Slashdot Mirror


Congress Mulls Research Into a Vehicle Mileage Tax

BJ_Covert_Action writes to let us know that an Oregon congressman has filed legislation to spend $154.5M for a research project into tracking per-vehicle mileage in the US, and asks: "Do we really want the government to track our movement and driving habits on a regular basis?" "US Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) introduced H.R. 3311 earlier this year to appropriate $154,500,000 for research and study into the transition to a per-mile vehicle tax system... Oregon has successfully tested a Vehicle Miles Traveled fee... the [Oregon] report urged a mandate for all drivers to install GPS tracking devices that would report driving habits to roadside RFID scanning devices." Here is the bill (PDF). The article notes that the congressman's major corporate donors would likely benefit with contracts if such a program were begun.

37 of 792 comments (clear)

  1. toposhaba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can't they just read an odometer

    1. Re:toposhaba by Adriax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      5 screws, spin a couple numbers back: "Yes sir, I only drove this car 7 miles in the past year. Yes this is my only registered car, and I live 8 miles away, why do you ask?"

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    2. Re:toposhaba by Psyborgue · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then prosecute that person for breaking the law. Such a major infringement on everybody's privacy is not necessary.

    3. Re:toposhaba by greywire · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And a GPS can't be removed and left at home? Slightly harder but come on. Anybody with the wherewithal to change the odometer can probably find out a way to remove the GPS or something too.

      Yeah, if all they really cared about was tracking mileage to tax us appropriately (which on the surface I dont think most people would mind) then they could come up with a harder to tamper with odometer that would probably be way cheaper than a GPS.

      But lets face it. If they force GPS on us, well, that's great news for GPS makers. And auto makers (markup, installs on older cars, etc). And insurance companies. And law enforcement. Hell its great for everybody, except the people driving the cars.

      --
      -- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
    4. Re:toposhaba by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "...tracking mileage to tax us appropriately (which on the surface I dont think most people would mind)..."

      What tax is this proposed tax replacing?
      Will someone who drives very little end up paying less in total taxes?

      Oh wait, I know.
      This is another fucking tax, another fucking invasion of privacy, and more fucking pork for me to pay for.

      I certainly fucking mind.

    5. Re:toposhaba by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Informative
      And a bicyclist does not have more rights a car (although a pedestrian does), they are supposed to be treated the same as any other vehicle on the road.

      Well, they are SUPPOSED to be treated the same, but the reality is much, much different. Maybe you don't live in Oregon so you don't know what goes on here.

      If as many cars simply ignored as many stop signs as bicyclists do, there would be cop cars monitoring every intersection just waiting to write tickets. The last time a cop gave a bicyclist a ticket for ignoring a stop sign here, the papers filled with rage that the cop was wasting his time enforcing a law that shouldn't exist.

      I don't know about Portland's packs of cyclists, but they do the same thing in Eugene. They plan events intended to block the roads (the LAW says they are to ride single file on the right, you know) to annoy and harass drivers. Not long ago, they did this on a major bridge and they hindered an ambulance going to a medical emergency. Did anyone get ticketed? Yeah, right.

      Locally, a distracted SUV driver ran over a bicyclist. Yes, bad thing. She got ticketed (properly) and the papers filled with rage about her arrogant disregard for human life. (Because she drives a car, she automatically has an arrogant disregard for human life, according to our bicyclist pals.) About a day later, a BICYCLIST ran down a PEDESTRIAN IN A CROSSWALK, putting the pedestrian in the hospital with major injuries. (In case you don't know Oregon law, ALL vehicles MUST STOP for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, and crosswalks exist at intersections even if they aren't marked...) Did the bicyclist get a ticket for his arrogant disregard for human life? Of course not. Did his fellow bicyclists condemn him? They were too busy making excuses for him to ever say anything bad. (It was dark out. The ped wasn't wearing reflective clothing. It was rainy. The bike's headlight wasn't strong enough to see him... Everything they used as an excuse just proved the bicyclist was going too fast for conditions -- a ticketable offense for car drivers.)

      No, I don't think you can honestly say that bicycle riders (more than a very small handful) believe they are supposed to follow the same laws every other vehicle is, or that they are even close to being treated by law enforcement as if they are supposed to.

