Slashdot Mirror
US Contemplating 'Vehicle Miles Traveled' Tax
dawgs72 writes "This week the Congressional Budget Office released a report saying that taxing people based on how many miles they drive is a possible option for raising new revenues, and that these taxes could be used to offset the costs of highway maintenance. The proposed tax would be enforced through the use of electronic metering devices installed on all vehicles. The mileage tax is being considered instead of an increase in the gas tax in order to tax hybrids, EVs, and conventional automobiles equally."
So, um, how are they going to split that between county, state, and federally-funded roads?
Infrastructure is infrastructure. Everyone benefits from having it. Putting this kind of administrative overhead on it just makes it more expensive *and* takes away the benefit.
I think the real problem is that people mostly can't afford to live close to where they work. This leads to a lot of inefficiency, as they waste lots of time and energy driving back and forth from their cheap suburbs to the higher rent districts that pay just barely enough to survive if you live a neighborhood a tier or two away. Relatively cheap transportation sorta creates this situation, but there has got to be better ways to solve this than by making transportation more expensive with all of this metering equipment.
Make cities denser, cheaper, more accessible to families with better schools & playgrounds, etc. Get rid of suburban sprawl by zoning more parks and greenways. Maybe build some summer cottages / timeshares so people can still get away "to the country". Done! All the other countries are doing it :-P
Isn't this already covered by the gas tax, which is inherently incurred on a "per mile" (gallon, really) basis?
Anything that can be taxed, will. Those things which can not be taxed will be fined.
Shouldn't we be encouraging people to use less gas? An excise tax on gasoline is an excellent way to do so.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I ask this quesiton sincerely-- I honestly would like an answer from those who agree with this.
If I lived in Arkansas, and I only drive on local roads in state, and I do 3-4000 miles a year doing so,... why would this be justified by either Constitution or 10th amendment? I dont mean to troll or attack, but I cannot conceive of why this should be federally managed. I am not against seatbelt laws or think that all regulation or social programs are evil, but honestly, shouldnt there be a limit to what the Fed deals with?
OK, so let me get this straight. They want to create a GIANT system with many layers of government, to take more money based on actual miles driven. But we already have that - called a gasoline tax. At least with the gas tax I have an incentive to buy a more fuel-efficient car if I must commute (I must, far too). With this I would have much less. I think this is just to avoid being the "bad guys" that raise the gas tax. I thought one of the points of the gas taxes was to encourage efficiency.
Win-win!
That being, that they (State and federal governments) are spending too much money already.
How about they do something a little more useful, like impose a moratorium on new expenditures until the economic crisis is over?
Oh dear-- I just imagined government workers being cautious with other people's money! How silly of me!
I would only be ok with this if: 1) I didn't have to pay ANY taxes when registering a car (in NY it gets a little out of hand) 2) The electronic device did *not* have gps 3) The readings were taken during my annual inspection, and they just read the mileage on the odometer (ie - no new hardware to install, no costs associated with it)
Not only do you still have your Big Brother, you have less control of them.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Because they're only taxing on federally funded highway/interstate miles, not on local infrastructure.
And they use the GPS, so that way there's no problems with knowing where your vehicle is.
You know, because that local road that sits underneath the highway is simple for the GPS to figure out...
Or the frontage road that's 20 feet to the side of the highway...
Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
"these taxes could be used to offset the costs of highway maintenance...The mileage tax is being considered instead of an increase in the gas tax in order to tax hybrids, EVs, and conventional automobiles equally."
If this were really the case then the gasoline tax is both a great proxy for miles driven and the weight of the vehicle (heavier vehicles consume more gasoline and also damage roads more per mile). It also fosters the purchase of lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles.
Taxes have been cut multiple times since the early 80s, while spending has increased. I'm all for cutting taxes, AFTER we get our spending under control. The govt should only be able to cut taxes if receipts > expenses AND there is no current deficit. It'll be a long time before our budgets are balanced unless we lay off the entire military or let poor people start dying in the streets. Had we been a little more responsible over the past 30 years none of this would have been an issue.
It's called an odometer.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Let me start by saying, flat out, that I'm not trying to troll or start a war here, but what exactly would you have them cut?
