Originally Posted by Mr. Jeff Gannon

Jeff Gannon

A Voice of the New Media
?

The voice goes silent. Because
of the attention being paid to me I find it is no longer possible to
effectively be a reporter for Talon News.? In consideration of the
welfare of me and my family I have decided to return to private life.

Thank you to all those who supported me.

Mr. Gannon's Bio at his late employer:

Originally Posted by Talon News Biographies

File Not Found

The file you are looking for cannot be found on the Talon News web site.

Jeff Gannon calls himself the White House correspondent for TalonNews.com, a website that says it is "committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news coverage to our readers." It is operated by a Texas-based Republican Party delegate and political activist who also runs GOPUSA.com, a website that touts itself as "bringing the conservative message to America."

Nonetheless, transcripts of White House briefings indicate that McClellan often calls on Gannon and that the press secretary -- and the president -- have found relief in a question from Gannon after critical lines of questioning from mainstream news organizations.

When Bush called on Gannon near the end of his nationally televised Jan. 26 news conference, he had just been questioned about Williams and the Education Department funds, an embarrassment to the administration. Gannon's question was different.

"Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the US economy," Gannon said. "[Minority Leader] Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you said you're going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"

Where's Waldo, er Gannon gone?? :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Where's Waldo, er Gannon gone?? :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

To hawk some more gay smut?? This shit is unbelievable, in a 3T kind of way.

Read here and here.

Those of you who follow the comics may be aware that Cathy finally married Irving last weekend. 3 or 4T? Any thoughts? :wink:

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

Those of you who follow the comics may be aware that Cathy finally married Irving last weekend. 3 or 4T? Any thoughts? :wink:

I've been following that rather closely, since Cathy and Irving were engaged not long before Alisa and I were. Alisa even plans to send a few strips to her mother.

I would say 4T, but I can't pin down why exactly.

Originally Posted by JTaber 1972

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

Those of you who follow the comics may be aware that Cathy finally married Irving last weekend. 3 or 4T? Any thoughts? :wink:

I've been following that rather closely, since Cathy and Irving were engaged not long before Alisa and I were. Alisa even plans to send a few strips to her mother.

I would say 4T, but I can't pin down why exactly.

And what do you think about Prince Charles' planned nuptials to his long-time lady love, Camilla Parker-Bowles?

I've always kind of liked stuffy old Charles. I think any man who dumps a beautiful trophy wife for his soul mate, who happens to be a frumpy middle-aged woman his own age, has something going for him.

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

And what do you think about Prince Charles' planned nuptials to his long-time lady love, Camilla Parker-Bowles?

I've always kind of liked stuffy old Charles. I think any man who dumps a beautiful trophy wife for his soul mate, who happens to be a frumpy middle-aged woman his own age, has something going for him.

That's definitely 4T, even without the possible parallels to Edward VIII and (Elizabeth) Wallis Warfield Simpson. Apparently Camilla's Catholic, and simply designating her Duchess of Cornwall now, and "Princess Consort" later, might not be enough to let Charles take the throne.

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

And what do you think about Prince Charles' planned nuptials to his long-time lady love, Camilla Parker-Bowles?

I've always kind of liked stuffy old Charles. I think any man who dumps a beautiful trophy wife for his soul mate, who happens to be a frumpy middle-aged woman his own age, has something going for him.

That something is adultery. If he had dumped his wife for a soulmate of his own sex he would have followed the ways of the Bishop in NH, I think that would qualify him as Defender of the (Progressive) Faith. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by elilevin

By the way, Jenny--I am 1961--so I am an X-er--just barely!

Why do I not see 1961ers as Xers??
I have no problem with 1962, but the year of Coulter, Hannity, Obama, Thune - seems a bit too SHRILL for me :?

I feel like an X-er. All the college programs for the boomers were cut squarely off in 1980 and we did not enjoy the same treatment as the boomers. I do not really identify with the "Pepperland" culture, and my memories of the 1968 Chicago convention do not inspire.

At the same time, I wish I could have had my '60's in the '80's, but my cohert and those below it were far more worried about getting MBA's than they were about yelling "Hell, no, we won't go!" Being the very first probably means a mixed feeling about it all. The boomers irritate me a lot, but I think there is some envy involved. After all, wouldn't it be more fun to be a prophet than reactive?

Originally Posted by JTaber 1972

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

And what do you think about Prince Charles' planned nuptials to his long-time lady love, Camilla Parker-Bowles?

I've always kind of liked stuffy old Charles. I think any man who dumps a beautiful trophy wife for his soul mate, who happens to be a frumpy middle-aged woman his own age, has something going for him.

That's definitely 4T, even without the possible parallels to Edward III and (Elizabeth) Wallis Warfield Simpson. Apparently Camilla's Catholic, and simply designating her Duchess of Cornwall now, and "Princess Consort" later, might not be enough to let Charles take the throne.

I did not know that Camilla was Catholic. Oooooh. I can see stirrings of "the '45" and Jacobite encroachment. :wink: I wanna see this one play out.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by JTaber 1972

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

And what do you think about Prince Charles' planned nuptials to his long-time lady love, Camilla Parker-Bowles?

I've always kind of liked stuffy old Charles. I think any man who dumps a beautiful trophy wife for his soul mate, who happens to be a frumpy middle-aged woman his own age, has something going for him.

That's definitely 4T, even without the possible parallels to Edward III and (Elizabeth) Wallis Warfield Simpson. Apparently Camilla's Catholic, and simply designating her Duchess of Cornwall now, and "Princess Consort" later, might not be enough to let Charles take the throne.

I did not know that Camilla was Catholic. Oooooh. I can see stirrings of "the '45" and Jacobite encroachment. :wink: I wanna see this one play out.

That's what Diane Sawyer said this morning on Good Morning America. However, some British media sources have said this morning that Camilla merely married her first husband in a Catholic church, that she did not in fact convert to Catholicism. We shall see how this all shakes out. Certainly, posturing like the possibility of Camilla as merely Duchess of Cornwall and not Princess of Wales, is reminiscent of 1936.

Originally Posted by JTaber 1972

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

And what do you think about Prince Charles' planned nuptials to his long-time lady love, Camilla Parker-Bowles?

I've always kind of liked stuffy old Charles. I think any man who dumps a beautiful trophy wife for his soul mate, who happens to be a frumpy middle-aged woman his own age, has something going for him.

That's definitely 4T, even without the possible parallels to Edward III and (Elizabeth) Wallis Warfield Simpson. Apparently Camilla's Catholic, and simply designating her Duchess of Cornwall now, and "Princess Consort" later, might not be enough to let Charles take the throne.

Some years from now... ("The Queen is dead! Long live King William V!")

Man, you can see it coming like deja vu all over again. Condoleezza speaks loudly and carries a big stick.

Oops, and then there's North Korea.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Man, you can see it coming like deja vu all over again. Condoleezza speaks loudly and carries a big stick.

Oops, and then there's North Korea.

Where I disagree with most of my fellow Bush Opposers is that I think Bush should have held the Big Stick over Iran and esp. NK instead of pursuing the Neocon Wet Dream in Iraq. It's ludicrous that Kim Il Jong can be allowed to build atomic weapons and missile systems (soon if not already) capable of transpacific flight. And for God's sake doing that is expensive and his people are starving!!! Literally starving!

But NOW we are spread thin in Iraq, our credibility in the world community is shot ("sure Iran has a nuclear program, sure . . .") and Dubya has cut taxes for the wealthy worsening our revenue resources which would be needed to expand our military spending. What's more, there's NO WAY he could get around a draft if he has to handle Iraq and one of these others.

I wish he would take his faith and shove it up his @ss.

While I certainly agree with Peter Gibbons more often than not, I cannot go along with his non-proliferation strategy.
National sovereignty, to me, is still an important value. I do not think we can sustain a policy based on the idea that the US, alone, can decide who should have nuclear weapons. If we dont' want certain countries to have them, we should recommit to giving them up ourselves, along with everyone else. (That, by the way, is already in the Non-Proliferation Treaty we accuse others of violating.)
I would also point out that both the Soviet (1949) and Chinese (1964) acquisition of nukes was greeted with the same kind of Washingotn panic, talk of preventive war, etc., that we are hearing now. China was viewed in '64 as every bit as much a rogue state as NK or Iran today. But fortunately, cooler heads prevailed.
By turning our back, TOTALLY, on arms control, this catastrophic adminstration has encouraged proliferation. Seriously, how can we blame NK or Iran for feeling they need a nuke the way we have been talking for three years?

David K '47

Originally Posted by Mlle. Condi Riz

Libert?, Egalit?, Fraternit?!

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by nonpartisan

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

"Small government, personal liberty, avoidance of foreign adventures. Anybody here for that?"

Sounds pretty partisan Democrat to me. I mean "small" relative to what? And aside from owning an SUV and a private social security account, you can have all the "personal liberty" you want.

The only thing worse, in my book, than a rabid partisan is a rabid partisan who claims to be "nonpartisan."

Omigod, now the tenants of the Founding Fathers are partisan democratic. So DA, what does that make you?

He is a Progressive who calls himself a "conservative" while labelling Traditionalists as "liberals." Such is the up-is-down, down-is-up, left-is-right, right-is-left confusion symptomatic of this chaotic, overly propagandized Bush era when the Big Government Bush Regierung has thoroughly repudiated the Small Government Reagan Revolution while deceitfully claiming to have completed it. Black is white, white is black, day is night, night is day, heaven is hell, hell is heaven.... Welcome to the Progressive Bush Republic where we don' need no steenkin' Constitution! So grab yourself a cup of Kool-Aid and join with the chorus of Evangelical heretics (Lucifer is God; God is Lucifer) as we sing songs of praise to our glorious marionette fuehrer in the White House! Freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom, knowledge is ignorance, ignorance is knowledge, war is peace, peace is war.... Will there ever be any change on the Malabar Front? Arbeit Macht Frei....

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

It's ludicrous that Kim Il Jong can be allowed to build atomic weapons and missile systems (soon if not already) capable of transpacific flight. And for God's sake doing that is expensive and his people are starving!!! Literally starving!

Another failed policy.
AMERICAN POLICY: Stop NK from getting nuclear weapons
NK: Makes nuclear weapons

Where do we go from here :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Man, you can see it coming like deja vu all over again. Condoleezza speaks loudly and carries a big stick.

Oops, and then there's North Korea.

Where I disagree with most of my fellow Bush Opposers is that I think Bush should have held the Big Stick over Iran and esp. NK instead of pursuing the Neocon Wet Dream in Iraq. It's ludicrous that Kim Il Jong can be allowed to build atomic weapons and missile systems (soon if not already) capable of transpacific flight. And for God's sake doing that is expensive and his people are starving!!! Literally starving!

But NOW we are spread thin in Iraq, our credibility in the world community is shot ("sure Iran has a nuclear program, sure . . .") and Dubya has cut taxes for the wealthy worsening our revenue resources which would be needed to expand our military spending. What's more, there's NO WAY he could get around a draft if he has to handle Iraq and one of these others.

I wish he would take his faith and shove it up his @ss.

Dubya's @ss is losing stock big time. Today's polling on approval ratings produced daunting numbers for that nincompoop. When was the last time a war-making president got a 54% disapproval rating? And now 58% believe our country in heading in the wrong direction.

Are we waking up yet? Blinkie. Blinkie.

--Croak

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

While I certainly agree with Peter Gibbons more often than not, I cannot go along with his non-proliferation strategy.
National sovereignty, to me, is still an important value. I do not think we can sustain a policy based on the idea that the US, alone, can decide who should have nuclear weapons. If we dont' want certain countries to have them, we should recommit to giving them up ourselves, along with everyone else. (That, by the way, is already in the Non-Proliferation Treaty we accuse others of violating.)
I would also point out that both the Soviet (1949) and Chinese (1964) acquisition of nukes was greeted with the same kind of Washingotn panic, talk of preventive war, etc., that we are hearing now. China was viewed in '64 as every bit as much a rogue state as NK or Iran today. But fortunately, cooler heads prevailed.
By turning our back, TOTALLY, on arms control, this catastrophic adminstration has encouraged proliferation. Seriously, how can we blame NK or Iran for feeling they need a nuke the way we have been talking for three years?

David,

Your concerns are well understood and well respected on this end. I would much, much, much prefer to "disarm" NK and/or Iran with some type of international legitimacy (First World absolution would do for me). And I would much prefer that we be bound to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and Test Ban treaties ourselves. But Dubya wants to build new weapons that flout the former and the GOP doesn't want to re-up on the latter. Idiocy.

But to me it is a truism that the more nations that have atomic or thermonuclear ability (and esp. ballistic technology to along with that) the more likely a nuclear exchange of some kind becomes, and probably does so on an exponential scale. We're talkin' variables here. I don't know about you, but when it comes to nukes, I don't like "variables". :shock:

Should we have stopped Soviet Russia in '49 or the Chicoms in '64? It wasn't plausible. In the first case it would've meant WWIII and Truman rightly avoided that. The second was more plausible, but there was still the Cold War paradigm to contend with, even if the Communist "Monolith" was "rifting" at the time.

Besides, it wasn't 1964 that was crucial, but some time in the 1990's when the Chinese developed ICBM's. They now have an estimated 50-200 pointed at us. Luckily they probably don't know how to MIRV yet. It is still feasible to build a Strategic Defense shield that could largely if not completely nullify that force, even if such a shield would still be very likely worthless against what the Russians could deploy (decoys and all).

But now we have the specter of India, Pakistan, and North Korea slowly but surely upgrading their ballistic capabilities, and Iran and God-knows-who-else about to join the club. Furthermore, China will almost certainly develop an effective SLBM program if they haven't already, adding to the mix. In 2010 we could have TEN nations (US, Russia, Britain, France, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel, and Iran) with both nuclear and at least some significant ballistic capabilities! At least five of them would have SLBM capabilities, which is most worrisome.

How many from there?!?! How many permutations of potential nuclear conflict, how many nutjobs on "the button", how many ideologies with Oppenheimer's & Teller's toys do you want?!?

To me, this trumps national sovereignty, as important as it is. It is flat out unacceptable that Kim Jong Il is starving his people and wasting money on atomic weapons he wants to point at us. No way, no sir, no how. I'm no Prophet Boomer, but I personally would draw the line there. The situation is bad enough as it is for Christ's sake.

Bush may have thought Hussein had WMD's but we did not have absolute proof that he had nuclear material or a nuclear program. We do have absolute proof that Kim has both. We also have absolute proof that he has a two stage rocket that can reach deep into the Pacific with, and we have good evidence he's going for a three stage one, and public assurances from his government on that score.

It was when I realized that Dubya and the Neocons had trumped up Hussein's capabilities and threat at the expense of dealing with North Korea (who actually does have nuclear material that could threaten us) and Iran (who actually is the world's largest supporter of terrorism) that I fully turned on Bush. I now find myself "in bed" politically with the likes of you. But believe you me, sir: Much, much, much better you than the likes of the disingenuous HC or the despicable Devil's Troglodyte.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

It's ludicrous that Kim Il Jong can be allowed to build atomic weapons and missile systems (soon if not already) capable of transpacific flight. And for God's sake doing that is expensive and his people are starving!!! Literally starving!

Another failed policy.
AMERICAN POLICY: Stop NK from getting nuclear weapons
NK: Makes nuclear weapons

Where do we go from here :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Things won't really get hairy until Kim detonates one for show.

This column from Prudent Bear should probably be posted in the Economics or Future forum, but it is so 3T -4T, that it will fit here nicely(!). It predicts that the Domestic conflict (as opposed to the international war) will not be Red against Blue, but the Washington Elite versus "us."






International Perspective, by Marshall Auerback

Debt Trap Dynamics: Time To Think The Unthinkable
February 15, 2005

With the government and external deficits both so large and the private sector so heavily indebted, it is said that satisfactory growth in the US cannot be achieved without a large, sustained and discontinuous increase in net export demand. After perusing the trade data from last year, it is doubtful whether this will happen spontaneously through a continuous fall in the external value of the dollar, and it certainly will not happen without a cut in domestic absorption of goods and services by the US which would impart a deflationary impulse to the rest of the world.

The truth of the matter is this: Across three decades, only one economic event has been guaranteed to produce balanced US trade: a recession. When the economy is contracting, people naturally buy less of everything, including imports. Historically, on the four occasions when the line of exports briefly converged with the line of imports in the post-war period, the country was in recession. Each time economic growth was restored, the trade deficits resumed. A more ominous contradiction occurred during the 2001 recession: The trade gap was so enormous it persisted throughout. Again, in 2004, despite a significant fall in the dollar?s trade weighted index, the external account continued to haemorrhage. This suggests that American dependency on foreign producers has advanced to a dangerous new level.

Economists, politicians, and business executives have repeatedly voice unease about the imbalances in the global financial system, which have been reflected in the dollar's steep fall against the euro and other currencies until recently. But most expressed skepticism that the Bush administration would reduce the trade and budget deficits, which have fed those imbalances. The White House has said that it does not view these issues as a major problem because foreigners still view the American economy as an attractive investment, and Mr Greenspan has recanted some of his earlier expressed concern about the dangers of ignoring America?s mounting imbalances.

The scope of the global imbalances and the potential for crisis makes piecemeal, orthodox solutions to the global imbalance problem unworkable and far too slow. The U.S. service-based economy, with more limited economies of scale than those of newly industrializing economies such as China, will not be able to export its way out of the problem. The only demand left for US goods is largely concentrated in industries such as aerospace and high technology. But these are industries where exports pose national security risks, particularly if the exports are directed toward ?strategic competitors? such as China, which generally have extremely poor records in terms of safeguarding intellectual property rights.

As we have noted many times before, there is a danger that over time, the US economy will find itself in a ?debt trap?, with an accelerating deterioration in its net foreign asset position and its overall current balance of payments (as net income paid abroad begins to explode). We have never been in a position before where the world?s leading economy has been subject to this condition, so it is difficult to make the case for traditional remedies, such as trade devaluation (where the corresponding knock-on effects would invariably create a huge international growth shock, thereby throwing into doubt the strategy of the US achieving net export growth). Because the US is such a vast economy, it cannot eliminate its current account deficit as readily as a smaller economy. When it tries to improve its trade balance through devaluation or through restrictive demand management, its sheer size affects the economies of its trading partners adversely and to an appreciable degree. Understandably, they object and resist. When foreign economies resist dollar devaluation and the dissipation of their current account surpluses, the U.S. may have to raise interest rates in order to induce creditors to continue financing its debt build-up.

So the problem is likely to get worse, which could ultimately lead to ?solutions? that prove highly disruptive to the existing system of multilateral trade and cooperation which has developed over the past several generations. A resort to out and out military force cannot ultimately be ruled out.

If a full-blown crisis does occur, the macroeconomic challenge would be unlike anything the United States has faced in more than half a century. While this would be a time of wrenching, painful change, the new adverse circumstances might also inspire a great shift toward radically different political solutions than have hitherto been considered within the realm of acceptability.

The first imperative--an unavoidable necessity--would be to suppress consumption through credit-restraining measures, fiscal caution or tax reform, and to stimulate greater domestic savings, yet somehow to keep the economy growing. If this great adjustment is left to market forces alone, the predictable consequences will be to punish the innocent--struggling households and small businesses--first.

The jump-shift strategy may ultimately take the form of a ?wartime strategy? ? not the phony ?war on terror? strategy invoked after the September 11, 2001 attacks (in which Messrs O?Neill and McTeer, amongst others, exhorted Americans to go back to the shopping malls, to show the terrorists that they ?couldn?t win?). A more accurate precedent is World War II, an extraordinary era of economic development that virtually shut down many forms of domestic consumption (cars and housing) while the government's spending on war production launched major new industries (electronics, petrochemicals, modern aircraft and many others). Essentially, accelerated investment and forced savings replaced consumer spending as the leading fuel for economic growth. After the war, pent-up desires and needs became the economic demand that drove the long postwar era of prosperity.

Of course, an important difference from the World War II example is that it is difficult to see how reconstruction could be financed primarily through deficit spending, given that the country is already burdened by growing indebtedness. This leads to the possibility of the US repudiating its existing debt obligations to external creditors. A decisive President might start by bringing up a taboo subject--tariffs--and inform the world that the United States is prepared to impose a temporary general tariff of 10 or 15 percent on all US imports. Every multinational would have to rethink its industrial strategy, because some of its production might be stranded in the wrong country.

The idea of tariffs is so alien to conventional wisdom it probably sounds illegal. In fact, there is provision for ?temporary adjustments? under the new World Trade Organisation rules. It is also worth noting in any case that the legal technicalities of a global multilateral system didn?t stop Richard Nixon, who stunned the world in 1971 when he abruptly announced a 10 percent import surcharge, devalued the dollar and unilaterally discarded the Bretton Woods monetary system. Nor did it stop President Roosevelt in the 1930s, during which he declared it illegal to own circulating gold coins, gold bullion, and gold certificates. In essence, the federal government forced itself into the position by refusing to repay its bond holders in gold coin, forcing them to accept US dollars instead. Hence, subsequent to FDR?s executive order, all holders of such bonds were forced to accept legal tender currency instead of "gold coin of the present standard of value." The act of confiscating gold itself was a violation of private property rights and was illegal ? but the taboo was broken. As author Eric Englund notes, ?[B]y not paying bondholders in gold coin, the U.S. government has technically defaulted on past Treasury bond obligations.? Americans (and their foreign creditors) might come to see more of these types of actions from future American President.

It is true that such actions on the part of the US may well provoke reactions in kind. On the other hand, given the lack of restraint evident in the country?s current foreign policy aspirations, it is hard to envisage that an economic response to the Americans? abrogation of existing obligations would come without some possibility of a robust military response (or at least the threat of one). The US has already show itself willing to address the problem that it does not make enough of what the rest of the world wants by going to war to monopolise control of the supply and distribution of what the world needs, petroleum. There are other war aims, of course, but control of the global hydrocarbon net is certainly the most important. As market strategist Chris Sanders has noted, ?The truth is that the dangerously destabilising idea has rooted in Washington that, in the words of Vice President Cheney, ?deficits don?t matter (we proved that in the 90s).? He is right of course in pure power terms; a fuller expression of Cheney?s dictum might well add, ?as long as we are able to force everyone else to accept them (deficits).??

Already, it appears clear that the US is driven to rely more on military adventure because the economic house is in disarray and "overstretched". They can't just bludgeon their way economically anymore. They have to use the stick. Any close look at the inauguration speech bears out the reliance on forcing the world to conform to us dictates. Why should this not extend ultimately to existing debt arrangements if the US finds itself facing an Argentina-like predicament? All these outcomes may sound quite improbable at this moment. Certainly, the establishment would brush them aside. But do not dismiss the possibility that dramatic change and epic political reforms lie ahead. As we have said many times before, Washington?s elites will not go down without a fight.

http://www.prudentbear.com/internationalperspective.asp

As with the Boston Tea Party, the cancelling of the NHL season was the first signal blow against the increasing spread of continental hegemony by the Great White North.

If they cannot skate upon our sheets, they cannot spread their cold designs upon our Millennial Youth.

Minnesota has had the evil of cruel Lord Stanleyism replaced by the First Nation sport of Professional Lacrosse. As in Boston so long ago, a Native Americanist concealment of true patriotism has been adopted. The Swarm is the future of a free United States. We will bring this contest into the very heartland of Maple Treedom.

GO SWARM!! :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Are these guys kidding me? Taxing drivers by the mile?? Placing tracking devices on cars?? These guys make Marion Berry look sober. If they tried to do that here in Missouri, I would be very pissed off. Come on! There are other ways to raise funds. Taxing by the mile would only send the state economy into a tailspin.

DMV Director Supports Taxing Drivers by the Mile

California's new Department of Motor Vehicles director advocates overhauling the way the state raises money to maintain its roadways, but many drivers and privacy advocates find her idea alarming.

Joan Borucki has said she favors placing tracking devices on vehicles and then taxing drivers for the miles they drive. She says that as more drivers buy cars that get better gas mileage, the state is taking in less money from its gas tax. Even though Californians are driving more than ever, revenues are down nearly 10 percent.

Drivers who spend a great deal of time on the road and owners of transportation-related businesses such as trucking firms or delivery companies say such a tax could hurt. "They say small companies are the backbone of California," said Dick Parvel who owns ASAP Delivery in Stockton. "It's just more paperwork, more problems."

Under the plan the current 18 cent per gallon gas tax would be replaced by a mileage tax. Drivers would have tracking devices on their vehicles, an idea that alarms privacy advocates who worry about the state being able to keep tabs on drivers. Such a system is being tested in Oregon.

The Global Positioning System tracking devices would communicate with state computers via satellite, and downloaed information would then be used to calculate the tax bill.

Environmentalists worry that a mileage tax would remove the incentive for drivers to buy hybrid vehicles. Others say such a tax would be more open to fraud than taxing at the pump.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said today that he didn't yet have a position on the mileage tax. "I know the idea that she is talking about, but I do not know exactly what it will do," Schwarzenegger said. "So I will stop and think it through before I make a decision."

The Legislature would have to approve any change in the gas tax.

Not taking on the privacy aspects for a moment...

I can't see how they would implement the system fairly. For example, I live in Las Vegas but drive into California routinely. Because I would not have a device, would I then be able to buy gas without state tax?

And thats goes the same for a Californian who drives out of state, then returns... If they drive a couple thousand miles to the midwest and back, do they get double taxed - for the gas outside of state and then the difference when they return? I suppose the GPS could exclude,, but we're talking government here.

What about older cars?

On privacy, I expect lots of tough going. But California already has an active RF system on the SoCal toll roads. Its opt-in of course, but technically you could gate locations off toll-road.

I know of systems that could do this better - but not as they have described.

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

Are these guys kidding me? Taxing drivers by the mile?? Placing tracking devices on cars?? These guys make Marion Berry look sober. If they tried to do that here in Missouri, I would be very pissed off. Come on! There are other ways to raise funds. Taxing by the mile would only send the state economy into a tailspin.

DMV Director Supports Taxing Drivers by the Mile

California's new Department of Motor Vehicles director advocates overhauling the way the state raises money to maintain its roadways, but many drivers and privacy advocates find her idea alarming.

Joan Borucki has said she favors placing tracking devices on vehicles and then taxing drivers for the miles they drive. She says that as more drivers buy cars that get better gas mileage, the state is taking in less money from its gas tax. Even though Californians are driving more than ever, revenues are down nearly 10 percent.

Drivers who spend a great deal of time on the road and owners of transportation-related businesses such as trucking firms or delivery companies say such a tax could hurt. "They say small companies are the backbone of California," said Dick Parvel who owns ASAP Delivery in Stockton. "It's just more paperwork, more problems."

Under the plan the current 18 cent per gallon gas tax would be replaced by a mileage tax. Drivers would have tracking devices on their vehicles, an idea that alarms privacy advocates who worry about the state being able to keep tabs on drivers. Such a system is being tested in Oregon.

The Global Positioning System tracking devices would communicate with state computers via satellite, and downloaed information would then be used to calculate the tax bill.

Environmentalists worry that a mileage tax would remove the incentive for drivers to buy hybrid vehicles. Others say such a tax would be more open to fraud than taxing at the pump.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said today that he didn't yet have a position on the mileage tax. "I know the idea that she is talking about, but I do not know exactly what it will do," Schwarzenegger said. "So I will stop and think it through before I make a decision."

The Legislature would have to approve any change in the gas tax.

This is so stupid. Pass a law that raises the gax taxes whenever revenues fall in real terms so as to maintain them.