Media Search:



Can taxing trucks on miles traveled work? – FreightWaves

A user fee to raise money for roads and bridges that is based on the number of miles a truck travels is popular among policymakers but does not sit well with industry lobbyists.

Unlike taxes on gasoline or diesel, a fee based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) gets much closer to capturing the externalities and to approximating the road maintenance cost of each driver, according to the Tax Foundation, an independent tax organization that has opposed increasing traditional taxes, such as fuel taxes.

Four states Kentucky, New Mexico, New York and Oregon are already levying a commercial truck VMT fee. At the federal level, a VMT tax on trucks could also be a substitute for existing taxes on trucks that are credited to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), the main source of money for maintaining roads and bridges.

In a 2019 study, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) pointed to three areas that would have to be addressed by lawmakers before a federal VMT tax on trucks could be rolled out:

Of the four states with truck VMT taxes, Kentucky charges a flat rate of about 3 cents per mile, and the other three charge rates that vary by trucks weight, ranging from about 1 to 29 cents per mile, according to CBO.

Because most trucking companies already track their vehicles, the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank, argues that implementing a VMT tax on only commercial trucks would require overcoming fewer administrative and privacy hurdles than implementing such a tax on all vehicles.

However, putting a federal VMT fee in place would impose greater costs on the federal government and trucking companies than increasing existing taxes, CBO pointed out in its study.

A study published earlier this year by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) put a price tag on those costs: upwards of $20 billion.

The trucking industrys most powerful lobbying group, the American Trucking Associations (ATA), which favors raising fuel taxes to strengthen the HTF, has long been wary of a federal VMT tax particularly one that would apply only to trucks.

Testifying at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, ATA President and CEO Chris Spear warned not only of the high costs, but of problems with tracking the tax through an ELD. Federal regulatory requirements for these devices were designed to ensure an accurate record of hours driven, not the number of miles driven, Spear said. Nor do the requirements provide an ability to broadcast data to taxing authorities. Furthermore, most commercial vehicles 72% are not required to be equipped with recorders.

Spear also pointed out that even strong supporters of a VMT tax acknowledge that full implementation is still a decade away. Failure to provide interim funding for urgent surface transportation needs while these solutions are developed would be highly irresponsible.

Despite its proposal to raise taxes to pay for infrastructure, the Biden administration has publicly been open to user fees as well.

When U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-California, who represents a rural district in the northern part of the state, raised concerns in March at a congressional hearing that a VMT tax could disproportionately harm small truckers in his district, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg acknowledged the problem but did not dismiss the possibility of a VMT fee.

Whats really driving this is the awareness that as vehicles become more fuel-efficient or move off gasoline entirely we need to make sure that if were on a user fee system that theyre somehow paying in, Buttigieg testified.

The gas tax was the simplest way to have a user fee because we used to know for a fact that the more you drove, the more gas youd use. Now its not that simple. There are a lot of ways we can think about setting up [a VMT], whether its a rebate mechanism or a phase-in approach so that its not disproportionately hurting those who are already hard-hit.

Click for more FreightWaves articles by John Gallagher.

Follow this link:
Can taxing trucks on miles traveled work? - FreightWaves

Hart: Biden and Carter are two peanuts in the same shell game – Chattanooga Times Free Press

Gas prices and inflation shoot up, there is trouble in Iran, crime is increasing and we have commodity shortages, "economic malaise," problems at the border and lines at gas stations. Wow, that visit between Joe Biden and Jimmy Carter is starting to make sense. And, if you can believe it, music today is even worse than disco.

Things are trending so badly that even Jimmy Carter is starting to compare Joe Biden to Jimmy Carter. Geico should be running commercials saying: "You can save 15% by switching back to Trump."

When asked at the border by Fox News reporters why they are coming here, illegals say they want to "escape socialism" in despot-led countries like Venezuela. Obviously, border crossers are not keeping up with politics in America.

For the kids out there, Jimmy Carter was a nice, old-line Democrat who became president after a scoundrel (Nixon) was president. Then people realized that they had made a mistake. Right now I would happily trade a few mean tweets for $1.95 per gallon gas and lower taxes. And Trump has been quiet. Personally, I am starting to believe he is not going to release his tax returns.