    6. Re:toposhaba by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's easier than all that. A tax on gasoline is the best way to achieve the ends. If I'm driving a fuel-efficient vehicle, why should I pay the same amount as someone who's car had to burn 5 times as much gasoline to go the same distance?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:toposhaba by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Informative
      No, to me, your post sounds like typical road rage: the road belongs to me, and everyone else on it is a raging idiot who should be shot.

      Everyone else? No, many people, especially those in cars, follow the laws. Some don't. Some go the wrong way around traffic circles. Some do run stop signs. They're wrong.

      Now count the number of bicyclists who break the law on a regular basis. The ones who come to a stop sign crossing a busy road and instead of stopping like the law requires, swerve over a couple of feet and ride through the crosswalk as if they were pedestrians. That puts not only themselves but the pedestrians in that crosswalk in danger.

      The ones I really love are the ones who approach the main road from a side-street (with a stop sign for them) at full speed, while I'm going through that intersection, and instead of stopping or even slowing down, they make a sharp right turn into the bike lane. Someday one of them will hit a piece of gravel in the road, or some dirt, and lose control, sliding themselves under my car. They'll be dead or disabled, and it won't be my fault, but that won't make me feel any better about it, and it won't keep the rabid anti-car nuts from harassing me for the rest of my life.

      No, it's not "road rage based on owning the road", it's anger that those who are supposed to share the road with me are breaking the laws and putting not only themselves but me in danger, and they do it on a regular basis with no reason to expect repercussions -- as if THEY owned the road and I better get out of THEIR way. So, you have it exactly backwards.

      I'm pretty sure also you're part of the idiots who sit in traffic school and think they're perfect drivers,...

      I stop at stop signs, I stop for peds. Not a perfect driver, but I'll compare my record with nearly every bicyclist I've ever seen on the road.

    8. Re:toposhaba by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I am a cyclist, and I'm sure you hate how slow I ride my bicycle as you blow by me, passing illegally.

      It is not illegal to pass a bicyclist, no matter how slowly they are going. That's what bike lanes are for -- you get a lane, the car gets a lane, everyone should be happy. Except, apparently, you.

      Yet you get angry if I break a law?

      No, I get angry when you willfully and deliberately violate a simple, basic law that has no exceptions for how many wheels you are using (for n>0), claim that it's ok because other people break some other laws, and then claim the right to decide for yourself which traffic laws you should have to follow and which you don't need to.

      Yes, that's the argument here in this area now. Bicyclists want the right to decide if they NEED to stop at stop signs and to just blow through if they decide they don't need to stop. I'd love to get that kind of consideration as a car driver, but nobody in their right mind would ever think of passing a law that says stop signs don't mean "stop" for cars. And yet bikers expect it to be that way even when the law doesn't say it.

      And I bet you also hate how fast I drove my sports car and ride my motorcycle.

      I don't give a fuck how fast you drive your sports car or ride your bike, unless you are doing it on my street where children are playing and there is a 25 MPH speed limit, or you are doing 95 on the freeway and endangering everyone around you by swerving into other people's lanes and cutting them off. And as long as you accept the responsibility for the tickets you get for doing it and not whine at 200 dB about how you should have the right to break whatever laws you don't think should apply to you.

      Good thing you're smart enough to recognize that you're perfect and everybody else is an asshole.

      Not everybody, just you.

    9. Re:toposhaba by mcsqueak · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not in this town. Not near the campus where I see most of the bikes and flagrant violations.

      Give me a break and present some stats.

      http://bikeportland.org/2008/12/09/city-auditors-survey-less-cars-more-bikes-and-safer-streets/ According to this article the City Auditor says that just 8% of people in Portland commute by bicycle, and that among people commuting to work downtown, that number drops to 4% for their primary mode and 8% for their secondary mode. I don't know what your definition of "many, many more" is, but to me a 12% vs 88% constitutes "many, many more".

      Here is another article with data from a 2006 ODOT survey: http://velocommuter.org/blog/?p=76 there were on average 11,109 bike commuters vs. 197,632 car drivers, city wide. So yes, EVEN in this town, EVEN near "the campus" (PSU? UP? I'm assuming downtown by PSU).

