Friday, 22 August 2014 18:05

The VMT Tax: Big Brother Will Be Watching You Drive

Written by 

For years, even decades, the federal government has been urging motorists to drive fuel-efficient vehicles. In President Obama's first term, there was even a "Cash for Clunkers" program, offering drivers a financial reward if they traded in an old car for a more fuel-efficient new vehicle. And apparently Americans have done too good a job of following that government policy. Greater fuel efficiency means minimal or less frequent purchases at the gas pump. Some motorists have switched to hybrid or electric cars, which enables them to avoid the gas pumps altogether. All of which results in lower revenue from federal and state gas taxes, which means less money to build and repair roads and bridges and fund myriad mass transit programs. So policymakers are looking at taxing not the gas you buy, but the miles you travel.

A Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax might not reduce air pollution or the nation's dependence on foreign oil, the main reasons given for government's campaign to get motorists into more fuel-efficient vehicles. But it could raise more revenue and even be useful for traffic control since it could tax motorists for driving into already congested areas. But chances are drivers won't like being penalized for having long commutes to work or going extra miles on vacation trips any more than they would like paying more in taxes at the gas pumps. And at least some of us might resent the invasion of privacy involved in having the government track all our trips, short and long, to total up our mileage bill. As described on the federal technology news site, Nextgov.com:

It has long been a nightmare scenario for privacy advocates: Every time you get in your car, a computer relays your location and tracks your trip from start to finish. It can track how far you go, where you drive, how long the trip is, and even how much traffic you encounter.

For many drivers it is already a reality, as motorists take part in ride-sharing programs such as Zipcar or Car2Go, though both services record cars and drivers. E-Z passes enable drivers to zip through tolls without the delay and inconvenience of stopping to pay, but the system also creates electronic records of everyone's trips on toll roads. But to have a Global Positioning System or some such device in every car to track each motorist's comings and goings has overtones of an Orwellian "Big Brother" government, watching you every move and knowing where you are at all times. When then-Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood proposed such a system in early 2009, NextGov.com recalled, the Obama administration quickly disowned it, saying it was off the table. A proposal to research a VMT system was left out of the 2012 transportation reauthorization bill. But some transportation experts argue that Americans have already surrendered so much privacy for the conveniences of modern technology that the intrusive watchfulness of a VMT system should hardly bother us. 

"Logic has not really entered into that discussion," said Joshua Schank, president of the Eno Center for Transportation. "People have had cell phones and private cell companies knowing where they travel for years, but somehow that doesn't give them any more comfort if the federal government is going to track their driving."

Ride-sharing companies track trips for locations, speed, and travel times, but have policies aimed at offering motorists some assurance of privacy protection. Zipcar says it does "not actively track or monitor vehicle location, and we do not store historical GPS data regarding vehicle location." Uber, the rideshare and taxi service, uses GPS and geolocation through its mobile app to see where users and drivers are, but says the data is not shared with third parties and is used only for purposes such as customizing services, promotions, and data analytics.

"There's really a lot less privacy with those systems because they know at least where you are picked up and dropped off and someone's keeping track of that," said Rob Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. "I have no reason to doubt that these companies are trustworthy and it's possible that as people become more comfortable with that, they'll see that there are less privacy concerns."

"I don't think that means we should be any less concerned about the government doing something like this," said Gautum Hans, an attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology. He told Nextgov.com that people may be more comfortable with a private company using location tracking for business or research use, but "as we like to say, a private company can't put you in jail." "Research is understood by individuals. You can understand why a ride-sharing app would want to do research as long as it's aggregated and takes steps to protect your privacy," he said. "With the government, there are reasons you would be concerned, whether it's the First Amendment and the freedom of association or how the information is kept."

A federal pilot program is already underway in Oregon, offering 5,000 volunteers a variety of options, including a smartphone app, self-bought GPS systems, or even a flat fee that would require no tracking at all. But if millions of motorists have switched to smaller, more fuel efficient cars to escape rising prices at the gas pump, would millions more not curtail needless trips to reduce their tax burden under a VMT system? What will that do to vacation trips?

Stay tuned for opposition from the travel and tourist industry. 

5 comments

  • Comment Link Jim Kane Monday, 25 August 2014 09:17 posted by Jim Kane

    Simple: Regardless of (your) MPG, obama is gonna tax everyone for every mile they drive. So y'all better have insurance when you are riding your bike and hit by a truck.

  • Comment Link Jim Chambers Sunday, 24 August 2014 12:10 posted by Jim Chambers

    Memphis Mickey says: "There is no Right to drive."
    Sure there is, Mickey. Tis an inalienable right guarded by the constitution in several different sections of that document. You have the constitutional right to own a conveyance (a car is property), you have the constitutional right to move around the country and you have the constitutional right to be free.
    What more needs to be said?
    What you do not need, under the constitution, is a license from anyone.
    Wake up, buddy. Licenses are only a means by which others try to control you and your behavior.
    Additionally, you might want to think about this: To take from another using duress is theft. The government requires that you pay them a percentage of the remuneration you receive for your labor and, should you not fork over, they will come and take your stuff at the end of a gun. Considering that, cannot and should not taxes be considered theft?
    Just saying.

  • Comment Link rprew Friday, 22 August 2014 23:36 posted by rprew

    For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license". Some of these cases are:

    Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
    ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

    Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

    It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

    Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

    Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

    (Taken from http://www.realtruth.biz/driving/supremecourt.htm)

  • Comment Link jigglethehandle Friday, 22 August 2014 21:36 posted by jigglethehandle

    http://marcstevens.net/

  • Comment Link MemphisMickey Friday, 22 August 2014 20:47 posted by MemphisMickey

    There is no Right to drive.

Please Log In To Comment
Log in