On Jul 5, 6:29*pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> Jason Pawloski wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 12:27 pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> >> Bill wrote:
> >>> For those who weren't around for the original 55 law, it should be pointed
> >>> out that the law itself didn't change any speed limits outside of federal
> >>> property. Instead it coerced the individual states into lowering their speed
> >>> limits by threatening to withhold federal highway dollars for those that did
> >>> not comply. This is the same technique used to impose the 21-year-old
> >>> drinking requirement, among others. No state can be forced to lower their
> >>> limit by federal law, just "encouraged". So even if a federal law were
> >>> passed, there is always a faint hope that at least some state legislatures
> >>> will have some backbone, and not sell out their citizens for their 30 pieces
> >>> of federal gold.
> >> Not only that, but they could also stop collecting the federal gas tax
> >> (and lower the gas price a little bit).
> > Oooookay, I'm having difficulty understanding this. If you do not take
> > federal money for roads, you are off the hook for the federal gas tax?
>
> Well, if the federal government *refuses* to distribute funds to a
> particular state because they won't enact a specific law (55 mph limit,
> 21 year old minimum drinking age, etc.), then why should the state
> continue to collect the federal gas tax?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I mean, I agree in principle, but I don't there is anyway that
argument would ever jive.