Ray LaHood, the Obama Administration's Transportation Secretary is wanting to tax Americans on the number of miles they drive, instead of on the amount of gas they burn.
Taxachusetts is even considering a program where they place a GPS chip in your car to make sure you're not fudging on reporting your miles, but I am sure they promise they won't use it to track you.
The joke will really be on hybrid drivers because you'll pay the same tax per mile as someone with a tank that gets 6 miles to the gallon.
LaHood says this is thinking outside of the box, but I guess so is a tax on the air you breath, which I am sure can't be too far behind.
By the way, this new tax seeks to increase "revenue" because America has done what the politicians have asked us to do - drive more fuel efficient cars and drive less - but that means they are getting less gas tax money.
Hey, great job, America, you've lowered our dependence on fossil fuels, so here's your reward -- higher taxes!
Friday, February 20, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Laguna Woods Rant
I would like to share with you an email exchange I recently had with the City Manager for the City of Laguna Woods regarding their red light cameras and a violation that we received.
Here is the email I sent to the City Manager for the City of Laguna Woods:
The City of Laguna Woods has become a spending-free zone for us. My wife received a traffic "violation" from your camera at Gate 12 -- I am sure you know the one because it makes you a lot of money. Her second traffic violation in a decade and it cost us $433 with traffic school. This is literally "parkway robbery" and you should be ashamed of yourselves for sticking it to people who drive through your city at a whopping 29 mph and miss a yellow light by seconds. We are residents of Aliso Viejo and rest assured that we and anyone we know will no longer be spending ANY of our dollars in your city, we hope to a sales tax loss for your city of the tune of way more than the $433 that it cost us for that traffic ticket. I am sure there are legitimate ways for the your city to make money without sticking it to the hard working people that support it.
Here is the City Manager's response to me:
If any part of your wife's car had entered the intersection before the light turned red, she would not have received a ticket. If you enter on yellow and the light turn red before you are through, you do not get a ticket. The only way to get a ticket is if the light is already red before you enter the intersection. I am sorry, but that is simply against the law. If there had been a deputy at the corner, he or she would have issued a ticket. If the light is red, one needs to stop. We have had many accidents at both the intersections at which we have red light cameras. We placed these cameras after a car ran a red light and hit an ambulance in route to Saddleback Hospital. In December, one of our councilmembers was driving in another city and a car ran a red light and broadsided her car - her car was totaled and she was lucky to walk away with only 4 broken ribs. The driver of the vehicle who hit her said the light turned from yellow to red only a second before he entered the intersection. Using your logic, he would not receive a ticket because there wasn't actually a police officer on site when he "ran"the redlight. The City of Laguna Woods believes firmly that the redlight cameras save lives. We do not make any money on the citations from these cameras - the cost of the equipment and the deputy who views each video before a ticket is issued costs the City more than a $100,000 a year in excess of ticket revenue.
This is not quite the response I was expecting, but it got me thinking about something.
First and foremost, I did not mention in my email that I felt these cameras are unfair because there is not an officer present -- the City Manager inferred that I meant that, probably because of other emails or arguments that they have heard. Obviously, my email got lumped together with all of the other complaints.
Getting lumped together with all of the others is the problem I have with these red light cameras. There is not consideration of each particular situation -- there is no interpretation by a human being as to what the conditions were and what the situation was for this particular occasion.
Yes, there is an officer reviewing the video, but all you can see is the intersection from the one point of view -- you do not see opposing traffic, and you do not have the same perspective that an officer on-site would have.
I have been and will always be opposed to this mechanized form of law enforcement. While the accidents that have occurred at these intersections are unfortunate -- why should I be paying the price today for an accident that occurred years before I entered the intersection?
As I have said before, this is a fundamental flaw in our traffic enforcement policies. Are all drivers equally skilled? No, but the laws assume that we are equally unskilled. We post a numbered speed limit that is determined to be what is a safe speed, on average, then blanket everything with a clause that says that number might not always be the safe speed, so if we interpret that speed to be lower than the posted speed limit, we can ticket you anyway. You have some laws that are open to interpretation, but then also nail people with traffic cameras that leave room for no interpretation. Seems like they want to have their cake, eat it too, and take our money while they're doing it.
