The D.C. DMV is moving ahead with what many consider to be what Reagan coined a "mark of the beast" national ID (when suggested in conjunction with a tattoo). However, the D.C. DMV's 09 Budget saved money for its change to facial recognition software by changing the license expiration period from five years to eight years. They also raised the fee for registration to reflect a registration valued at seven years rather than five. Although the logic of raising the fees while reducing the service is very typical of government, many taxpayers would happily agree to pay the same amount of money per year for an extra two years of avoiding contact with the DMV of California. To reduce costs, the D.C. DMV extended inspections (which include smog tests in California) on new cars from a two year to a four year window. This extended window is supported by the E.P.A (p.3). Even those that are very sensitive to carbon footprints must admit that a registration inspection on a new car is probably not necessary for at least three years. California has no such exemption for out of state vehicles. Since the D.C. DMV hopes to generate enough savings from these measures to pay for its transition to facial recognition software, and although the cost of the facial recognition software per capita is difficult to compute, perhaps it is still safe to say that if California enacted the D.C. DMV reforms, a savings of 25 million per year would be a conservative estimate for California. Saving 25 million per year by not going with facial recognition software and then using the DC DMV proposals to reduce expenditure's another 25 million totals a tidy 50 million per year.
There is a principle behind such reforms is that California that can save the California DMV millions more: California can no longer afford to needlessly pester its citizens. There are certain "services" provided by government that are odious to the majority of California's citizens. These should be ended now. Is a thumb print really necessary in applying for a commercial license? It wasn't before 1997. Is a ten-year history really needed for renewing a commercial driver's license? Aren't a social security number and a photograph enough to check for recent drunk driving and traffic violations? Aren't those violations already part of the applicant's records as "points" against his license? How much money can be saved by reducing these regulations? It is plain that a background check can be run without a thumb print. It is plain that the thumb print is "needed" to guard against crimes one might commit in the future.
After the most egregious an bureaucratic infringements on personal liberties are expunged from California's Department of Motor Vehicles, consideration should be given to increasing fees for superior service. For instance, in any given year, budget shortfall or no, complaints of four hour Kafkaesque waits for the simplest services can be heard. Surely, as furloughs and full time positions are reduced, this will again be the case. Perhaps citizens would be willing to pay for an appointment on days that are "furloughed." Why should an MD who could bill $200.00 an hour spend nearly $1,000 of his time waiting in a line! Instead, he could be helping reduce another long line, the line of seriously needy patients waiting in an emergency room for treatment. Perhaps, the MD would be willing to part with a tenth of this wasted salary for an appointment on a furlough day? Let the tables be turned: three MD's per hour ought to make opening the DMV with it priceless services possible after all.
Departments of California's government that provide services, like the DMV, ought to be self-supporting. Greater transparency should also be required. For instance, how much does each driver's license driving test and knowledge test cost the taxpayer? Such information is vital to evaluating DMV services and practices. For instance, driving a car is so often connected to earning a living that the initial tests offered by the DMV are included in the small fees for a learning permit and license; however, how many times should citizens be allowed to fail these tests without additional fees? The D.C. DMV proposed savings by limiting the number of written tests (knowledge tests) to three per year. Perhaps it is better to have an increasing fee for each written and driving test an individual fails. Without a clear and transparent accounting for the costs of each DMV service such savings are difficult to evaluate.©2009 Paul Benedict, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Last modified: Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The views expressed in this article are those of Paul Benedict only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Paul Benedict is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Paul Benedict of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Paul Benedict |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Adrian Scott
Date: 2009-06-25 17:43:15
Or we could just scale back the DMV to an accreditation provider and let third parties hand out licenses. As of right now, automobile liability insurance is pretty redundant. If the state instead moved to processing fees on third party insurance providers, we could probably increase coverage as well as responsible driving. Unfortunately, this would have to be a slow phase-out as such an option would most definitely be challenged in court. California has been first at so many things in the nation. Maybe they could be the first to get rid of the DMV.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2009-06-25 21:00:36
Although it is a little hard to follow every detail of your plan,I like the idea of privatizing government our way out of the expensive red tape.
The nanny state is too expensive (what a shame).
Posted By: Adrian Scott
Date: 2009-06-26 12:29:39
I admit I'm not thoroughly detailed, and often times, my ideas are little more than ambiguous conceptions, but I always figured if the idea is attractive, it will be hammered out replete with details and the like.
It's agonizing to watch what's happening though right now in this state. There are so many solutions on the table, but the Legislature and Governor refuse to touch them.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2009-06-26 13:41:07
Hi Adrian,
I could not agree more about the incomprehensible apathy the legislature seems to display. What cuts they do make are always on firemen, police and teachers...
Why don't they compromise? Incompetence? Generational hatred? Blind idolatrous devotion to ideology and tradition?
Posted By: Adrian Scott
Date: 2009-06-27 19:27:19
The short answer is: we brought it upon ourselves. When you have 4 new spending amendments made a year through initiatives, which siphon the General Fund, compounded ontop of gerrymandered districts, it's no wonder why they throw tantrum displays if compromise is necessary.
I'm not totally excusing them. It's not like I love the Legislature. But it's important to recognize that in the creation of this mess, California voters have played a huge part. Last election alone, there were some 8 or 9 propositions that each warranted new spending appropriations. Like a high-speed railway that isn't really high-speed. Or additional funding to children's hospitals, when the previous funds have yet to be exhausted.
If you want these things, you must be willing to pay for them. And, opposite of what the media would have everyone believe, the divisions aren't cut evenly down party lines.
Posted By: Smack MacDougal
Date: 2009-08-27 12:27:41
@Adrian.
Some Californian voters played a part. Many of us do not vote in favor of such propositions.
That said, the proposition process is not the problem with California and for Californians.
The inherent design of the government of California is the problem.
No need exists to have a bicameral legislature. Eliminate the senate.
Also, Californians suffer from true representation as the number of representatives sent to the house does reflect the ever growing head count in California.
By maintaining a ration of one house member to say, 15,000 Californians, we would be moving toward eliminating the Democrats and Republicans duopoly that controls power in the state.
Forcing politics to become coalition compromise of weak factional groups would protect each citizen from power mad, avid spending, irresponsible politicians.
Next, voting districts should arise through geometry geographics distribution. What is that?
In short, a hexagonal grid should get overlaid onto a map of California. Each hexagon would get limited to 15,000 persons. That would become a voting district. After every census, the hexagons would shrink in size proportionally maintaining the 1:15,000 ratio thus ensuring proportional representation.
We would strip politicians of the power to rig voting districts to keep themselves in office for a lifetime.
Also, the Constitution needs to be fixed.
The spending by the California government should get restricted to ports, roads, bridges -- infrastructure alone. Californian politicians have no moral authority to pick winners and losers in the game of business. Giving up subsidy amounts to rewarding campaign financiers.
Pensions for state workers must get changed to defined contribution -- like everyone else in America. The days of 100% of a paycheck every week during retirement years must come to and end, now! Right now, not only are Californians paying for all current government workers but also for every retired worker alive at full pay. This cannot last.
Education spending must get reverted back to the local level. The state has no business being involved in stealing money from someone in Santa Barbara county and sending that money to Imperial county.
Those who place a premium on schooling gladly shall fund their local school districts, using such as a way to promote their region. Those who don't shall lose out in the competitive game for residents who make an economic difference.