Trump had great policies, but his brash personality wore on people. Still, he was a refreshing change. Trump was like being married to a nymphomaniac: fun for about a month.

Jimmy Carter was a devout Baptist; he did not chase women or drink. And he taught Trump something. You can be a one-term president, but that does not mean you can't continue to be a pain in the butt when you are out of office.

The economy boomed under Clinton and Trump. It did not under Carter and Obama. The economics lesson is clear to those paying attention: marital fidelity is not good for business.

Like Biden, Carter opposed busing, and, also like Biden, Carter now lectures the rest of us on race and calls us "racist." Nothing is better than two old men from slave states lecturing us on how to treat Blacks.

Like Carter, Biden wants to raise taxes that will hurt the economy. Tax increases are where the supposed "government of the people and by the people" stick it to the people to support their own big government.

Both Biden and Carter thought they could regulate citizens' behavior through dictates from a heavy-handed central government in D.C. Carter lowered the speed limits on highways to 55 mph while he flew around on jets and rode in limousines. Biden wants to outlaw menthol cigarettes. Wasn't that the type Obama smoked?

Carter thought he could tell Americans to turn their heat down and put on a sweater. Biden tells everyone to wear a mask unless you are already fully brainwashed by the left and/or support a 50% tax increase.

Like Jimmy Carter, Biden is old and living well. Lifelong politician Biden bikes, swims naked and watches what he eats. He takes care of himself, as is evidenced by his personal net worth.

I do like the comment that Carter made on "Meet the Depressed" with Chuck Todd. He says he does not send emails because the NSA sees them. I like his libertarian bent, but it is also probably because he does not know how to work a computer from Plains, Georgia.

Both Biden and Carter really felt that government had the answers to all our problems. They could tell us what to do, how to live and what to eat. I have a buddy who drinks, eats a cheeseburger a day, supports Republicans and drives a Hummer. I feel like maybe I am supposed to turn him in to the government.

Contact Ron Hart, a syndicated satirist, author and TV/radio commentator, at Ron@RonaldHart.com, or visit http://www.RonaldHart.com.

See the rest here:
Hart: Biden and Carter are two peanuts in the same shell game - Chattanooga Times Free Press

PURPLE IS THE NEW PARTY | What is a Republican today? – Ventura County Reporter

by Paul Moomjeanpaulmoomjean@yahoo.com

I was sitting in a cigar shop the other day, enjoying a stogie with a buddy I had not seen in over a year, when he looked at me and asked, What the hell is a Republican today?

Having been a former GOP member myself from 1999 to 2002 and labeling myself a libertarian conservative most of my life, I really couldnt tell him what a Republican is today. I just know Im not it at all.

Is it a member of a group of rioters led by a man in a bear suit who lives at home with his mother? Is it what Bill Maher once said, old white men taking care of my money? Or is it some balance of both? Recently Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney have been facing backlash for holding the line against the banned-from-social media and former President Donald Trump, causing a series of hot mic drops and corporate booing. Yet in a conservative world with no balanced common sense, the country doesnt look to have another voice in the Congress unless it wears a bear outfit.

Right now, Cheney is at war with her own party. On May 5 she tweeted: History is watching us. We must decide whether we are going to choose truth and fidelity to the Constitution or join Trumps crusade to delegitimize and undo the legal outcome of the 2020 election, with all the consequences that might have.

This set off the degenerates of the party, and they are looking to remove her from any form of power, including a May 2021 conference where she would be the third-highest-ranking GOP member. Remember, this is the daughter of maybe the most powerful republican of our modern era, former Vice President Dick Cheney. To think she could be removed from a seat at the table because she believes what every state also does, that Joe Biden won the election fairly, shows how far the party has dropped.

