More states considering pay-by-the-mile car taxes

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/08/more-states-considering-pay-by-the-mile-taxes/1Well, you don't think you pay enough taxes, do you? It seems the politicians think you should pay more. Of course, Oregon will drop state gasoline taxes which now is at $0.30 per gallon.

Okay, let us say your fuel loving pick-up truck gets only 15 miles per gallon. That would mean you pay a $0.02 per mile in state taxes. And of course your tree hugging neighbor that drives a hybrid gets 60 mpg, so he only pays $0.005 per mile in state taxes. That seems fair, huh. Well now Oregon is considering to drop all that and charge you $0.85 PER MILE driven. So your Oregon state gasoline "tax" for that gallon of gas that get you 15 miles is $12.75. I don't live in Oregon, so I don't know what they are paying for a gallon of gasoline there, but here we are paying right at $3.50 as of today. Let us do the math. $3.50 minus the $0.30 in state gas taxes that they will stop charging is $3.20, for those 15 miles you you get in that pick up truck you will need to add $12.75 for the "new" per mile charge. So now your cost just went from $3.50 for 15 miles to $15.95 for the same 15 miles. Now that's fair, because what that neighbor pays will be the same you pay is what spin they will probably put on it. You see, it doesn't matter if you have a "good gas milage vehicle" you will be paying per mile, not per gallon. That ought to get the tree huggers panties in a wad!

But, wait....You don't think your state is considering the same thing? Think again. I would bet that any state that is having budget problems (which is most) would be looking at something similar.

Keep your eyes WIDE open folks.

Must Watch

You don't think the govt is watching you? They probably knew the words I was going to type before I typed them. Gotta go, there is someone knocking at the door and I think I hear a helicopter circling overhead.

Obama, Obama

Open Letter From Senator Rand Paul, (R) KY

Folks, this says it all. We have been played by our politicians. Thankfully, we have a few statemen left to tell the truth. Everyone of my CONgress critters that voted for this bill will not be receiving a vote from me during their next election cycle. I would encourage you to do the same.

http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=280

Open Letter: Why I Oppose the Debt Ceiling Compromise

Aug 1, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today Sen. Rand Paul issued an open letter on the subject of the debt ceiling compromise facing the Senate. Below is that letter.

To paraphrase Senator Jim DeMint: When you're speeding toward the edge of a cliff, you don't set the cruise control. You stop the car. The current deal to raise the debt ceiling doesn't stop us from going over the fiscal cliff. At best, it slows us from going over it at 80 mph to going over it at 60 mph.

This plan never balances. The President called for a "balanced approach." But the American people are calling for a balanced budget.

This deal does nothing to fix the overreaches of both parties over the past few years: Obamacare, TARP, trillion-dollar wars, runaway entitlement spending. They are all cemented into place with this deal, and their legacy will be trillions of dollars in new debt.

The deal that is pending before us now:

• Adds at least $7 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years. The deal purports to "cut" $2.1 trillion, but the "cut" is from a baseline that adds $10 trillion to the debt. This deal, even if all targets are met and the Super Committee wields its mandate - results in a BEST case scenario of still adding more than $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years. That is sickening.
• Never, ever balances.
• The Super Committee's mandate is to add $7 trillion in new debt. Let's be clear: $2.1 trillion in reductions off a nearly $10 trillion,10-year debt is still more than $7 trillion in debt. The Super Committee limits the constitutional check of the filibuster by expediting passage of bills with a simple majority. The Super Committee is not precluded from any issue, therefore the filibuster could be rendered moot. In addition, the plan harms the possible passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. Since the goal is never to balance, having the BBA as a "trigger" ensures that the committee will simply report its $1.2 trillion deficit reduction plan and never move to a BBA vote.
• It cuts too slowly. Even if you believe cutting $2.1 trillion out of $10 trillion is a good compromise, surely we can start cutting quickly, say $200 billion-$300 billion per year, right? Wrong. This plan so badly backloads the alleged savings that the cuts are simply meaningless. Why do we believe that the goal of $2.5 trillion over 10 years (that's an average of $250 billion per year) will EVER be met if the first two years cuts are $20 billion and $50 billion. There is simply no path in this bill even to the meager savings they are alleging will take place.

Buried in the details of this bill is the automatic debt limit increase proposed a few weeks ago. The second installment of the debt ceiling increase is initiated by the President automatically and can only be stopped by a two-thirds vote of Congress. This shifts the Constitutional check on borrowing from Congress to the President and makes it easier to raise the debt ceiling. Despite claims to the contrary, none of the triggers in this bill include withholding the second limit increase.

Credit rating agencies have clearly stated the type of so-called cuts envisioned in this plan will result in our AAA bond rating being downgraded. Ironically then, the only way to avoid our debt being downgraded and the resulting economic problems that stem from that is for this bill to fail.

This plan does not solve our problem. Not even close. I cannot abide the destruction of our economy, therefore I vigorously oppose this deal and I urge my colleagues and the American people to do the same.

Sincerely,




Rand Paul, M.D.
United States Senator