Obama floats plan to tax cars by the mile

Obama floats plan to tax cars by the mile


By Pete Kasperowicz - 05/05/11 07:45 AM ET

The Obama administration has floated a transportation authorization bill that would require the study and implementation of a plan to tax automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive.
The plan is a part of the administration's "Transportation Opportunities Act," an undated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly.







This follows a March Congressional Budget Office report that supported the idea of taxing drivers based on miles driven.
Among other things, CBO suggested that a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax could be tracked by installing electronic equipment on each car to determine how many miles were driven; payment could take place electronically at filling stations.

The CBO report was requested by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), who has proposed taxing cars by the mile as a way to increase federal highway revenues.
Obama's proposal seems to follow up on that idea in section 2218 of the draft bill. That section would create, within the Federal Highway Administration, a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. It would be tasked with creating a "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems."
The administration seems to be aware of the need to prepare the public for what would likely be a controversial change to the way highway funds are collected. For example, the office is called on to serve a public relations function, as the draft says it should "increase public awareness regarding the need for an alternative funding source for surface transportation programs and provide information on possible approaches."
The draft bill says the "study framework" for the project and a public awareness communications plan should be established within two years of creating the office, and that field tests should begin within four years.
The office would be required to consider four factors in field trials: the capability of states to enforce payment, the reliability of technology, administrative costs, and "user acceptance." The draft does not specify where field trials should begin.
The new office would be funded a total of $200 million through FY 2017 for the project.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile

The contents of this site are © 2011 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.
Comments (384)




PAGE |1|2| ... |19|20|>


Uh, forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the federal gas tax already hit those that drive more the hardest? Didn't Obama promise that no American families making less than $250,000 a year would not see their taxes increased by one dime? This ridiculous idea will hurt the poorest the hardest—but then again, this administration couldn't care less.

Evidently we are not paying enough at the pump in their eyes, guess we'd be easier to control if we can't afford to drive and had to stay home. Guess they want us to go back to the stone age and use of horses and oxen that will crap all over the streets, releasing more methane into the atmosphere worsening "global warming."

Good luck getting them to put any device in my car that will keep track of my driving. Ain't gonna happen. BY this guy is nuts on 05/05/2011 at 07:57
this is the most ridiculous thing ever. why punish people who have to commute to a job so far away or any job for that matter not to mention if they have a elderly mother or father that need to go to doctor's appointments or even the grocery store or even just to drive to check on them to see how they are doing and if they are okay. a lot of working people are living paycheck to paycheck now and are constantly cutting back to make ends meet because of the ever increasing cost of gas, food, utilities, and medical care.BY fiftyplus on 05/05/2011 at 08:34
We pay enough taxes. Another attempt of having government in too much of my business. Once again government overreaching by taxing because they spend to
much…BY Bailedout on 05/05/2011 at 08:37
Those who could least afford these taxes in the hinterland would be most heavily punished. There was never a better time to take the bureaucrats in Washington out of their bubbles. Time to get out there and find out how this country actually operates.BY libertyville on 05/05/2011 at 08:37
Another plan to Shaft American by our Great Double crossing president Barry Obama.BY Too Much on 05/05/2011 at 08:39
I am so sick of this administration! Obama is a one term president, he campaigns on spreading the wealth from the wealthiest to the poor and thats all the "entitled" want to hear…
They will soon realize they are taxed out the a** too! I can't wait until The Constitution of the United States is exercised as it will set these marxists straight and stop their spending. No, I will not allow any device to be placed on my car to track me! Go away obama!
BY Sweetliberty on 05/05/2011 at 08:39
I live 130 miles from the nearest city where i can use a hospial. My parents are old i i drive them at least twice a week to the Dr's. that is a total of 520 miles a week. Tthis does not take into consideration that i take my family to the city to shop for food clothing and the needs for my family. This would kill me at the pump. There already is a tax at the pump, try and raise it. I will not tolerate a tracking device from Big BrotherBY Richard Pullum on 05/05/2011 at 08:40
Does anyone even think that they are thinking about doing away with the present tax? Me neither! This would be in addition to the gas taxes we pay now. It is another plan by the govenment to screw you over when you think you have done the RIGHT thing.. This time is was buying a fuel efficient car. BY jeff on 05/05/2011 at 08:40
Please please please let the news agencies get a hold of that idea, lol. Of course, a communist wolud love to control mobility. Good luck with that,lol. I won't be paying that tax (it's a joke anyway and will never happen), and hahaha just try putting any device on anything I have. Seriously, do it, strong arm it through and watch how well it doesn't work out for you, lol. BY JustMe on 05/05/2011 at 08:42
Do we really need a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office collecting taxes at our local convience store?