Sadly, the GOP is now a party of violent, anti-voting-law-creating, gun-loving, conspiracy-theory nuts, hellbent on being cruel to transgender people, minority races and millennial and Gen Z snowflakes. Recently, the GOP had Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who is Black, speak after Bidens address to the nation. He said America isnt racist, and while America isnt racist, its not entirely not racist. The talking points of Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, two very privileged white males on Fox News, seem to be the official talking points of the new unhinged GOP. This is the party that has lost the war on abortion, gay marriage, gun rights and the nuclear family. Now they might prop up Caitlyn Jenner for governor of California, while systematically denying transgender people the respect they ask in pronoun assessment. And the reason the GOP lost everything is because they listened to Hannity and Carlson. And now the next wave is Ben Shapiro and Michael Knowles from Daily Wire. These people want ratings. To those still in the GOP, in the words of Malcom X, Youve been had! Ya been took! Ya been hoodwinked! Bamboozled!

Conservatism has become angry, like an impotent Clint Eastwood movie character, upset that the world grew up without their permission. To think that characters like Carlson and Shapiro are upset Derek Chauvin is going to jail after being found guilty of murdering George Floyd is downright wrong and insincere. Theres no way they watched that video and saw Chauvin as the man in the right unless they are clearly racist (which I dont believe) or just fighting for noise in the YouTube and 24/7 news cycle vacuum.

Conservatism and the GOP have become the party of whiteness. Its no longer a party with any ideals. It simply wants white people mad and hopes that its 75 million members will one day be enough to take back the presidency.

Not everyone is doing this. Conservatives George Will, Michael Medved and Mitt Romney are trying to be the practical people. But with George Will leaving the GOP, Medved being fired from Salem Radio for not signing a Trump loyalty contract, and Mitt Romney being booed by Mormons in Utah recently, only to remind them he was their GOP nominee in 2012, the party looks bleak, sad and scary.

So what the hell is a Republican today? Hell if I know.

Read more:
PURPLE IS THE NEW PARTY | What is a Republican today? - Ventura County Reporter

Waco-area news briefs: Community development training focus of 10-hour course – Waco Tribune-Herald

Bellmead Family Dog Day

Bellmead Animal Control will have Family Dog Day from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday at Brame Park, between Oak Grove Drive and Hogan Lane.

The event will feature vendors, music, giveaways, lots of dogs and a microchip clinic.

Ladies Koinonia Reunion

Gods House of Prayer Church womens ministry will present Ladies Koinonia Reunion at noon Saturday at the McGregor Senior Center, 416 W. Second St.

For more information, call Patsy Reed at 254-339-4846.

NAACP justice series

Waco NAACP will present Who Let George Zimmerman Go? from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Monday.

The Zoom event is part of the groups criminal justice series. William Snowden, founder of The Juror Project, will explain the importance of showing up for jury duty, how some prosecutors try to eliminate jurors and the factors at play in removing diversity from juries.

The Zoom ID is 926 2800 0095. For more information, call 254-733-5261.

Community development class

First Baptist Woodway and Viento Fuerte churches will have a 10-hour class on Christian Community Development from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. May 21 and May 22 at The Venue, 101 Ritchie Road.

Read the original:
Waco-area news briefs: Community development training focus of 10-hour course - Waco Tribune-Herald

The Emerging Movement for Police and Prison Abolition – The New Yorker

This had changed by the time Kaba left college and returned to New York City to work with survivors of domestic violence. She was befuddled that many of the women she was working with did not want to call the police on their partners. Kaba said, Then I started asking people questions like, Why dont you want to go to the police? And people would look at me, like, What are you talking about? Why wouldnt I go to the cops? Do you not see who I am? The cops dont keep me safe. And so I slowly came to consciousness. In her book, Kaba writes, What happens when you define policing as actually an entire system of harassment, violence, and surveillance that keeps oppressive gender and racial hierarchies in place? When thats your definition of policing, then your whole frame shifts. And it also forces you to stop talking about it as though its an issue of individuals, forces you to focus on the systemic structural issues to be addressed in order for this to happen.

There is no definitive beginning point for prison-abolition politics, but it is clearly connected to a turn, beginning in the sixties, in American imprisonment, in which it went from a method, in part, of rehabilitation to one of control or punishment. During the civil-rights movement, police were the shock troops for the massive resistance of the white political establishment in the American South. By the mid-sixties, policing and the criminal-justice system were being retrofitted as a response to a growing insurgency in Black urban communities. By the seventies, they were being used to contain and control both Black radicals and Black prisoners. The scholar and activist AngelaY. Davis may be the best-known prison abolitionist in the United States today. But, in 1972, she was facing charges of kidnapping, murder, and conspiracy, after guns registered to her were used by the seventeen-year-old Jonathan Jackson, in a botched attempt to free his brother, the Black radical George Jackson, from Soledad prison.