It's a fact that most fiscal conservatives, when asked what they would have the government cut can't name a single program to cut that is both A) large enough to have an impact, and B) not political suicide to cut. Would you take benefits away from people on a fixed income, who were promised and rely on that income and those benefits to make it through the month? Would you cut spending on military and defense? Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway? Cut funding for sciences and eduction? NASA?
It's very easy to say "we should be spending less". It's a lot harder to identify areas to be cut that will make a difference and that people aren't so passionate about that the cuts won't be reversed in 4 years or less.
Aside from the DoD, the government really isn't spending too much money. The real issue is that they aren't taxing sufficiently to maintain a viable government without going into debt. Things like roads, schools, law enforcement and other things cost money, you can't continually to cut them without damaging or eliminating the tax base.
But, the other bit of it is that the voters reward the politicians that are willing to go into hock to start pointless wars and cut taxes for the rich and for corporations. We've got the money to pay, it's just that we're penny wise and pound foolish.
Plus, it's got basically nothing to do with government workers, they aren't the ones that pass these insane ideas or sign them, that's your politicians work.
Had they not cut taxes on the rich since Reagan this would not be a problem. Rich people don't like to use their own money to pay for their governing the rest of us.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
like impose a moratorium on new expenditures until the economic crisis is over?
Great idea! Slow down economic activity until economic activity speeds up!
SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
A Republican's wet dream forsooth.
The report was requested by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who held a hearing on transportation funding in early March. In that hearing, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the Obama administration is hoping to spend $556 billion over the next six years, much of which would go to federal transportation improvement projects.
I don't see a whole lot of Republicans in this story...
The idea that Republicans are in the pocket of big business and the Democrats are not is demonstrably false. They all are, and the sooner we all start focusing on what is realistic, reasonable and feasible instead of ideals and supporting "our" team, the better off we will all be.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Road damage goes as the 4th power of the axle weight so a Honda Insight does essentially no damage. An Escalade does do damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road#Maintenance
I'd rather not see a miles traveled tax. It would be better to have a new vehicle fee proportional to the expected life of the vehicle and the 4th power of the axle weight. That cost gets passed along proportionally in the further sale of the vehicle.
Raising taxes from historically low, unsustainable levels? Preposterous!
Indeed.
The CBO reports on all sorts of things. The existence of this report only means that one person in congress asked them for a report. It does not mean that congress as a body is even considering such a thing, much less likely to do it.
For "nerds" a lot of people sure are susceptible to propaganda.
People who cavalierly wast resources should be paying this burden, not us people who are stuck with commutes, but thoughtful enough to buy vehicles which are misers on gas consumption.
I'm confounded when I drive through suburban neighborhoods and see 80% of the homes have at least one Pickup/SUV in the driveway - most of these are never going to be used for construction or off-road. They're the modern equivalent of the Station Wagon. If gas is so cheap these people are commuting with these, and I see them in large percentages on my daily commute, then gas is still too cheap. Get off that addiction, people!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Anything that monitors my car will not sit well with me.
Oh wait, or anyone at all.
Unless you have a car that was built pre-OBD2 (older than 1996) your car already has this in place. PID 31 records how many miles your car has traveled since it was last reset.
Lowering spending from historically high, unsustainable levels? Ridiculous!
The last time we were spending this high of a % of our GDP on government we were using it to beat the Nazis.
I can leave doors open all day, I have left windows on the lower level of my home open all day, simply because of where I live which is the suburbs
Big city schools, yeah that is where its at, if at is graduating a small portion of your students and generally getting stomped by most schools in surrounding counties for GPA/SAT and graduation rates. Top it off with more chances for gang activity and I think you begin to see why people might not want to live in them.
You live your life and let the rest live theirs. NYC is special because of rent control and the like which has gone further than many other cities. Or perhaps you would prefer San Francisco which has nicely driven nearly all blacks from the town by pricing them out of the mark with new building rules and restrictions on what can go where.
Cities work for some people, they don't work for everyone. Atlanta is almost to racial parity but is that a good thing? It is a simple reason really, the city is getting too expensive for the poor to live in it and the poor are majority minority here. Yet people say "move to the city" which brings more yuppies who tear down or gut nice row homes jacking the costs to live in the neighborhood
Back to the story. It was to be expected with the push for better mileage vehicles that the method of taxation must change. Why they need meters I will never know, they can just do inspections and check your mileage. Of course with meters and GPS they can tell which roads you used. It all comes down to one thing.