How about just raise the gas tax.BY uncertain t on 05/05/2011 at 08:43

Just one more way for the government to say "Fuck you very much!"

Maybe they could just issue us all iphones and then Jobs can track us real-time -- charge the bill to your itunes account.

The plan is a part of the administration's "Transportation Opportunities Act," an undated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly.







This follows a March Congressional Budget Office report that supported the idea of taxing drivers based on miles driven. Originally Posted by Marshall

Anyone notice the 7 line gap in Marshall's editing job? Allow me to fill in the missing 18 minutes.

The White House, however, said the bill is only an early draft that was not formally circulated within the administration.

“This is not an administration proposal," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. "This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.”

This was originally floated by Ray LaHood, the only Republican in Obama's cabinet. Last I heard the Whitehouse killed it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_168506.html

However, you already essentially pay transportation taxes by the mile, albeit very roughly, via the Federal gas tax. I tend to favor leaving the funding mechanism in the gas tax (with a higher rate) as it places a larger burden on those who drive vehicles that consume more gasoline. These vehicles are generally heavier and therefore cause more wear and tear on roads, so you get the tax more closely aligned to a true user fee and internalize external costs.

I don't see a great deal of difference between the two other than 1) gas taxes are easier to collect and administer; and 2) the concept of "if it's not broke, don't fix it." The only real problem with the gas tax is that it's too low to pay for our transportation infrastructure needs and to serve as any real deterrent to driving and thereby affect climate change.

Anyone notice the 7 line gap in Marshall's editing job? Allow me to fill in the missing 18 minutes.

The White House, however, said the bill is only an early draft that was not formally circulated within the administration.

“This is not an administration proposal," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. "This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.” Originally Posted by Doove

OK, Rosemary, cut that sh*t out - it's embarrassing. As if any further proof was needed...hee hee hee.

Does this mean we wont be getting iPhones?

This was originally floated by Ray LaHood, the only Republican in Obama's cabinet. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Hah! A Republican!! Too damn funny. Marshall, what say you?

Last I heard the Whitehouse killed it.

Well, according to the link you cite, dated, ahem, 2/20/09....that's....'09

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Friday rejected his transportation secretary's suggestion that the administration consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive instead of how much gasoline they buy.
"It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters, when asked for the president's thoughts about Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's suggestion, raised in an interview with The Associated Press a daily earlier.

Emphasis kinda mine.

Though i would add: Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahha aahaha!!!!

Does this mean we wont be getting iPhones? Originally Posted by pjorourke

No, PJ, we won't be getting iPhones.

Anyone notice the 7 line gap in Marshall's editing job? Allow me to fill in the missing 18 minutes.

........................ Originally Posted by Doove

But for a few blanks in the tapes......................

You're right. Arguments need to be based on facts not wishes.

Actually, it does appear that this is a policy being reviewed again, so a little egg on my face.

Nevertheless, the fact that some in here need to rant about policies simply being looked at, and edit articles to remove the parts that seem to debunk the reasons for their vitriol....which is surprising since Marshall seems to get paid by the word...

Actually, it does appear that this is a policy being reviewed again, so a little egg on my face. Originally Posted by Doove

I thought that was theatrical make-up

Actually, it does appear that this is a policy being reviewed again, so a little egg on my face.

Nevertheless, the fact that some in here need to rant about policies simply being looked at, and edit articles to remove the parts that seem to debunk the reasons for their vitriol....which is surprising since Marshall seems to get paid by the word... Originally Posted by Doove

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! The article was posted in totality......Barry doesn't want to do it? That must be true because Barry always tells the truth....HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! The article was posted in totality......Barry doesn't want to do it? That must be true because Barry always tells the truth....HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Originally Posted by Marshall

I admitted a mistake, before anyone even accused me of making a mistake. You, in turn, lie even after you got busted.

Here's the link to the article. People can make up their own minds about whether or not you edited out the part you claim to have not edited out.

I admitted a mistake, before anyone even accused me of making a mistake. You, in turn, lie even after you got busted.

Here's the link to the article. People can make up their own minds about whether or not you edited out the part you claim to have not edited out. Originally Posted by Doove

You are correct that part is missing....I linked to artcle from Drudge and did cut and paste.....was not previously aware any was missing.......will ask though, WHO EDITS OUT A PART AND LEAVES AN OPEN SPACE THAT PERFECTLY MATCHES THE EDITED OUT PART???......duh.......when you cut out a piece, the cut function closes the space......so sue me, but please use the attorneys on this board so I can make a little money off your efforts........HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

I vote that we give Marshall a smiley quota for the month. Once they are used up, he has to stop posting until the next month.