Tea party conservatives latch onto GOP fear-mongering tactics, and manufacture car and highway fund troubles

Why would Henry Lamb want General Motors to fail? Why would conservatives attack GPS? Why would conservatives want US citizens to fear the government is watching them through their cars?

Because it incites fear, an emotion that has carried conservatives to victory many times over. Except I wearied of the Orwellian call to collapse in a paranoid state of shock onto a fainting couch a while back, and I hope I can count on my fellow Americans to do the same: think logically, ignore fear-mongering, and research emotional scare stories. Then decide for yourself whether you support it, and if you don't make sure you can back another solution.

We've got problems, and we need solutions.

The most recent Huddle 'Round the Campfire Scare Story hit my inbox today, and after a tsunami of similar, I was motivated to take this one on, but understand, it's really my personal criticism and deconstruction of the plethora of anti-government, get rid of taxes scare tactic divisive insanity that I've simply lost all patience for.

So let's start with the story by Henry Lamb, the founder and former executive director of Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and chairman of Sovereignty International. He is also a columnist for the conservative website WorldNetDaily. (Go research those to understand what they are and what they stand for. Don't assume based on the names.)

In an article for WorldNetDaily, Henry Lamb began his commentary with an imagination capturing story---who doesn't like a good story, especially a slightly fantastical one that preys on our fears of the future? Especially the one that evokes the image of a poor, harried mom, possibly single and stretched for cash?

"Sara was late for work. The alarm clock didn't alarm, the kids were unusually slow getting ready for school, and nothing went right. She finally got to her car – a brand new 2020 Chevy Adventure. She touched the finger-print secured start button. Nothing. It wouldn't start. She touched it again. Nothing. Furious, she banged the steering wheel with her fist. Then she noticed the paper hanging from the receipt printer on the dash.

"Your designated visa account rejected your Road Use Tax in the amount of $87.32 for the month of June, 2020. You must insert a valid account card to activate your automobile."

Lamb warns that it's coming, this terrible control of you and your life, via your car, by the government---the ever expanding government, controlled then, as now, apparently, by the new party: the Democratic Bum Socialists.

What with their references to bums and tea bagging, conservatives have certainly got an obsession with their seats.

That's of course what it all comes back to: their seats, in office. They are deeply concerned with regaining power, apparently at any cost, even that of General Motors, and people's sense of security.

I read this "story" by Lamb, twice, and was immediately skeptical.

You can't have it all ways, conservatives. You can't want government to have more of a say in our lives, such as banning abortion and providing health care practitioners the ability to refuse legal health care if they don't prefer to provide it. You can't institute the biggest government agency, Homeland Security, and allow wire taps without warrants, and then complain if a GPS system tracks mileage.

But is this article written by a standard GOP conservative? I don't think so, I think it's the new breed of conservative: the tea party conservative, which seems eerily similar to Libertarians, but who rarely refer to themselves as such. Instead, they typically align themselves with Republicans, which is where all the "can't have it both ways" confusion comes from.

So Lamb, representative of this new tea party conservative who is anti-government and anti-tax, is speaking out, a full decade later, to complain about the government exploring options to fund the highway fund, which has a serious revenue problem.

Okay emotional fear-mongering fantastical stories aside, here's what's really going on:

In 2005, when George W Bush was President and Republicans had a strong majority in both the House and Senate, Congress passed a bill called The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU), to be overseen by the Department of Transportation.

President Bush signed this into law in August 2005.

The overview states:

With guaranteed funding for highways, highway safety, and public transportation totaling $244.1 billion, SAFETEA-LU represents the largest surface transportation investment in our Nation's history. The two landmark bills that brought surface transportation into the 21^st century—the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21)—shaped the highway program to meet the Nation's changing transportation needs. SAFETEA-LU builds on this firm foundation, supplying the funds and refining the programmatic framework for investments needed to maintain and grow our vital transportation infrastructure. 

SAFETEA-LU addresses the many challenges facing our transportation system today – challenges such as improving safety, reducing traffic congestion, improving efficiency in freight movement, increasing intermodal connectivity, and protecting the environment – as well as laying the groundwork for addressing future challenges. SAFETEA-LU promotes more efficient and effective Federal surface transportation programs by focusing on transportation issues of national significance, while giving State and local transportation decision makers more flexibility for solving transportation problems in their communities. 

So here's what is true:

1. SAFETEA-LU was passed and signed into law by Republicans and the Republican president in 2005. The bill that passed was by no means the first bill introduced. In support of the bill that did pass, Representative Michael Castle (R-DE) said, "In 2003, we started out with an impractical proposal and a guaranteed veto threat from the President. Today, we have an agreement that is reasonable and will create jobs, boost our economy, and provide indispensable infrastructure improvements in places like Delaware. This bill has come a long way, and I commend the conferees for their dedication to finding an agreement that is both fair and effective."

2. The current system of funding for the Federal highway system is not providing adequate revenue. 90% of that is based on motor fuel taxes. This year, the Federal Highway Trust Fund is projected to have a $4-5 billion shortfall. That's projected to be a $25 billion shortfall by 2012.

All members of Congress understood that the fuel tax was no longer providing adequate revenue for the highway infrastructure by the late 1990s. With bridges and roads aging into unsafe conditions and highway systems that need to be updated to accommodate current driving, they understood they needed to identify a solid yet reasonable method of generating revenue. Alternative solutions have included major potential fails, such as incidentally skewing in favor of larger states, such as Texas, at the expense of smaller states such as Rhode Island. The formulas for the bills that did not pass overly emphasized size over quantity and population as well as use. With work, the Transportation committee refined the formula to be more equitable. This is the solution the majority agreed upon in 2005.