      And just for fun, one last set from the Portland Business Alliance http://bikeportland.org/2008/06/13/business-alliance-reports-uptick-in-bike-commuting/

      Ahhh, yes, the ubiquitous "drivers break the law too" excuse that makes bicyclists as pure as the driven snow. Doesn't work that way.

      It doesn't make cyclists as pure as snow, it just deflates the argument that "ZOMG so many bikers break the law, if drivers did that it would be INSANE!" argument that seems to persist.

      As if bicyclists never speed.

      It's true, they do, but it's a lot harder to speed on a bike. My last ride, on Sunday, my average speed for the ride over 13 miles was approximately 8.5 MPH, calculated by my GPS. I might have broken some laws there.

      As if there wasn't an order of magnitude difference between a driver going five over on an interstate where everyone is going the same speed and the road was designed for twenty over the current limits

      Doesn't make it any less illegal. Last time I checked the speed limits were pretty much set, not flexible based on perceived outdated limits. Hell, I just received a speeding ticket two months ago, and everyone else WAS going my speed, but I was the lucky person that got picked out. Damn, I should have used everyone else as an excuse to my actions when the cop stopped me. I'm sure he would have understood that breaking the law was OK, since the 35 MPH speed limit on Mclaughlin blvd is outdated. I could have also told him cyclists break the speed limit, too.

      As if the driver of that 3000 pound vehicle is just looking for ways to kill you.

      No, they aren't, but if I fuck up while biking, I stand a much greater chance of dying and they (maybe) have a dent in their vehicle. I'd like to live, and I ride with the assumption that people won't see me.

      Stop spouting nonsense and stop trying to excuse the vast majority of your fellow bike riders who simply refuse to obey a simple law, instead expecting every car on the road to protect them from themselves and demanding special rights to pick and choose what laws they will obey.

      I'll stop spouting when you go on a bike ride with me and see how it is on the other side and stop spouting nonsense yourself, like your arguments are any more valid than mine. I'm a driver too, but as far as I can tell you're not a cyclist. You're ignoring all the law violating that drivers do in order to push your anti-cyclist points, which as far as I can tell aren't backed up by anything other than your opinion.

  2. Ummmm by homey+of+my+owney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't that what the Federal Gasoline tax does?

    1. Re:Ummmm by trigeek · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The general thought process is that as cars get better gas mileage, the revenues from the gas tax will decline.

      I personally don't see a problem with continuing to use the gas tax, but increasing it: It encourages people to drive more fuel efficient cars. I don't see this monitoring technology as being useful.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your committment to SparkleMotion!
    2. Re:Ummmm by guyfawkes-11-5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But it also has the additional positive effect of pushing people towards electric and alternative fuels.

    3. Re:Ummmm by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Basically this is an early change over to a system that will work regardless of fuel source.

      Note that this is not being discussed as a replacement for gas taxes, but as a supplement to them. In other words, you'll get both taxes.

      Later on, when noone is using gasoline, they'll come up with a replacement for gas taxes. And the per mile tax will continue.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Ummmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not just a system regardless of fuel source but it's so much more. Imagine this:

      2009 15 09 15:37 - Startup
      2009 15 09 15:37 - $ 0.012 ID# 8984489618
      2009 15 09 15:37 - $ 90.00 Failure to yield to posted sign (lowest MPH = 1.7)
      2009 15 09 15:37 - $ 0.025 ID# 1898138518
      2009 15 09 15:38 - $ 1.50 Toll #6848681685
      2009 15 09 15:38 - $ 0.018 ID# 1868321896
      2009 15 09 15:38 - $120.00 Exceeding maximum speed limit, ID# 6588616816, Limit: 25 MPH, Current MPH : 26

    5. Re:Ummmm by clampolo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have a better idea. Let's tax campaign contributions from auto makers, auto unions, and gasoline manufacturers at 50% and the proceeds will go to fund the roads.

    6. Re:Ummmm by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then read the odometer. It is already a crime to tamper with it. I don't want the government tracking my position. They have no business doing this. This idea is totally stupid on principle. Just add more cost to the vehicle too.

      Only government would be this stupid!

      --

      Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
    7. Re:Ummmm by Artraze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No.

