church, the preacher made an important point...
Was Gordon Gekko Catholic?
Is greed really good? Does self-interest equal sin? Samuel Gregg takes on these questions at Aleteia.org, in an excerpt from his new book, Tea Party Catholic: the Catholic Case for Limited Government, a Free Economy and Human Flourishing. In many ways, the free economy does rely upon people pursuing their self-interest rather than being immediately focused upon promoting the wellbeing of others. One response to this challenge is to recognize that fallen humanity cannot realize perfect justice in this world....
Lord Acton and America’s Moral Absolutes Concerning Liberty
Lord Acton once said of the American revolution: “No people was so free as the insurgents, no government less oppressive than the government which they overthrew.” It was America’s high view of liberty and its ideas that cultivated this unprecedented freedom ripe for flourishing. Colonists railed over 1 and 2 percent tax rates and were willing to take up arms in a protracted and bloody conflict to secure independence and self-government. In a chapter on Lord Acton in The Moral...
Bradley Cited in News Roundup on Millenials Leaving Church
Last week, Rachel Held Evans wrote an article discussing millennials leaving the church. This piece quickly went viral prompting responses from mentators, debating “why those belonging to the millennial generation are leaving the church and what should be done about it.” Research fellow at Acton, Anthony Bradley, discusses Evans’ piece in “United Methodists Wearing A Millennial Evangelical Face.” Jeff Schapiro, at the Christian Post, discusses this debate and summarizes mentators’ opinions, including Bradley’s: Anthony Bradley, associate professor of Theology and...
For America’s Elites, Religious Freedom is a Non-Issue
America’s Founding Fathers considered religious liberty to be our “first freedom.” But as Ken Blackwell notes, that view is no longer shared by our media and foreign policy elites: All such understandings of the religious freedom foundation of American civil liberty and foreign policy seem long forgotten by the elites of today. The media cares little about religious freedom. The famous Rothman-Lichter study of 1981 surveyed 240 journalists from the prestige press. Of course, 80 percent of them voted one...
Dispersing Poor People And Crime
Emily Badger at The Atlantic Wire posts mon sense story regarding the debate about whether or not the dispersing of poor people out of inner-city housing projects into suburban neighborhoods, through government housing voucher programs, increases crime rates. The article reflects recent research by Michael Lens, an assistant professor of urban planning at UCLA. A growing stack of research now supports [the] hypothesis that housing vouchers do not in fact lead to crime. Lens has just added another study to...
Do the Poor Vote for More Welfare?
A popular saying (often misattributed to Alexis de Tocqueville) states that a democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. If this is always the case then we should expect the poor to vote themselves even more welfare payments. However, as Dwight R. Lee explains, the desire for transfers that others will pay for has almost no effect on people’s voting behavior: This argument that a significant financial gain from...
What Distributists Get Wrong
Last week, we took a look at what distributists get right in terms of economics, through the eyes of David Deavel at Intercollegiate Review. Now, Deavel discusses where distributism goes off the rails in that same series. It is a rather long list, but here are the highlights. First, Deavel says that simple economics escapes distributists. Despite the fact that economics teaches that actions in the real world have real world consequences, distributists tend to ignore this fact. They scoff...
The Rise of Free-Market Alternatives to Obamacare
Referring to the Affordable Care Act, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus (D-Mont.) stated earlier this year, “Unless we implement this properly, it’s going to be a train wreck.” And indeed, from looking at the Obamacare implementation timeline alone, the law seems to have gotten off to a shaky start. The implementation of the so-called employer mandate, which would require businesses with more than 50 workers to offer insurance to all full-time employees, or else pay a fine...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved