A taxing situation: Miles driven or fuel consumed, that is the question

OPENING SCENE: Inside a modern-day classroom. Teacher stands behind a desk addressing the room.

TEACHER: OK, boys and girls, today we're working on our C-words. Does anyone know what the words "convoluted" and "contrived" mean? Can you use them each in a sentence? Beth, you raised your hand first . . .

BETH: Well, because I keep dictionary.com open on my desktop, I know that convoluted is an adjective meaning complicated or intricately involved. I also believe that contrived means artificial or strained. It's also an adjective.

TEACHER: Thank you, Beth, you are--as usual--right. Now, do you think you can use them in a sentence?

BETH: Yes, I believe I can.

"The effort of Congress to levy a tax on miles that Americans drive, rather than on fuel at the pump, is both contrived and convoluted."

TEACHER: Beth, for a six-year-old, you have insight that should be shared with our lawmakers. . . . Joey! You take that hamster out of your nose right this instant!

FADE TO BLACK . . .

How could a proposal to tax miles driven, according to news reports, be gaining traction?

This idea is so completely ludicrous, so tremendously outlandish, so explicitly stupid that it is precisely the type of legislation that will keep lawmakers bound up like a trough of Velveeta.

How can it be implemented? Global positioning satellites and GPS-mounted devices would measure distances you drive and you would be taxed on a per-mile--or for all we know a per-foot--basis.

Obviously lawmakers want to use technology instead of common sense. What is so wrong with taxing fuel at the pump? Why does this have to be so complicated, convoluted and contrived?

If we did go to the mileage-plus option, think of some ramifications. Long-haul truck drivers likely would pay more. But you can bet they'd pass their transportation costs on to consumers. If bringing an artichoke from Salinas to Sarasota costs twice as much, you will eat that cost.

Then the greenies should be so pleased. Imagine you're an early adopter of advanced technology and you over-spent on a Toyota Prius. You enjoy the benefits of early adoption, like skirting traffic while scooting in the High Occupancy Vehicle lane. You get tax breaks and the fuel economy you achieve has you stopping at pumps less frequently.

That's the good news.

You are a traveling salesman whose hemp belts and organic synthetic-leather wallets are taking the world by storm. You must be on the road to move units, and now you're hosed because mileage equals tax to the Man.

And if you think this revolutionary plan will be embraced by all, you know it will be targeted by conspiracy theorists. There is nothing they love more than to know that Uncle Sam is tracking their moves to food caches and mountain bunkers. Don't the Washington wonks realize people buy new Chevrolet Suburbans and methodically eviscerate their electrical wiring in an effort to go off the grid?

According to a story in my local Sunday paper, supporters argue that a mileage tax is more reliable for funding the upkeep of the nation's roads and bridges--its infrastructure. The blue-sky brigade believe it will reduce driving and pollution.

Right.

Why is this percolating to the fore now? Because no clear energy policy has existed for going on four decades, and the federal gasoline tax--not indexed to inflation--has not been raised since 1993.

You can't say "tax" without an outrage. Actually, you can say it but you can't "sell it" on Capitol Hill and on Main Street America. These politicians want to keep suckling on the government teat.

Last week, a bipartisan congressional commission suggested the gas tax be increased by 10 cents per gallon. That was the bogey man himself speaking.

There is another reason why mileage-tax proponents want in: As automakers develop more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, the likelihood of increasing revenue falls behind. Something must increase, and right now, it is miles driven on our highways.

Yes, you can thank a couple of powerful Democratic politicos for this move to a mileage tax. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., dubbed it "brilliant." And Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., said the Obama administration will listen to this proposal, and he verily threatened to make it happen: "Whether they want it or not, they are going to get it." Presumably, Oberstar was referring to the conversation rather than the tax. But who knows what vitriol he spewed.

Do not scoff that these two lawmakers are merely flapping their lips. They aren't. They head the Senate and House of Representatives transportation committees, which oversee the country's infrastructure.

Yes, I believe we all agree that a great many changes need be made to get this country again firing on all cylinders. It just doesn't seem that the changes must be contrived and convoluted.

Go ask a six-year-old.

By Dutch Mandel