      The Federal Gasoline tax does not "mandate for all drivers to install GPS tracking devices that would report driving habits to roadside RFID scanning devices". This tax proposal is little more than a way of netting some GPS companies gigabucks and getting GPS driving logs of every driver. Why else would they not JUST USE THE F**KING ODOMETER.

      P.S. If you think that law enforcement isn't salivating of the idea that the could subpoena a driver's entire history you are beyond naive.

    8. Re:Ummmm by JCSoRocks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This. Don't let the government fool you. They're not in the business of taxing you less or taking taxes away. They're in the business of lining their pockets. Yes, I've become a bit cynical over the years.

      The same is true in Oregon with sales taxes. There are always people pushing them. What they always leave out is that they aren't going to decrease property taxes, state income taxes or any other source of state revenue accordingly. They're just going to tax you even more than before.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    9. Re:Ummmm by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not just a system regardless of fuel source but it's so much more. Imagine this:

      2009 15 09 15:37 - Startup (Snip)

      Think bigger. (Knock knock.) "Hello. The vehicular mileage tracking system informs us that you've been making regular trips up and down a known drug smuggling corridor. We have a warrant to search your home and vehicle for any and all contraband and controlled substances."

      Hey, in places too much power use is enough for them to look for a marijuana grow-op, and too much cash on your person is damn near proof you're going to buy drugs with it. Any new information source will get bent to the same ends as the old information sources, whether or not that's what was originally intended.

  3. Miles * weight is what they want, so tax gasoline by noidentity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do number of miles driven matter? I'd think the central concern is wear on roads, which is also dependent on the weight of the vehicle. So they want to charge based on weight*miles. Guess what? A vehicle's gasoline usage is closely related to this; big heavy vehicle, more gasoline used per mile. So they could just increase the gasoline tax.

  4. RFID? KISS! by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Quite a few states have emissions testing every year or every other year. Make them get a sticker that also has the mileage. The next year, you figure out the difference. Pay the tax. Odometer fails it's the same as if ODB readiness fails.

    How often are these RFID checkpoints going to fail? Devices fall off cars, etc.

    Let me guess, there's a GPS tracking company in someones district.

    1. Re:RFID? KISS! by Temkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My family owns a couple miles of private dirt roads. You're going to tax me for driving on my own road?

  5. This'll go over well by jgtg32a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are they planning on buying everyone a GPS device because I just don't see how this study can cost $154.5 Million

  6. Goodby privacy by merreborn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the [Oregon] report urged a mandate for all drivers to install GPS tracking devices that would report driving habits to roadside RFID scanning devices.

    You want us to give The Man complete GPS records of all driving?

    Am I the only one who finds that terrifying?

  7. citizens mull... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ass fucking every member of congress with a flame thrower

  8. No GPS thanks by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not particularly opposed to an tax on my odometer, but GPS is way over the line. You want to know how much I drive? Fine. You want to know where I drive? Fuck off.

    Besides, the gasoline tax is already a mileage tax. It has the added bonus of being a bigger burden on those who drive low efficiency vehicles.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  9. Two Words: by blcamp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    HELL NO.

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
  10. Intended for abuse by bcmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since this does nothing relevant that gasoline taxation doesn't already do, one can presume that it is intended as a tracking device.

    If this is actually introduced, it will sooner or later be used to track down some horrible terrorist/paedophile on the run, and no one will object. The next year, it'll be available to track down whoever they want to track down, and if attitudes wiretapping are anything to go by, they won't need a warrant. Lucky it's such a blindingly stupid idea that they'll never actually implement it, right?

    Right?

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  11. Sweet merciful crap! by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How the fuck can ANY study cost $154,500,000 That's one hundred and fifty four million, five hundred thousand dollars. I don't care WHAT they're proposing. A traffic STUDY with that kind of price tag should get a resounding and unanimous "FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING FUCKS!" from anyone voting on it.

    I normally don't use so much profanity on slashdot but it's not like I can get any more obscene than what's being proposed.

    1. Re:Sweet merciful crap! by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How the fuck can ANY study cost $154,500,000 That's one hundred and fifty four million, five hundred thousand dollars.

      The money is mostly to buy off the other politicians who will need to vote YES to make it law. There is no actual study.

    2. Re:Sweet merciful crap! by stmfreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Upmod parent to eleven, please. This was what I wanted to post.