Davis had become a leader of George Jacksons defense committee and had developed a close relationship with him. As a result of their collaboration, and of Daviss experience of spending sixteen months in jail before her acquittal, she devoted her political energies to prisoners rights and eventually to prison abolition. In an interview that she gave while awaiting the outcome of her trial, Davis said, We simply took it upon ourselves at first to defend George Jackson, John Clutchette, and Fleeta Drumgothe radicals known as the Soledad Brothers. But we later realized that the question was much broader than that. It wasnt simply a matter of three individuals who were being subject to the repressive forces of the penal system. It was the system itself that had to be attacked. It was the system itself that had to be abolished.

In 1995, the radical theorist Mike Davis wrote a cover story for The Nation describing a new prison-industrial complex being established in California, with no pretense that the exponential growth of prisons was tied to the rise and fall of crime. Indeed, according to the scholar and activist Ruth Wilson Gilmore, in her pathbreaking book Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California, even though the crime rate peaked in 1980, between 1984 and the early two-thousands, California completed twenty-three major new prisons, at a cost of two hundred and eighty to three hundred and fifty million dollars each. By contrast, the state had built only twelve prisons between 1852 and 1964. Bodies were necessary to justify the rapid growth of the prison sector, and the Crime Bill of 1994, along with Californias three-strikes legislation, passed that same year, provided them. Gilmore writes that the California state prison population grew nearly 500 percent between 1982 and 2000. The three-strikes law, which mandated twenty-five-years-to-life sentences for a third felony, had an especially severe effect on Black and Latinx communities. Mike Davis reported that, during the first six months of prosecutions under the new law, African-Americans made up fifty-seven percent of the three strikes filings in L.A. County, even though they made up only ten per cent of the state population. This was seventeen times higher than the rate at which whites were being charged under the new law, even though white men were responsible for at least sixty percent of all the rape, robberies, and assaults in the state.

The three-strikes law was an accelerant to what would come to be called mass incarceration, but it was also the makings of a new movement against prisons and against the means and methods by which they became populatednamely, policing. In 1997, in Berkeley, Davis, Gilmore, and others formed the organizing group Critical Resistance, which brought together activists, the formerly incarcerated, and academics to build an international movement to end the prison industrial complex by challenging the belief that caging and controlling people make us safe. Ten years later, Gilmore published Golden Gulag, which she describes as the culmination of research projects undertaken with Black mothers of incarcerated persons in California state prisons. She wrote, What we learned twice over was this: the laws had written into the penal code breathtakingly cruel twists in the meaning and practice of justice. This produced new questions, extending far beyond the passage of new laws. The mothers, along with Gilmore, asked, Why prisons? Why now? Why for so many peopleespecially people of color? And why were they located so far from prisoners homes? In this sense, although academics have been important to formulating the movements arguments, the journey toward abolition is not an academic or intellectual exercise. Instead, it has been gestated within the communities deeply scarred by the disappearing of sons and daughters by the state.

By the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the cumulative, devastating effects of twenty years of increasing policing and incarcerationinaugurated by Reagan but abetted by the policies of the Clinton Administrationcame into greater focus, as new conversations opened up about structural inequality in the United States. Michelle Alexanders book The New Jim Crow, published in 2010, offered a breakthrough analysis of continued Black inequality as a product of years of policing and imprisonment in Black communities. Kaba identifies the failure to stop the execution of the Georgia death-row inmate Troy Davis, in 2011, as catalyzing the emergence of an abolitionist consciousness among what Elizabeth Alexander has described as the Trayvon Generation. Five months after Daviss execution, Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman. Kaba noted that the call, when Trayvon Martin was killed, was to arrest and to prosecute and to convict Zimmerman. In 2014, after Michael Brown was killed, the push was to indict Darren Wilson, and for body cameras. Zimmerman was acquitted, and a grand jury failed to bring charges against Wilson. Kaba said, And, because so many of these young folks were actually mobilized in the organizing, they could see the futility of the demands that they were making and the limits of those demands, and wanted and were ready to hear something new.

