Transportation Funding Act Bill Up for Debate on the House Floor

At least that’s what the Rules Calendar says, with debate to run no more than an hour. However, as of 10:15, the Rules Committee is still meeting, and the House session hasn’t started. As reported by Aaron Gould Sheinin, the bill will supposedly been sent back to Rules after the session starts in order to make a technical amendment. Additional amendments involving the tax rate for diesel fuel, the appropriate excise tax to use overall and for counties without LOST, HOST, or MOST taxes may or may not be decided in Rules or on the floor. And, listening to the debate in Rules, it appeared that debate on the bill may be extended to two hours.

I’ve also heard about two representatives that supposedly will call out the bill as a massive tax increase. I’ve heard rumors that yet other amendments will be offered. So, clearly, things are going to be pretty fluid today, once things get started.

I’m going to be updating this post in live blog format as the day progresses. Whatever happens, it’s sure to be interesting.



  1. David says:

    I wonder how my Rep. Defenbaugh who sits on the Transportation Committee could vote against this bill. He said absolutely nothing against it in any of the committee meetings I saw. His no vote to make a couple of uniformed County Commisioners happy may well cost us more in repurcusions than the tax.

  2. ArtfulDodger says:

    Unfortunately the bill is still a joke. Still no money for transit. Still Constitutional Amendment is being proposed allowing use of fuel taxes for ALL transportation uses. Fuel taxes on aviation fuel should be dedicated to airports. Fuel taxes on diesel fuel for railroads should be dedicated to rail uses. While the bill is being drafted and debated let’s do it right.

    • benevolus says:

      I don’t think so. That is like micromanagement. You would be forcing money into agencies whether it’s needed or not. Those agencies would certainly find ways to spend the money even if they have to make something up. Doesn’t seem very efficient.

      I know it’s hard to trust elected officials and agency managers, but it is inherent in the positions. We have to trust them and make them pay when they do wrong. Setting one-size-fits-all rules does not reflect the way the real world works, when circumstances can change and needs evolve over time.

    • Will Durant says:

      It is my understanding that railroads do not pay a motor fuel tax in Georgia as they own their infrastructure. They do pay a federal motor fuel tax but it is near the same as is paid for off-road or agricultural diesel. I’m still uncertain with the wording in the bill regarding aviation fuel “sales taxes” and asked about that in the other thread yesterday with no response. They aren’t exactly using the state highways either.

      • Jon Richards says:

        The bill (along with HB 175, which does the same thing) repeals a tax exemption on aviation fuel enjoyed by airlines fueling in Georgia. Delta was the biggest beneficiary.

        The tax will generate about $25 million a year. For the first two years, that money can be spent for any purpose. After that, it must be used for airport related purposes, which could include installing sound barriers, improving transportation options leading to an airport, or improvements / additions to airport infrastructure.

        I don’t believe jet fuel is considered to be a motor fuel as far as the constitutional requirement goes directing revenue to roads and bridges. The amount being raised is minuscule, however it’s a bit of political payback for Delta urging tax increases to pay for transportation while enjoying its tax exemption.

        • Will Durant says:

          I’m still confused on why Delta would pay a sales tax since they own their own refinery. Do they sell it to their self? I understand that punitive politics is in play and wish that their CEO would shut up as well, but this is complicating a bill that is too complex for the general public in the first place.

    • Will Durant says:

      Why should the taxpayers subsidize any particular technology? If its time has come then it should be able to exist without the subsidy. Ditto for Georgia Power rates. The same amount of coal is burned to produce the kilowatts used by an EV or a hair dryer.

      • Lea Thrace says:

        Agree with you but GP has better lobbyist than the taxpaying public. Their subsidies are never going away. You really think the legislature is going to put as much effort into repealing those credits/subsidies?

Comments are closed.