CFIF often highlights how the Biden Administration's bizarre decision to resurrect failed Title II "…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: U.S. Internet Speeds Skyrocketed After Ending Failed Title II "Net Neutrality" Experiment

CFIF often highlights how the Biden Administration's bizarre decision to resurrect failed Title II "Net Neutrality" internet regulation, which caused private broadband investment to decline for the first time ever outside of a recession during its brief experiment at the end of the Obama Administration, is a terrible idea that will only punish consumers if allowed to take effect.

Here's what happened after that brief experiment was repealed under the Trump Administration and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai - internet speeds skyrocketed despite late-night comedians' and left-wing activists' warnings that the internet was doomed:

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="515"] Internet Speeds Post-"Net Neutrality"[/caption]

 …[more]

April 19, 2024 • 09:51 AM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
California Considers Voluntary Per-Mile Tax Program on Motorists Print
By Ashton Ellis
Thursday, May 08 2014
The plunge in revenue projections is so dire officials are attempting to drop taxing gas in favor of taxing people for every mile they drive.

California has long prided itself on being a leader in promoting greater fuel efficiency in automobiles. The Golden State incentivized sales of hybrid and electric cars by allowing single-occupant use of its carpool lanes to drivers of low- and zero-emission vehicles. The “California Global Warming Solutions Act” (i.e. AB 32) seeks to fight worldwide climate change by imposing strict regulations and fees on state-based consumers of fossil fuels.

But after decades of demanding unending increases in fuel efficiency, “green” states like California are realizing that motorists who use less gas-per-mile also pay less in gas taxes. The plunge in revenue projections is so dire officials are attempting to drop taxing gas in favor of taxing people for every mile they drive.

“State and local gas-tax revenue has declined every year since 2004, falling 7 percent to $37.9 billion in 2010,” reports the website The Truth About Cars. Progressively higher federal fuel standards have resulted in a nationwide vehicle fleet that is much more efficient than its predecessors. In May of 2007, “all cars sold had an average CAFÉ rating of 30 MPG.”

Typical of the move toward a mileage-based-fee (MBF) is California’s Senate Bill 1077. If passed, the proposal would empower the California Transportation Agency (CalTrans) to create a pilot program to test the viability of taxing miles driven rather than gas purchased. At a page-and-a-half, the bill is short on details other than listing a start and end date – January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 – and requiring that CalTrans study how to limit the program’s costs and minimize the encroachments on privacy that seem almost inevitable to occur.

Critics have seized on two controversial aspects of SB 1077.

The first is the voluntary nature of the pilot program. A similar test in Oregon netted only 50 volunteers, most of whom were state transportation officials and elected lawmakers. Oregon’s participants were allowed to either use a global positioning system (GPS) or self-report their number of miles driven. Oregon’s proposed MBF is 1.56 cents per mile, with participants getting a credit to offset their gas tax.

Oregon’s sample suffers from at least two problems that make any results meaningless. The first is selection bias since the kind of people who opt-in to a voluntary tax are those most likely to support it becoming law – as evidenced by the high number of public officials who volunteered for the study. There’s also concern that the limited participation rate isn’t big and diverse enough to give planners an accurate picture of what a statewide program would yield. If the voluntary program required by California’s SB 1077 is similarly deficient, a lot of money and time will be wasted.

The second criticism of SB 1077 is its likelihood to infringe on privacy rights currently enjoyed by California motorists. By its terms, the bill mandates CalTrans to study various ways to collect the data necessary to track every mile driven by each vehicle in California. Allowing drivers to self-report their mileage seems like an invitation to commit fraud, while installing a GPS device in every automobile removes that possibility.

But the specter of a government-owned GPS in every vehicle raises questions about who gets access to the information. Will law enforcement be able to track motorists in real time? Will other government agencies be able get personal data on drivers? Will the government give non-government groups the information in exchange for help mining the wealth of data captured by millions of GPS monitors?

Blowback against SB 1077 has been so swift and fierce that its author has published a “Frequently Asked Questions” page on his official website. In it, he emphatically claims that “This bill DOES NOT:

• Allow California Transportation Agency to force anyone to participate in the pilot program
• Allow California Transportation Agency to charge a fee or a tax
• Have anything to do with raising taxes on anyone.”

While the first two bullet points are technically true, the third isn’t even close. The entire purpose of SB 1077 is to explore ways to increase the tax revenue flowing into Sacramento. Until politicians can admit that, simply calling a new tax a fee won’t be enough to persuade voters.

Notable Quote   
 
"Soon the government might shut down your car.President Joe Biden's new infrastructure gives bureaucrats that power.You probably didn't hear about that because when media covered it, few mentioned the requirement that by 2026, every American car must 'monitor' the driver, determine if he is impaired and, if so, 'limit vehicle operation.'Rep. Thomas Massie objected, complaining that the law makes government…[more]
 
 
— John Stossel, Author, Pundit and Columnist
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you mostly approve or mostly disapprove of U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson's plan to introduce foreign aid packages for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan before legislation on U.S. border security?