Instead of spending the money they get and doing well with it they are forever looking for new sources and usually spending it before they get it
.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
It is a fallacy that government subsidies enrich the economy, at least as far as government income is concerned.
Example-- I, as the government, give a subsidy to an energy company so that they can provide the necessary infrastructure my population requires. The energy company accepts my subsidy with sweaty palms, then promptly invests that money in an overseas venture. "We can't possibly track individual dollars as they move through our enterprise!" they proclaim. By "pure coincidence," a large sum of money approximating the savings that they received from the subsidy ends up in a non-taxible foriegn subsidiary, in say-- Ireland.
Meanwhile, prices at the pump and for the domestic services for which you have implemented the subsidy, remain unchanged, or, rather, increase. "We have to charge to meet demand!" they proclaim.
Similar stories with telecom. Did you know that the US government made a slushfund to replace the copper POTS network with straight up fiber in the 90s? Where did the money get spent instead? Oh dear.... That's what I thought.
That being, that they (State and federal governments) are spending too much money already.
Do you offer this as fact or opinion?
How about they do something a little more useful, like impose a moratorium on new expenditures until the economic crisis is over?
Funny thing is, we can always afford wars half-way around the world and tax cuts for billionaires, but can't afford to keep the country running.
And that's with a "liberal" in the White House.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Not exactly-- What I have a problem with is not people becoming more educated, being able to afford their own homes, or to ensure quality education for their children, as many left wing pundits would claim about me.
What I have a problem with is senators and other government employees creating subsidy programs in both military research expenditure budgets, and in technology and infrastructure budgets that generate conditions that destroy actual market competition, with the goal of enriching themselves through enriching the corporations they offer the subsidies to (Shock, horror, Senators can own stock!).
"You just dont want to pay taxes so little Timmy O'Toole can get new crutches!" is a red herring. What I really dont want to pay taxes for is so Dick Cheney can get richer from killing people in Iraq, or so government regulators can get spiffy pension pension plans, while people are starving and suffering contrived forclosures (remember that leak about bank of america?) and losing everything.
Basically, I dislike being told I hate the poor, while watching senators do land grabs and Cesar spout soliloquies while Rome burns to the ground.
Clear enough for you?
We have a larger navy than the next 11 countries combined, and 9 of those are our allies.
Step 1) Reduce navy to the save of the next 5 countries combined.
We have more agriculture department employees than there are farmers.
Step 2) Eliminate all farm subsidies and cut the agriculture department to the bone.
We fight too many wars
Step 3) Stop fighting wars and eliminate supplemental war expenditures.
Stop fighting the "war on drugs" and every other "war on..." that we have been loosing since the 1960s. Get over it already.
Step 4) Stop prosecuting and start taxing vices and victimless crimes.
I currently work as a defense contractor, and I know first that the government is incompetent and defense spending is largely wasteful.
Oh dear - you just imagined a government providing no safety net to citizens and no confidence to investors until some vaguely-defined point in the future! How silly of you!
State and federal governments are not spending too much money - if anything, they're not spending enough (and not only that but they're taxing the wrong people to get it). The job of the government is to provide for the security and well-being of its citizens. Cutting spending during a massive economic downturn is absolutely no way to do that job. Providing help through stimulus and job creation is.
I swear, it's like the only lesson all the small-government starve-the-beast meatheads learned from the Great Depression is to have a couple of wars when your country is going to shit.
the coolest club on
Depending on your state & locality, not all of your motor fuels tax is going towards road construction & repair. In North Carolina, about 25-30% of that money is being diverted into the general fund.
So when a politician calls for an increase in tax "because we need good roads", ask him where the rest of the money he collected went that was supposed to have gone to replacing bridges in imminent danger of collapse.
Chip H.
Well, it's easy to reduce the budget by simply decreasing the amount by which existing funding for annual budget items is increased. Easy logically, that is, not necessarily politically. It's not like the choice is between eliminating Social Security and halving the federal budget, or increasing spending by adding services and creating new government. The third choice is to simply maintain current spending.
