New fuel efficiency standards have been enacted by the Federal Government. The same end could be reached in a much more direct way. by Gene DeNardo
(libertarian)
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The Obama Administration announced new rules for automobile fuel efficiency standards. [link edited for length] They will begin to take effect in 2012 and culminate in 2016. Trucks will be required to average 35.5 miles per gallon and passenger cars, 39. Rules and regulations are one way humans form other's behavior, but the same end can be accomplished by just letting the natural economic principles go to work.
To accomplish greater fuel efficiency in our fleet of vehicles, the Federal Government actually needs to do less, much less.
The highway and road system that presently exists in our country is Socialistic. The government built, owns and maintains virtually every inch of road in America. Taxpayer's fronted the bill for this massive project and the cost and impact has been enormous. The road to fuel efficiency coincides with freeing the government and the taxpayer of this burden.
The Federal Government should relinquish control of the road systems. Every mile of road should be deeded to the State governments, in their present condition. All departments of the Federal Government that have anything to do with transportation should be disbanded. The Feds should no longer accept any responsibility for the road system nor accept any funds toward this end.
Now, it is not within the Constitution for the Federal Government to instruct the States how to fund their new road system. However, there is a superior way to do this that would also increase fuel efficiency and allow those who benefit and use the public roads to pay their share of the costs.
A gas tax should be maintained at the State level that covers 100% of the cost of maintaining, designing and building of the road system within that particular state. Any related cost, such a highway patrol to keep the roads safe or even road landscaping, should be included in this tax. Nothing should come from the general fund of the State or through the issuing of local bonds. There should be no assistance from the Feds.
Whether the particular State feels it is right to raise a greater amount than necessary and use this road surplus for the general fund of the State, is up to the people of the State. Deciding to use a gas tax to pay for a school is about as arbitrary as taxes are at present and can not be included in the discussion of a "user fee", other than to say it definitely is not a "user fee".
A road system user fee would put the cost where it should be, on the shoulders of those who use the roads. The cost would be borne by the amount of gas that a taxpayer purchases. The less efficient the auto is and the more miles it is driven, the higher the tax. The costs of roads and their maintenance are astronomical and the people of each State could determine the quality of roads they desire by the rate of the tax.
A tax of this sort reflects the "true cost" of a service, in this case the road system, and drives people to make decisions economically rather than "socialized" decisions. The cost of gas would be much higher and the race to purchase fuel efficient vehicles would ensue, driven by real costs, not rules and regulations.
Fuel efficient cars are by nature lighter than gas guzzlers and cause much less wear on asphalt surfaces. For this reason, a weight fee could also be implemented if the State deemed it necessary. Most of the wear on highways is due to 50 ton plus tractor trailer trucks in the course of commerce and not collecting their proper share is a business and trade subsidy.
There is no question automobiles cause pollution. Instead of requiring emission standards the same gas tax could be utilized to compensate non use. The more gas used, the more pollution that results, so an addition to the gas tax could cover compensation for pollution inflicted by drivers on non drivers. Any non vehicle owning citizen could receive a payment derived from the pollution portion of the gas tax. In this manner, all those who cause pollution by driving reimburse those who are affected by the pollution yet do not contribute to the problem.
If the particular State wished, noise pollution could be addressed in this manner. Traffic causes noise and citizens living close to roads bear the brunt of this type of intrusion. They could also be compensated out of this gas tax. It would seem only noise pollution caused by "intrusive" government construction should be compensated. In other words, highways and expressways that were "forced" upon the citizens by government decree, usually accompanied by eminent domain, rather than roads that "grew up" over long periods of time, allowing people to choose to live near the noise.
As was mentioned previously, the States must retain their freedoms under the Constitution but these issues certainly need to be addressed. True costs, rather than externalization, always drive consumers to make informed and usually superior choices. The automobile comes both with great benefit and great cost. Subsidies, rules and regulations confuse and distort the matter. When we drive we should enjoy the benefits and pay the costs.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 0
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Gene DeNardo only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Gene DeNardo 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.
That may work to a certain extent. In Michigan there is such a gas tax which is supposed to be used ONLY for road maintenance and construction. Nevertheless, the roads here are some of the worst of the Nation. But it is more fair than the Federal Government footing the bill since it is more directly affecting those at the state level. Why does somebody in Nebraska has to foot the bill for the Big Dig in boston if he is never going to use it? Actually, if that is the case, the roads should be given to the local municipalites.
Privatization of roads might be a better solution. Already there are several bridges and turnpikes in the US that are privately owned or under a long term lease agreement. In Michigan, other than the bridges connecting Michigan's Upper Peninsula with the Lower Peninsula and the bridges and tunnels to Canada, there are no tolls. This is mainly because of the gas tax. So I agree to an extent that the more you use the gas, the more you use the roads and thus it is a usage tax which is less unfair than federal incometax or arbitrary taxes footing the bill.