That generations maturation in the world of police reform became apparent last summer, when many young activists and organizers began to embrace a demand that funding for police departments be redistributed to other public agencies and institutions. The demand originated in Minneapolis, where George Floyd was killed, and where the city council briefly committed to defunding the police department. But, Kaba said, its important to note that local Black radical organizationsBlack Visions Collective, Reclaim the Block, and MPD150had been campaigning for years to divest from the police department and invest in community groups, battling the police over the citys budget. She explained, Youve already got folks on the ground over there that have had two cycles of budget fights around defunding the police based on divestment. So the part of this people dont understand is the continuity of these ideas. They dont just come out of nowhere. People arent just yelling stuff randomly. It got picked up nationally because people were, like, This makes sense.

Although the demand to defund the police may have had its specific origins in Minneapolis, Kaba understands that the growing curiosity about abolitionist politics is rooted in something much broader. She said, People are frustrated by the way that the welfare state has completely been defunded. People dont have what they need to survive. And yet the military and prisons keep getting more and more and more. Contrary to the beliefs of their critics, abolitionists are not impervious to the realities of crime and violence. But they have a fundamental understanding that crime is a manifestation of social deprivation and the reverberating effects of racial discrimination, which locks poor and working-class communities of color out of schooling, meaningful jobs, and other means to keep up with the ever-escalating costs of life in the United States. These problems are not solved by armed agents of the state or by prisons, which sow the seeds of more poverty and alienation, while absorbing billions of dollars that might otherwise be spent on public welfare. The police and prisons arent solving these problems: they are a part of the problem.

At its core, abolitionist politics are inspired by the necessity for what Martin Luther King,Jr., described as the radical reconstruction of the entirety of U.S. society. They intend to promote systemic thinking instead of our societys obsession with personal responsibility. Derek Chauvins conviction was premised on the idea that he was personally responsible for George Floyds murder. The emphasis on his accountability distracts from a system of policing that administered his continued employment, even though eighteen complaints had been lodged against him during his nineteen-year career. Moreover, Chauvin was a field-training officer, who had trained two of the other officers who will face trial for participating in Floyds murder. Chauvin may be held to account for the killing, but neither the Minneapolis Police Department nor the elected officials charged with overseeing the M.P.D. will be held to account for allowing someone like Chauvin to be on the streets, let alone responsible for training others.

To approach harm systemically is to imagine that, if peoples most critical needs were met, the tensions that arise from deprivation and poverty could be mitigated. And when harm still occurs, because human beings have the propensity to hurt one another, nonlethal responses could attend to itand also to the reasons for it. To be sure, these are lofty aspirations, but they are no more unrealistic than believing that another study, expos, commission, firing, or police trial is capable of meeting the desire for change that, last summer, compelled tens of millions of ordinary people to pour into the streets. Indeed, the trial of Derek Chauvin could not even conclude before a Black man was killed at a traffic stop.

Our current criminal-justice system is rooted in the assumption that millions of people require policing, surveillance, containment, prison. It is a dark view of humanity. By contrast, Kaba and others in this emergent movement fervently believe in the capacity of people to change in changed conditions. That is the optimism at the heart of the abolitionist project. As Kaba insists in her book, The reason Im struggling through all of this is because Im a deeply, profoundly hopeful person. Because I know that human beings, with all of our foibles and all the things that are failing, have the capacity to do amazingly beautiful things, too. That gives me the hope to feel like we will, when necessary, do what we need to do. Abolition is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Even the guiding lights of the movement are embedded in campaigns for short-term reforms that make a difference in daily life. For Kaba, that has meant raising funds for mutual aid during the pandemic and campaigning for reparations in Chicago. For Gilmore, it has meant working with incarcerated people and their families to challenge the building of prisons across California. For Angela Davis, it has meant lending her voice to movements for civil and human rights, from Ferguson to Palestine. The point is to work in solidarity with others toward the world as they wish for it to be. Hope is a discipline, Kaba writes. We must practice it daily.

Read the original post:
The Emerging Movement for Police and Prison Abolition - The New Yorker