That said, as a "fiscal conservative", I would change Social Security at the very least by implementing means testing. And yes, I would begin to phase out Social Security. It wasn't intended to be used as a retirement fund so much as a safety net. Not everyone is supposed to get their money back out of it, and if you're relying on Social Security to provide for you in your old age, you're probably going to need a few other safety nets as well. I don't expect to get a dime back from Social Security, if it's even still around when I retire, and that's fine. I just look at it as another tax, frankly.
I would also cut defense spending, which I believe is one of the bigger line items in the federal budget. IMO, the State department is underfunded, while Defense is bloated. There's a massive military industrial complex that soaks up a lot of tax dollars, when we should be sending some of that money to State, and some of it elsewhere in the budget.
And I know this is unpopular, but I would eliminate the Department of Education, which I believe is more properly a state-level matter. And Homeland Security, which is totally unnecessary and has consistently failed to accomplish its overall mission since its inception. Also, I would take a look at stuff like agricultural subsidies, which are a pretty fair chunk of the budget.
Even if you make a quarter of those cuts, and only cut a quarter of those elements of the budget, you're already saving a lot of money. My point is that, just because you might not be able to find one single line item in a budget that is both unpopular enough to be cut without political danger, yet large enough to make a big dent in the budget by itself, does not mean that there isn't a problem with wasteful and/or unnecessary spending in the federal budget.
Ps. I would leave NASA alone, because more money gets spend on the food stamp program than gets sent to NASA. And NASA is a model of efficiency within the Fed, frankly, before we even start talking about all the useful technology and research we gain from that particular agency.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
I disagree. I'm a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. I have no problems with tax money providing a social safety net (and would prefer to see the US have Western Europe-style "social nets"). To steal from another Slashdotters signature, "I like taxes; they buy me civilization."
What I want is efficient spending. Get me the biggest bang for my buck.
Conversely, I *do not* want my tax money wasted. I've worked for the federal government through the DOE on an LHC detector. I've *seen* how the money is wasted (no, the LHC isn't a waste, I watched how a DOE lab's computing division burned money away because, heh, we've got it, might as well spend it even if we don't need it). To the point, I'm saying "Take my tax money", but please, use it as efficiently as possible.
Fiscal conservative = ruthless efficiency.
A) large enough to have an impact, and B) not political suicide to cut.
That's like saying you can't find a number between 3 and 5 that isn't 4, therefore, we math cannot exist.
Of course huge ass programs need to be cut. And there are 4 areas of government that will need to come under serious fire:
- Social Security:
a. phase out for anyone that is above the poverty line between now and 75 years from now
b. reduce the tax to 1-2% of net earnings to encourage hiring
c. Match the (Life Expectancy - Retirement Age) delta from 1935 to today's Life Expectancy
- Medicare
a. We'll start with negotiating for drug prices. When was the last time *you* bought something for 40 million people and didn't get a volume discount?
- Department of Defense
a. No one in their right mind thinks we need to be the world's police anymore.
- Discretionary Spending
a. We don't have any money. There is no "entertainment" budget. Cut it all.
When we balance the budget, and we pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, we can start spending again. If you're going to spend, you're going to have to tax. It's that simple. Focusing solely on Discretionary Spending (which only Republicans want to cut, Democrats are still holding out on even that), and ignoring DOJ, SS, and Medicare, which no one wants to cut, is a fool's game. It's senseless and no one should take any politician seriously when they say they want meaningful cuts but ignore these areas.
If Barack Obama gets his way, we'll spend $1.65 trillion this year (we still don't have a budget because of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid ineptitude from last year).
- that's a 7.5% *increase* in spending over last year
If John Boehner gets his way, we'll spend $1.55 trillion this year.
- that's a 6.5% *increase* in spending over last year.
So that brings up 2 questions:
1. what the hell are Democrats complaining about, when even John Boehner wants to increase spending by 3x the rate of inflation? Stop being children and deal with these problems like adults do when they balance their checkbooks.
2. why would anyone in their right mind think that either of these men aren't complete jokes?