Since then, with the passage of the bill, the new law has been working to correct not just budget shortfalls for highways, but also to improve driver safety, improve traffic congestion (and the safety and pollution concerns that creates) and more.

3. There is a national evaluation in six cities to determine if a mileage-based road-user charge could solve that. This program began in 1999. There are currently 1500 participants in San Diego, Austin, Eastern Iowa, Boise, Baltimore, and Raleigh/Durham. Additional participants and cities are planned for the next phases of the evaluation.

The study lists "privacy" as a top concern. It's tasked with identifying a solution that protects privacy while providing auditability. It considers income levels, the need to keep costs low, and the fact that many citizens are "cash only."

Multiple government studies have suggested a mileage-based tax is a good solution to the highway budget shortfall, and could provide pollution relief too (the theory is that it could be an incentive for more public transportation and less driving or more carpooling---I'm skeptical considering gas-guzzling SUVs continue to sell in high numbers even during record-high gas prices). I could not find any independent verification that the government is right.

Based on the current tax system, the average US driver pays about $20/month to the highway fund.

You should go read the preliminary results of the evaluation; it's a PDF power point that's very easy to understand, presented in only 36 pages.

So what about Lamb's claims?

"There is no end to the mischief that government can impose upon the people with this system. Government could control when and where people go simply by adjusting the tax rate. Government could force people to use public transportation, by adjusting the tax rate. Government could deactivate vehicles as a form of punishment for unpaid speeding or parking tickets. Government could easily dictate the type of vehicle you drive, simply by adjusting the tax rate on GM vehicles.

Those who think these scenarios are far-fetched have not been watching what the federal government has been doing, especially since the new Democratic socialists have taken control of Washington. It's going to take more than tea parties to prevent this "change" that is being imposed. It's going to take a determined electorate to throw the bums out!"

1. There is an end to the mischief government can impose: you, the voters. Non-warrant wiretapping still happens because enough people don't oppose it. This is, in large, the definition of a democracy. Lobbying works, whether it is done by paid or unpaid lobbyists regardless of what interest they represent. Grassroots citizens can lobby and influence government. Truly. We watch it happen---how many politicians, for example, now wear flag pins on their lapels? Just imagine if we brought that kind of pressure to bear, oh, say on improving affordability and accessibility of health care.

2. "Government could control where you go and how you get there." Of course---economics can always inform your choices. If you think like a Libertarian (as Lamb clearly does) then you oppose any and all taxes.

Transportation will always cost, period. If we expect to get from Point A to Point B, we must have some system for financing the means of getting there. Government can't force people to use public transportation, but why does Lamb say public transportation as if it's a bad thing? It's simply another option---one that might, yes, look more appealing if it is more cost-effective. Having lived in Boston where we had car and public transportation choices, I can say I enjoyed having the choice, and typically chose public transportation, largely because it was more convenient and budget-friendly. I didn't suffer. In fact, I miss it deeply where I live now, which offers no public transportation at all.

3. "Government could deactivate vehicles as a form of punishment for unpaid speeding or parking tickets." They already can, and do, do this. It's a lower tech method, but it can be and is done. The Boot. Tow trucks.

4. General Motors can install GPS systems in its cars, and does. But so do all the other car manufacturers. Why does Lamb zero in on and focus his vitriol on General Motors? I'm not sure, but I expect it has to do with the bailout.

5. Sound the alarm, the Democratic Socialists are coming! Excuse me but for pete's sake! Really? This particular plan spans both the Republican and Democrat times in power. Lamb isn't truly concerned with one party or another; he's concerned about any government at all period. But by slamming Democrats, clearly he is implying he's "with" the Republicans or at the very least implying that "enemy of my enemy is my friend." But is a tea-party conservative really the friend of Republicans? Ask Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) who thought so and attended the recent July 4th tea party protest to loud boos. They don't want the leaders, these tea party conservatives, they just want the voters. And they're willing to mislead to achieve that, such as in Lamb's article.

If you don't want a mileage-based tax, but the motor-fuel one is not providing adequate revenue for the roads that I suspect even Libertarians and Mr. Lamb drive upon, then...what?

Lamb has based his storyline and conjecture on truth---but don't misapply the old adage about smoke and fire here. Don't assume that because there is an evaluation of a mileage-based system underway that it will lead to Lamb's fantastical imaginings.

This is one more effort to undermine our belief in government---our government. 

Just because someone says something as if it's a bad thing, that doesn't automatically mean it is, even if they attach a really emotionally upsetting conjecture to it. Don't fall for it, don't take on someone else's biases. Nobody else's shoes will fit your foot as well, and neither will their prejudice.

Comments

[OM]

That explains why the roads are filled with cycling Republicans. Actually, when you see a bicycle with nuts tied to the back, you know the scare tactics are working.

[cynematic]

I'm always amazed that Tea Party cons can band together to say "we the people" and rail against government, as if it's not actually made up of "we the people."

I guess I should be grateful that they've called upon those of like-scared-out-of-their-minds to VOTE the bums they dislike out of office. This is preferable to the calls of demagogues like Glenn Beck, who say the discontented should use arms to overthrow the government. Sorry Glenn, that's just insane.