      Forget the shock that they want to track our locations. Forget that we already pay a road-use-tax via gasoline which is already levied more towards high mass inefficient vehicles than the low-mass efficient methods of travel. Let's focus our shock and outrage on the very idea that our government has evolved to the point where it cannot even propose a law without first undertaking a study funded by taxes which would otherwise employ several hundred people for a full year.

      These are supposed to be our representatives. Unless you and a lot of other people I don't know have been calling them asking for more taxes on road use... preferably tracked by vehicle mile, they shouldn't be proposing this junk at all. As noted in the top post, the beneficiaries here are corporations. I suspect that the proposed study would be bid out to these same corporations to conclude that yes, it does seem to be a good idea.

      We need to vote out every incumbent now. Turn over the entire cart and start fresh with no tolerance for this junk anymore.

      And by "junk" I mean bullshit.

      --
      These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
  12. Re:Miles * weight is what they want, so tax gasoli by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Informative

    The state legislatures are getting in a lather over the idea that gas-electric hybrids will reduce their gas-tax-based state income. It's all rather reminiscent of the year 2000 panic over computer glitches - based in a sliver of truth, but WAAAAY overestimated. They're looking to use these mileage-based taxes as a way to future-proof, but as you mentioned, the better solution is to just increase gas taxes proportionally with the fraction of gas being used thanks to improved technology, so revenue can keep up with increased expenses, while keeping the burden on those who do the most practical use, rather than taxing a hybrid the same as a cement truck.

    Ryan Fenton

  13. how about... by night_flyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Insisting that the gov't spend the gas tax money they collect for roads, to pay to repair roads instead of funneling it off to pet projects that have nothing to do with roads.

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  14. Government FRAUD? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    MOD PARENT UP, not down.

    Fraud Alert: This is my best understanding. This is a new part of a very old effort. I remember protesting it many years ago.

    There is some company in Oregon that expects to sell the equipment that would track miles. Quote from the article: "Honeywell International, for example, is a major manufacturer RFID equipment. The company also happens to be the second biggest contributor in the current cycle to Blumenauer's Political Action Committee..."

    The mileage-tracking would download data remotely, using the same radio wave band used by wi-fi, or close. Every car would have the new equipment. A little aluminum foil over your car's antenna would stop the functioning of the system.

    Quote from the article referenced by Slashdot: "... the report urged a mandate for all drivers to install GPS tracking devices that would report driving habits to roadside Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) scanning devices." How long would it be until a hacker reported that his vehicle was in Canada? Maybe, "Oh, yes, yesterday I was driving in the Kamchatka peninsula, after a long trip around the moon."

    The biggest problem is that even the study would be extremely expensive for taxpayers ("... $154,500,000 for research and study into the transition to a per-mile vehicle tax system...") The second biggest problem is that buying the equipment would make Blumenauer's friends rich and taxpayers poor. The third problem is that it wouldn't work. There would be many, many failures in the equipment.

    If that is true, it is fraud, an attempt to profit by using government power to do something bad for everyone, and US Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) should be recalled as soon as possible, and barred from ever again participating in politics.

    Often the actions of the U.S. government seem shockingly corrupt.

    Someone would get the money, "$154,500,000 for research and study", even if no working system were produced.

  15. Re:No need for the tinfoil by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but I do know that using a GPS over an odometer is not a case of teh ebil gubermint wanting to spy on you. There are legitimate reasons to do so.

    No you don't. How are you using the word "legitimate"?

    If you mean lawful, well then that is bullshit. It used to be lawful to own black people as slaves. Forgive the hyperbole, but a laws are not intrinsically ethical, moral, fair, etc. If a law is unjust then it is my duty to perform civil disobedience. The idea that I should follow all laws and use the "approved" channels to change it is is insanity. When those "approved" channels are tightly controlled and effectively blockaded, by only remedy IS civil disobedience to the point I can attempt another avenue, which is the judicial process. Sometimes change can only occur through a litigation vehicle. Most bullshit does not get changed through lobbying, but through court processes in which laws are found to be unconstitutional. In order for that to happen though, someone has to be harmed by that law first .

    Now if you mean genuine, which is another definition of legitimate, you cannot possibly know that. Additionally, tin foil aside, the actions of the U.S government have demonstrated a complete disregard for our rights to privacy, anonymity, etc. What about the scandal with the telcos, the NSA, and phone records? That has less media attention now, but they got away with it.

