dayman

Accounting nonsense or not, there are regular transfers from general revenue to the allocation for highway spending. Raiding that fund doesn't appear to be a problem that justifies an amendment. The strongest argument for changing the gas tax is that the highway fund is currently raiding other funds...and yet still not funding projects most could agree on.

Well you are never going to have the government not wasting money and you can blame the politicians more than the bureaucrats for that (but most of the blame would just be on the what government is/how it runs). That doesn't mean it shouldn't do infrastructure. And you can get an idea of what is going on with your money now if you are interested, fairly good one if you are really interested and just go through available public documents. Politicians don't talk about this b/c they don't know and people don't care. That doesn't mean there is no info out there or that we shouldn't do infrastructure. If they came up with a relatively decent formula and decided to stick it in the constitution then that is fine with me. But it is not necessary. At some point, we will inevitably have good reason to change it (it's a specific tax)...so it doesn't make sense to put it in the constitution at this point. Yes, future Congresses will destroy, change, and write laws. This is not a bad thing. I think it is a bit ridiculous (and somewhat immature) if you genuinely might agree with a specific idea for a gas tax but only if it is an amendment to the constitution.

What to do with the tax rate is undetermined. Set it up so it goes down or caps out when gas is high or the growth weak. Doesn't matter. I doubt it takes an act of Congress to account for tax money. I'm sure it's a mess and insane but you could get that now. Amendments for each new tax? We don't need to treat our federal constitution like some state's do theirs...it shouldn't be used as a giant statute. Law is good enough, we don't need everything in the constitution.

Well neither of those things are happening. I think it would be reasonable to designate in the law that the funds are to be used on infrastructure and only infrastructure...and then find a reasonable thing to do with the tax rate. Pass an infrastructure bill (that has keystone in there for those who for some reason love keystone) and mess with the gas tax, go build/improve more stuff. Economy is rolling and gas is cheap, now is a fine time to do this.

It's not a percentage and it isn't a flat fee per gallon that is tied to inflation by any formula. It's just 18.4 cents a gallon and has been '93. There's a highway trust fund that this goes toward, and that fund just keeps needing supplements from general revenue to stay afloat...and infrastructure spending as percentage of GDP is historically low. Most people agree that if you are going to do something...building infrastructure is as good as anything. $50 a gallon. It's not going to stay 18.4 cents a gallon forever, it's arbitrary at this point. Since you have to revisit at some point, why not now? It's a pretty regressive tax, conservatives should be able to stomach a small increase if it comes by way of some formula.

B-Man unfamiliar with political State of the Union speeches?

Obama setting up his zinger perfectly.

So Obama just said Keystone is fine if they roll it into his infrastructure bill.

This is the speech Obama would've killed himself to see Romney making while he sat on the coach.

Boehner has his A-face on tonight. Red and disturbed. Very nice.

1) People still play Halo? 2) Baby carrots instead of asparagus?

Oh we got the guy who was anonymously bashing Cutler behind his back? Great.

Can't figure out if the Packers defense is out there playing lights out or if the Seahawks are devoid of all playmaking ability

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/18/politics/joe-biden-delaware-shooting/index.html Drive-by shooting targeting Biden's home. Biden wasn't home at the time.

Southeast--most people are indifferent which is a better reaction than most Bills hires get. Seem to expect mediocrity with occasionally over-achievements...in other words they expect the Bills to be better than they ever have.

The top group of guys still makes way more than that.

That is an insult if true. And it is, literally, the current Reggie Bush contract (no knowing the structure obviously, but on average).

Spiller is much better than you give him credit for. He was, for a time, excellent. Nearly unstoppable. Obviously, that isn't sustainable for him and he does have problems blocking and making something out of nothing. But if there is space and you can get him rolling and he's healthy, he's very dangerous. Not to mention, his full potential in the passing game has yet to be realized but he is capable of putting up numbers there too. If you can keep Spiller you do. He's a fantastic talent who you draft high. You don't need to overpay but you can't just let him go without a competitive offer.

I mean what is he going to be looking for? Any way to gauge what CJ will expect he's worth?

The argument is that the injuries are because of age. I mean, not many rookie qbs tearing quads. At least not simply by throwing (which reportedly this happened against SD on a routine throw).

Yup. Been hammered into the ground that Kaep's contract is all window dressing assuming he doesn't play great...and there is obviously no way to hit an incentive of any kind QBing the Bills.

Game is increasingly entertaining

Obviously they should take OJ down.

Now all the sudden I'm imaging Eli (who I never even considered before this topic). Eli would use Sammy and Woods as designed. If we added a TE and got better OL play we could (just saying "could") win the superbowl with Eli...like...as soon as next year.

Looking at that list I go: 1. Eli (it will never happen) 2. Cutler 3. Locker 4. Sanchez In that order. All should start over EJ. EJ can remain on the roster developing as a #2 for now....if he can beat out a young guy we bring in as #3.