But then, Civil Engineering courses for road design say that each tractor-trailer does the same damage as 5,000 cars to the extent that the road should be design solely for tractor-trailers with the damage by cars negletcable. I don't think the big rigs use 5,000 times more gas, so should they pay a gas tax equivalent to 5,000 times that of a regular car?
Speaking about turnpiukes and bridges:
Here in Michigan the most important and most lucrative bridge is the Ambassador Bridge which is owned completly by one 80-year old man for the last several decades. He bought all the remaining shares from Warren Buffet. We call him here the "troll under the bridge". Really that is what he is. He owns the bridge, as well as all the land below and plenty of land surrounding both sides of it in Windor, Canada and in Michigan. He has a total Monopoly on the tractor trailer routes between the borders that need to pass through there. He is a multi-billionaire with the bridge alone valued at $1B. He also owns several big trucking companies so he gives preferential rates to his trucks, which he also insures with his own insurance companies thus creating cheaper freight rates than his trucking competitors who also have to pay him. So he also monopolizes the trucking companies going thorugh the bridge as well by getting exclusive shipping agreements with big suppliers. Add to that the duty-free gas business, currency exchanges and dozens of other businesses.
He is also a disgusting slum-lord and horrible human beign who gives a bad reputation to other good natured multi-billionares. He owns a lot of delapidated buildings in Detroit that are left to rust and deteriorate with lots of homeless people and drug addicts invading these properties. He is one of the most greediest characters, and disgusting characters, does no philantropy unlike the other billionares, works from 6:00am to 10:00pm every day, and does no public appearances or interviews. You rarely hear from him in the news. Is as if he has something to hide. (And he probably does). Due to increase traffic he is planning a second span on the bridge and has done improvements and maintenance on the bridge without codes, or permits from neither the US government nor the Canadian Government. Somehow he has his team of lawyers stating that neither the US nor Canada has a right to regulate him because the bridge is in international waters. Somehow he wins almost every court case and gets away with a lot of things that a regular citizen might not.
The Canadian government as well as the US government is planning another bridge to compete agaisnt him at a cost of $4B in taxpayer money (which is 4 times the fair value of the actual bridge)
As bad as this character is. It does not matter. The fact is that there has not been any big issues with the bridge operation nor with safety or any big accidents or bombs and he has been running a very lucrative operation for decades. If there is a threat to his bridge (which is like his highest prized baby) he will make sure that nothing happens to it. So even if the owner is a horrible human beign with a questionable character, he is doing a good job with the bridge and allows for a lot of commerce to go back and forth through U.S. and Canada.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/1115/134.html
So a better approach to the gas tax might be some road privatization.
With regards to the pollution and noise, that is a bunch of crap. If you live close to a higher noise place or higher polluted place you are probably paying less for your rent or housing, so no need to redistribute the tax.
Road Privatization has the unpleasant setback of tolls. Can you imagine paying a toll everytime you make a turn onto another road?
I do agree the fed doesn't have any business handling the roads of states. However it is funded is another question. I don't think a gas tax will drastically change anybody's habits by driving less, people still have to get to work and back and some peoples commutes are longer than others.
So the low income folks who can't afford an efficient new car end up even poorer because the gas taxes are higher, while the rich folks who can buy a new car every year but don't give a crap about gas prices (because it is chicken feed) get an even better deal.
the problem I have with "privitization" is simply that the FED always "gives" everything away that the public owns at bargain basement prices [like timber]. I don't know why they wouldn't also do that with the roads? I don't think the government should have built the roads in the first place, but that is another matter!
Hi Randy,
people would eventually adapt and want to live closer to work, etc, once the cost was truly realized.
Hi Michael,
that is a good point. I think there are lots of "cheap" cars around now that are fuel efficient, such as older japanese vehicles. and once auto makers found out they all needed to build fuel efficient cars, there would be good used ones available. The fact is, it is going to happen one way or the other, fuel prices are going to be very high. So we can direct the costs to the good or we can continue to subsidize with big government.
What about the convenience of living near a major highway? Doesn't this compensate for the nosie factor? Besides, if you live near a major thoroughfare you will use less gasoline to get places.
to me, the noise pollution would be meaningful when it is "imposed" on property owners. In other words, when the government or anyone builds something that brings noise pollution to a location, rather than individuals "choosing" an already noisy location.
It really doesn't matter what you tax the trucks, it will be charged back in their rates. So road maintenance can be paid by taxes or higher prices of goods.
Unless you support corporate socialism, those who use public resources should pay fees for that use. if they don't, everyone else picks up their tab. if that results in higher prices, then people will buy a head of lettuce that doesn't travel 2000 miles in a refrigerated truck and costs more. wouldn't that be the marketplace rather than government subsidy? not to mention the "choice" to buy an item based on preference rather than being forced to pay a tax.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