    It is quite reasonable for me to believe the worst intentions with this GPS data as my government has already demonstrated an intense desire to possess this information and use it for intelligence gathering purposes. My government has also demonstrated a concerning pattern of abuse of it's citizens in the last 100 years for sociopolitical reasons. Hoover is well known to have hated Martin Luther King and to have abused his power to illegally monitor a U.S Citizen because of conflicting ideologies and political beliefs. MLK was just one of many and Hoover has not been the only government official to abuse their position of power.

    With all due respect, you cannot state you know the government has no intentions of spying on us. Your usage of the word tin foil is also offensive (mildly). You do not need to denigrate and disrespect those of us that have good and legitimate reasons to fear this government. If you are an activist working against unjust laws and corruption, or are a whistleblower, you have good reason to fear the apparent conspiracy between corporations, government officials, and our legislators. All three entities possess a non-trivial amount of power and influence over our lives and there are examples in which political activists have been targeted and powers abused.

    Your point is logical and reasonable about how a GPS is required to tax mileage. Of course an odometer will not work in this situation at all. I agree GPS is required. However, I think the real argument comes down to whether or not I want a presumably more fair and efficient method of tax collection (ostensibly to provide me with a well working infrastructure) while also risking the government permanently recording my movements and then later using that against me.

    Personally, I fear the government's actions with the data more than my concerns over an unfair and less efficient method of taxing vehicle usage. We can come up with different, more passive methods of tax collection. THAT is not tin foil speaking, Sir. Not at all.

  16. Conversation with someone in Blumenauer's office: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative

    I called Representative Blumenauer's phone number and talked with Mr. Willy Smith there. I didn't know that members of Congress cannot be recalled.

    Apparently no one in Rep. Blumenauer's office has any technical knowledge whatsoever. That's what Willy Smith told me. Apparently no one in that office realizes that their complete ignorance could possibly be a concern.

    Mr. Smith told me, "Representative Blumenauer has never done heart surgery. Does that mean he cannot introduce health care legislation?" First, Representative Blumenauer knows a lot about heart surgery if he has read news reports over the last 20 years. He knows, for example, that heart surgery often fails. He knows the sociology of heart surgery because he has heard his friends and family talk about it.

    Second, yes, if he doesn't thoroughly understand something, he should not make expensive proposals about it, especially since it seems that no one in his office wants to learn. Certainly that is the impression I got from Mr. Smith. Although we had a friendly, respectful conversation, nothing I said seemed to make any difference to him.

    Wi-Fi and RFID are entirely voluntary technologies. They depend for their operation on the idea that the users want the technology to work. When the GPS on a United Parcel Service delivery truck fails, the central office can call the driver on his cell phone. The driver will be happy to say where he is. Failures are unfortunate, but soft and friendly.

    Tracking the location of every car is NOT a voluntary use. Any failure or accidental interference would be a reason for a court case.

    Mr. Smith told me that many people say very negative things about legislation introduced by Representative Blumenauer and other senators and representatives. So, why should he listen to me, he implied. Good point.

    People are, at present, saying very negative things about President Obama's health care bill. Generally what they say is poorly expressed. But certainly they have some reason for complaint. President Obama is trying to accomplish something in a way that is socially impossible. Hillary Clinton tried another confused bill, and her ideas were rejected, also. However, although many people don't like the health care bill, no one seems to think that President Obama intends to profit personally.

    One of the problems with Representative Blumenauer's actions concerning the 2009 H.R. 3311 bill is that, to a lot of knowledgeable people, they look like criminal fraud. He has taken money from companies that sell GPS technology. He is proposing that those companies get a huge amount of taxpayer money, for a study. That means that the companies can spend taxpayer money, but they don't have to produce anything useful. Maybe a study could cost $100,000. But $145 MILLION? For something that any technically knowledgeable person knows immediately cannot work well? That looks like criminal behavior.

    Can Representative Blumenauer be ignorant of the fact that people don't want to be tracked everywhere they drive? Certainly, people think, he cannot be that ignorant. Therefore, they think, when he completely ignores the issue of privacy, he must understand what he's doing.