"Pay-Per-Mile" automotive tax proposal delivers "More Smiles Per Mile" to Big Oil, but for motorists, it's highway robbery.

Oregon's Governor Theodore Kulongoski is studying a horrifically bad tax concept that is little more than a love-letter to Big Oil.  He wants the state to study the idea of taxing drivers for using less fuel.

We call it the "More Smiles Per Mile" tax for the oil industry, because despite claims to the contrary, this tax will ultimately reward Hummer drivers and other gas hogs by taxing vehicles based on the number of miles they travel. 

California looked at this road tax a few years ago and decided to pass. But now, according to an article in today's St. Louis Dispatch, Texas, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Ohio are also contemplating Big Oil's "Smiles Per Mile" tax concept.

Here's the basic idea: Instead of taxing users based on how much gas they use, the tax will be based on how many miles you travel. When you pull up to the pump, the GPS navigational system in your car will be accessed by the gas station. The pump will calculate how many miles you have traveled, and where you have traveled, and tax you accordingly.  But that's not all: You will be charged extra if you drove during rush hour, or through a congested area.

Big Oil loves the idea because it rewards wastefulness. And Big Government? Well, they'll be able to keep records on where your vehicle has traveled at all times using a government-mandated GPS locator. This is wonderful news for law-and-order types who want to see a police state where all citizens are monitored at all times.

According to an article in today's St. Louis Dispatch:

"if you want to drive a Hummer, or whatever that vehicle might be 30 years from today, at 7:30 in the morning on I-70, you're going to pay a higher rate  ..." 

"... In Oregon, Gov. Theodore Kulongoski's proposed budget calls for a task force to work out details of the plan. Eventually, GPS devices could be recording every mile driven, and possibly which routes motorists use. Motorists would pay a mileage tax at the pump in place of a gasoline tax. The state tested the concept in 2006 and 2007 with 285 volunteers and a handful of gas stations in Portland, Ore."

Although boosters of the tax say that a Honda Civic driver will pay less than a Hummer driver, the reality is that Big Oil's "Smiles Per Mile"  tax would bring a multiplicity of bad consequences.

8 good reasons why this tax is highway robbery:   
 
1) It will likely reward gas guzzlers. Right now, drivers who use more fuel pay more in taxes. A cement truck, for example, gets terrible mileage. Because it is taxed on a per gallon basis, it pays more in taxes. And a Hummer, a cement truck, or a Chevy Silverado should pay more in taxes because the weight of these vehicles does tremendous damage to the roads.

2) It punishes fuel-efficient drivers. This tax was designed by the oil industry to punish people who drive economy cars. If you're getting 50 miles per gallon because you are driving carefully, and using a light-weight fuel efficient vehicle, such as a Toyota Prius or Honda Insight, you are currently rewarded with a lower fuel bill. This tax punishes you by charging you based on the miles of road you travel. It is therefore regressive. Proponents say they will tax a Civic less, but let's face it, this tax is tailor-made by the oil industry to punish drivers and businesses that are fuel-efficient.

3) It creates a massive bureaucracy. Under the plan, each vehicle, or each class of vehicle, will be taxed differently. It will take an army of meddling bureaucrats and tax collectors to create the tax code and enforce it. And over the years different business groups will lobby for discounts and exceptions. The only people who won't get discounts or exceptions will be YOU, the voter.

4) It's a horrific invasion of privacy: Your vehicle will constantly be monitored by the government. The government will know when, and at what time, you visted your psychiatrist. It will know when, and at what time, you attended that 12-step program, or stopped at your local church to pray. They may even report this data to your insurance company, which would love to raise your rates based on driving patterns, too.

5) Working people will be punished. If you work for a living and can't afford to live close to your office, like the corporate fatcats that invented this disastrous tax, you will pay more for driving during rush hour. That's right: If you are driving your vehicle during certain hours, you will pay a higher tax.

6) It will make it impossible to compare gas prices. Under this system, you won't know what you are going to pay for gas until after you buy your gas. If the proponents of this disaster get their way, you'll pay a variable rate depending on where you've driven, and at what time you've driven.

7) It will be impossible to audit.  How do you know you are being charged fairly by the retailer or the government when you are being taxed a different rate for the number of miles you've traveled, the time you've traveled, and the locations you've visited? 

Estimating your taxes will be almost impossible without a spreadsheet. And because the taxes will be so complicated, it will make motorists and businesses vulnerable to fraud, overcharges, and abuse.

8) It replaces the gas tax. Ultimately, this proposal is designed to eliminate taxes on gasoline, by replacing them with taxes per mile.  No wonder the oil industry is smiling.

This is one road tax that should be kicked to the curb. Otherwise,  the Gas Hogs will be lining up at the government trough at your expense.

But only for state law lawmakers. While Californians struggle to pay record prices at the pump, we get the distinct honor of paying for our Legislators gasoline purchases without any oversight. Read about this absurd perk at AP Exclusive: Gas cards give Calif. Leg. free ride.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, an independent opinion research group has released a nationwide study finding that "amid record gas prices, public support for greater energy exploration is spiking . . . and an increasing proportion (of people taking the survey) also says that developing new sources of energy - rather than protecing the environment - is the more important national priority.

The survey's found that an increasing number of support for energy exploration came from groups that previously had "viewed this as a less important priority."

Click here to read the entire survey.

Hey - Maybe it is time to lower the "talking-while driving" age!

Using a cell phone without hands-free equipment while driving is now unlawful. Yet according to the LA Times talking to a fellow passenger while driving is as bad or worse than driving drunk.

What is it that makes a phone so dangerous? Why isn't listening to the radio or talking to a passenger equally deadly?

Is it possible that driving and phoning skills are a function of age?

If you are over the age of 35, you probably learned to relate to the phone differently than younger generations. Young people are far more familiar with multi-tasking, but for the middle-aged, we grew up relating to a phone that had a cord attached to the wall.

When middle-aged people talk on the phone, we tend to mentally revert to the "phone attached to the wall" mode. We get engaged in the conversation and start driving like old people ... really old people.

Just imagine for a moment, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Chelsea Clinton in a NASCAR style road race where each of them had to drive and answer tricky policy questions on a cell phone. Who do you think would win? I'm betting that Obama and McCain would come in dead last, with an emphasis on dead.

This is one area where young adults (not teenagers) have superior skills, because they have grown up learning how to multi-task. Perhaps younger people who have learned this skill should be exempted from laws that limit driving while talking. We don't allow people over the age of 40 to enlist in the military because of their advanced age, so why should they be allowed to use a phone while driving?

Just a thought.

With age comes wisdom, but youth could well come with the ability to talk on the phone while driving safely.