Obama administration floats draft plan to tax cars by the mile

Obama administration floats draft plan to tax cars by the mile

Pete Kasperowicz
TheHill.com
May 5, 2011

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.

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.”

News of the draft 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-N.D.), who has proposed taxing cars by the mile as a way to increase federal highway revenues.

The 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 department seemed 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 $300 million through fiscal 2017 for the project.

You know what this means don't you? It means that gas taxes are not pulling in the predicted amount of revenue thanks to Obama's complete fuck-up on energy policy that is driving gas prices so high that people are driving less (something liberals typically support, until it hurts revenues). Now that people are driving less and thus buying less gas, the morons in the White House are looking for ways to supplement lost gas tax revenues by taxing based on miles driven. This confirms that the White House and Democrats are just utter idiots!

I think it's also because this is what you get with fuel economy cars. More mileage per tank of gas.

TexasBlue wrote:I think it's also because this is what you get with fuel economy cars. More mileage per tank of gas.

Yes, and this tax would penalize fuel efficiency.

It's a terrible idea. Fuel taxes make sense (and reward fuel efficiency). This makes no sense whatsoever.

dblboggie wrote:It means that gas taxes are not pulling in the predicted amount of revenue thanks to Obama's complete fuck-up on energy policy that is driving gas prices so high that people are driving less (something liberals typically support, until it hurts revenues).

Can you please expand on "Obama's complete fuck-up on energy policy?" I've replied to two similar such posts of yours in which you blame Obama for high gas prices, and IMO rebutted them thoroughly, and you haven't replied, but you keep returning to this point.

1. Gas taxes (at least on the federal level) have not changed since 1993, so Obama did nothing new there.

2. Even if Obama had immediately lifted all drilling restrictions everywhere on 1/20/09, the gas price situation would be the same. It would gradually lower the price very slightly over the course of decades, but you'd feel no effect right now.

3. The deepwater drilling moratorium is having a dinky effect on Gulf oil production that is offset by increases in production elsewhere, with the net result that domestic oil production is 3a) higher under Obama than it was under Bush, 3b) increasing for the first time in decades.

kronos wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:I think it's also because this is what you get with fuel economy cars. More mileage per tank of gas.

Yes, and this tax would penalize fuel efficiency.

It's a terrible idea. Fuel taxes make sense (and reward fuel efficiency). This makes no sense whatsoever.

Right on. My point was (at 5:16am which isn't too coherent) that we're constantly told we need fuel efficient cars/trucks. Fine. I'm all for that. But then when the gasoline usage drops because of those vehicles, the state and the feds lose out in gas tax dollars. They're scrambling to find anew source of (a new way) of revenue. The reason I disagree with this proposal is that it puts the feds' tentacles where it doesn't belong..... my vehicle.

TexasBlue wrote:

kronos wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:I think it's also because this is what you get with fuel economy cars. More mileage per tank of gas.

Yes, and this tax would penalize fuel efficiency.

It's a terrible idea. Fuel taxes make sense (and reward fuel efficiency). This makes no sense whatsoever.

Right on. My point was (at 5:16am which isn't too coherent) that we're constantly told we need fuel efficient cars/trucks. Fine. I'm all for that. But then when the gasoline usage drops because of those vehicles, the state and the feds lose out in gas tax dollars. They're scrambling to find anew source of (a new way) of revenue. The reason I disagree with this proposal is that it puts the feds' tentacles where it doesn't belong..... my vehicle.

I know, I was agreeing with you, and your post was perfectly coherent. I hope you didn't think my "this makes no sense whatsoever" was in reference to your quote. It was in reference to the tax.

I'm with you on this one. It penalizes fuel efficiency. If my Chevy Volt gets 40 mpg on the highway, and your Bugatti Veyron gets 15, then I am paying 40/15 = 2.67 times more per gallon of fuel in this mileage tax than you are!! The guy in the Nissan Leaf who is using no gas is paying infinitely more than either of us! Way to promote fuel efficiency!

I hope this proposal gets eviscerated in the most humiliating way possible.

kronos wrote:

dblboggie wrote:It means that gas taxes are not pulling in the predicted amount of revenue thanks to Obama's complete fuck-up on energy policy that is driving gas prices so high that people are driving less (something liberals typically support, until it hurts revenues).

Can you please expand on "Obama's complete fuck-up on energy policy?" I've replied to two similar such posts of yours in which you blame Obama for high gas prices, and IMO rebutted them thoroughly, and you haven't replied, but you keep returning to this point.

1. Gas taxes (at least on the federal level) have not changed since 1993, so Obama did nothing new there.

This isn't the problem - though it is worth reiterating that these "taxes" are not paid by the corporations they allegedly target, but by the consumers of those companies products (gas in this case).

kronos wrote:2. Even if Obama had immediately lifted all drilling restrictions everywhere on 1/20/09, the gas price situation would be the same. It would gradually lower the price very slightly over the course of decades, but you'd feel no effect right now.

This is just not true - and we have an historical record to prove that. As I said before, when faced with skyrocketing fuel prices back in 2008, Bush announced ending a ban on new offshore drilling and was sounding like he was serious about exploiting our own natural resources, the prices began falling, and falling rather quickly (relatively speaking) - it didn't take decades or even years, it took just a few months or so for the price of oil to drop precipitously. You seem to be forgetting the impact that futures buyers and speculators can have on the price of oil, and what effect that can have on oil producers - who can hold back production to boost prices even higher.

And Obama's flat out war on fossil fuels is sending a very clear signal to both speculators and producers that we are not even remotely serious about developing our own natural resources and this gives the foreign producers a tremendous amount of power to jack up prices. Immediately on taking office, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled 77 leases for oil and gas drilling in Utah. At the beginning of this year, in a blatant land grab, Salazar issued an order allowing Bureau of Land Management officials to place land with "wilderness characteristics" off-limits to energy development. Some 6 million acres in energy-rich Utah would be affected. At least 103 drilling permits await approval by a federal government that has not approved a single new permit since the moratorium was allegedly lifted last October. And now we are learning that there is to be a 3-year BAN on all new offshore drilling leases in federal waters! It is just madness!

The day before President Obama was inaugurated, the average price of a gallon of gas was $1.83 - it is now almost $4/gal (as a national average) and much, much higher than that in cities - over $5/gal and climbing! And Obama has done NOTHING to stop the bleeding.

And to add insult to injury, Obama is giving Brazil $2 billion dollars to state-owned Petrobras for their offshore oil drilling!!!! Now we've stepped beyond madness! So it's okay for Obama to spend taxpayer dollars on foreign offshore oil drilling, and it's okay for those guys to drill for oil, but our own energy companies and shut down from spending their own dollars (and the federal and state revenues that would come from that) on exploiting our own resources!!!!

Please, someone, explain to me just how this makes any fucking sense!

kronos wrote:3. The deepwater drilling moratorium is having a dinky effect on Gulf oil production that is offset by increases in production elsewhere, with the net result that domestic oil production is 3a) higher under Obama than it was under Bush, 3b) increasing for the first time in decades.

The signal that Obama's energy policy (if one can call it that) is NOT dinky! And I seriously doubt all the lost jobs and lost state revenues that come from the gulf oil industry and seen as "dinky" by those who are paying that price.

And you say that domestic oil production is higher, please, point to a single policy by Obama that has ANYTHING to do with that? The fact is, that oil production could be much, much higher if we didn't have a President who is committed to an all out war on fossil fuels.