These folks don't give a shit about our economy and deficit, and are just fooling around with the United States Economy as if it's their first chance to get a Nintendo and play Mario Bros. We are out of extra lives, and I don't see a Game Genie lying around anywhere.
And this is what makes politics so difficult. When no one knows anything. Your speculation is typical of the sort of thinking that infests our politics. Sorry, but the reasons you're thinking about are trivial next to the main causes of road damage. Trucking companies would be very happy to have you inadvertently defend them.
The 2 things that cause the bulk of the damage to our roads are water and heavy vehicles. 1 heavy truck can do as much damage as 10000 cars. It matters very little whether the cars are SUVs or subcompacts. We've been working on making the roads better able to handle 80000 pound trucks, but there are still many old roads that weren't designed for that kind of use. And we have all these weigh stations and inspections, because truckers will cheat on weight limits.
You ask for a paper? Here's one.
As for the idea that poor people get stuck with less efficient cars, this is not really the case. The cheapest cars are often the most efficient. Hybrids have changed that because they are very costly, but this is a recent, and still small segment. A much bigger expense for poor people is being forced to live further from work to get affordable housing. Fix that, and you will do far more for the poor than any fooling around with the gas tax could.
This whole proposal sounds like pure politicking, principally backed by Big Oil. What of the huge costs in monitoring everyone so that a mileage based tax could be assessed? The thing I dislike most about toll roads, even more than the dodgy privatization schemes, is the expense of collecting the tolls. It's very expensive to have dozens of toll booths manned 24/7. Automated collection is cheaper, but still far more expensive than the gas tax.
The most shameful thing about the US gas tax is that it is a fixed amount! Been 18.4 or 18.3 cents per gallon since 1993, and inflation has not been 0% all that time. It should be a percentage, like income tax.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Close: the rate of wear to the tires versus that to the road is not necessarily linked. It's not friction wear.
However a tire tax would be simple, effective, and could be used to rate based on wear due to the simple fact that different tires are required for heavy vehicles. So you just tax different models of tires differently.
And in the meantime you don't have to manufacture several hundred million GPS units.
Someone had to do it.
The gas-driven cars are doing far more damage to everyone else than the rest of them. An increased tax on gas (which is still ridiculously cheap in the US) encourages people to get smaller and more efficient cars and doesn't require any new mandatory monitoring or any new infrastructure at all. Just bump the tax percentage a bit, and you're done.
You just told us why. Because they are earning more then they are worth. You think they should get that to be 'fair'. You are wrong.
The main problem with the federal work force is feather bedding. Fire half of them and the rest will get _more_ done (if you fire the right half).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
When dealing with essential infrastructure like roads, spending less can cost more in the long run. If you let your roads get too bad, people end up paying more because they have to pay for vehicle repairs and new tires. If the road conditions cause accidents, people may pay with their lives.
In some instances, spending MORE can mean fewer expenditures in the future. High quality roads can be more expensive to build front end but they can last longer with less maintenance.
If people want good roads, they need to remember TANSTAAFL.
Everyone is tracked. Endgame.
Phone calls: monitored and possibly recorded. Internet surfing: recorded. Texts: recorded. GPS location on phone: recorded. eBook purchases: recorded. Credit card activity: recorded. Purchases: recorded. Music purchases and listening habits: recorded. MAC addresses/IP addresses: recorded. Visible activity: recorded. Political beliefs: recorded if you protest. Library checkouts: recorded. Train usage: recorded. Bus usage: recorded. Plane usage: duh. The last thing left to do: car tracking. Every damned thing you do, say, listen to or read, and everywhere you go, recorded, now or very soon.
The people who are doing this? Not recorded. Bush's White House staff emails from the 9/11 period are gone, baby, gone. Amazing, ain't it.
Professor William Cronon is having his every electronic posting subpoenaed soon as retaliation for an article he wrote summarizing Governor Walker of Wisconsin's transgressions. And the Republican Party will probably get every communication he's ever made, digging for dirt to destroy him. That's what this all means.
Told you so, ten years ago. Endgame.
And oh yeah: raise your damned taxes to pay for the roads. EVERY damned shortfall is being used as an excuse to cut spending for the weak or poor, or to further extend the police state to endgame. Instead, just pay taxes, cheapskates. Life costs.
In the Netherlands (a much smaller country than the US), they tried and failed to introduce this idea (road pricing), abandoning it in 2001. The problem was, how to implement it? Their are basically two ways to do it: either an attempt is made to identify all the cars on all the roads at all times in order to work out how far each has traveled so that they can all be taxed accordingly, or all vehicles must have a tracking device installed (basically a cell phone with a GPS) so that the tax authorities can perform the same calculations. The former is impractical due to the cost and complexity of implementation, while the second raises serious privacy concerns. Because of this, the Dutch government eventually decided to back down and stick with the decades-old flat tax for all motor vehicles no matter how much or how little the individual motorists use the roads.
Actually, if the idea had been implemented, it would have made all forms of commercial transportation using the roads (for goods, services and people) significantly more expensive. Well, would the companies involved have had to pay those taxes equally? Perhaps. If so, you know those costs would have been passed on to the consumers anyway (including the ones without cars), making everything from peanuts to public transportation more expensive. If not, the average motorist would consider the tax unjust.
Consider also that there is a much simpler alternative: simply add more tax to the price of fuel (75% of which already consists of tax in the Netherlands). This is not only an effective solution (those who drive more pay more tax), it's also low-tech (so it's super cheap to implement) and it further encourages people to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles. In addition, a fuel tax is arguably also a more effective method of taxing foreign vehicles that would otherwise likely pay less, or no road tax at all.
Those who drive more are already paying a "vehicle miles traveled' tax by virtue of the tax on gasoline.
...Just tax tires.
The more miles you drive, the sooner you have to replace your tires, and the more tax revenue they get, regardless of your means of propulsion.
And as a side benefit, the kind of stupid, potentially unsafe behavior that wears out tires more quickly will financially penalize the idiots doing it even further.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Partly for all the reasons listed above in detail by everyone else who has already posted. For instance, we have toll roads for a reason. And I already get taxed for highway maintenance in my regular taxes, not to mention the exorbitant titling and registration costs to the tune of hundreds of dollars every year I have to renew, not to mention mandatory insurance (how much do the insurance companies get taxed for supporting road use, I'm guessing none?) gas taxes, sales tax, and ridiculous fees tacked on to every traffic ticket. Here is why ELSE it won't work:
I am, just like lots of other people in this country, a delivery driver. I use my own vehicles for work. I put a lot of miles on them, and I make money doing it. Currently, the miles my car travels are tax deductible as a business expense. This is because it already costs me money just to work: Nobody reimburses me for gas, and when I get a string of no-tippers on any given day this prevents me from basically depreciating my car and working for free. (Because, due to previous governmental meddling, we are in the same class as waiters and therefore our employers are allowed to pay us FAR less than minimum wage, and therefore 100% of them do.)
There are two kinds of delivery driver in this world: Punk high-school kids who drive around in the summertime or between 'real' jobs for a couple of months to make a few bucks, and us professionals who have been tough enough not to be chewed up and spit out by the bullshit that is the modern American experience. (Complete with crime, corruption, and personal peril. Accept no substitutes.)
Let me tell you something about professional delivery drivers. We are, to the last man, batshit fucking insane. Not only is it the only way to survive, but it's the only way to make money. You would HAVE to be cracked to make a living driving your own car into the middle of the ghetto with somebody else's pizza and a light up sign on your roof that says "rob me" twenty times a night. But we do it. We do it because the trademark of the professional driver is that we don't take shit from anybody. Not the customer, not the punks on the street, not the boss, not the police, and sure as fuck not some swine in Washington who can't figure out how to pay their goddamn bills.
If this passes into law, two things are going to happen: Of course, everyone else in the world is going to whine and moan on the Internet and in newspaper opinion columns, and many hands will be wrung with nothing done about it. But meanwhile, there's going to be a traffic jam on the beltway; A line of cars as far as the eye can see, each emblazoned with a sign: Domino's, Papa Johns, Pizza Hut, more Chinese restaurants than you can count. There will be fucking taxicabs in there. Stretch limos, and private tour buses. Every one of those vehicles is gonna have one pissed off professional driver behind the wheel, and they're all going to be headed to Washington D.C. to personally strangle whoever is responsible for this bill.
And we're not gonna take "no" for an answer.