Here is the email I sent to the City Manager for the City of Laguna Woods:
The City of Laguna Woods has become a spending-free zone for us. My wife received a traffic "violation" from your camera at Gate 12 -- I am sure you know the one because it makes you a lot of money. Her second traffic violation in a decade and it cost us $433 with traffic school. This is literally "parkway robbery" and you should be ashamed of yourselves for sticking it to people who drive through your city at a whopping 29 mph and miss a yellow light by seconds. We are residents of Aliso Viejo and rest assured that we and anyone we know will no longer be spending ANY of our dollars in your city, we hope to a sales tax loss for your city of the tune of way more than the $433 that it cost us for that traffic ticket. I am sure there are legitimate ways for the your city to make money without sticking it to the hard working people that support it.
Here is the City Manager's response to me:
If any part of your wife's car had entered the intersection before the light turned red, she would not have received a ticket. If you enter on yellow and the light turn red before you are through, you do not get a ticket. The only way to get a ticket is if the light is already red before you enter the intersection. I am sorry, but that is simply against the law. If there had been a deputy at the corner, he or she would have issued a ticket. If the light is red, one needs to stop. We have had many accidents at both the intersections at which we have red light cameras. We placed these cameras after a car ran a red light and hit an ambulance in route to Saddleback Hospital. In December, one of our councilmembers was driving in another city and a car ran a red light and broadsided her car - her car was totaled and she was lucky to walk away with only 4 broken ribs. The driver of the vehicle who hit her said the light turned from yellow to red only a second before he entered the intersection. Using your logic, he would not receive a ticket because there wasn't actually a police officer on site when he "ran"the redlight. The City of Laguna Woods believes firmly that the redlight cameras save lives. We do not make any money on the citations from these cameras - the cost of the equipment and the deputy who views each video before a ticket is issued costs the City more than a $100,000 a year in excess of ticket revenue.
This is not quite the response I was expecting, but it got me thinking about something.
First and foremost, I did not mention in my email that I felt these cameras are unfair because there is not an officer present -- the City Manager inferred that I meant that, probably because of other emails or arguments that they have heard. Obviously, my email got lumped together with all of the other complaints.
Getting lumped together with all of the others is the problem I have with these red light cameras. There is not consideration of each particular situation -- there is no interpretation by a human being as to what the conditions were and what the situation was for this particular occasion.
Yes, there is an officer reviewing the video, but all you can see is the intersection from the one point of view -- you do not see opposing traffic, and you do not have the same perspective that an officer on-site would have.
I have been and will always be opposed to this mechanized form of law enforcement. While the accidents that have occurred at these intersections are unfortunate -- why should I be paying the price today for an accident that occurred years before I entered the intersection?
As I have said before, this is a fundamental flaw in our traffic enforcement policies. Are all drivers equally skilled? No, but the laws assume that we are equally unskilled. We post a numbered speed limit that is determined to be what is a safe speed, on average, then blanket everything with a clause that says that number might not always be the safe speed, so if we interpret that speed to be lower than the posted speed limit, we can ticket you anyway. You have some laws that are open to interpretation, but then also nail people with traffic cameras that leave room for no interpretation. Seems like they want to have their cake, eat it too, and take our money while they're doing it.
Monday, February 9, 2009
No "Mercy" Rule!
When I was growing up, sports were a competition. You won some, and you lost some. You won some really big, and because we tried not to swear in front of our parents, we really got "creamed" sometimes.
I learned from sports that you can't win all of the time, but if you try your hardest and do your best, even when you lost, you still had something to be proud of because you didn't give up.
I also learned that if you're not ready to compete and give it your all, you need to stay out of the arena. I have applied all of these principles to my business life as well. I truly feel that I am a better businessman because of the principles that sports taught me at such a young age.
That, my friends, is why I do not believe in the "mercy" rule. I don't think you should intentionally do physical harm to an opponent, especially one that is mismatched, but if you are not ready to step out onto that field, or that court, and take some lumps and be blown out if you're having a bad game, then you should never walk out onto that field or court in the first place.
Not everyone is #1 and not every team is going to be #1, and dealing with that is a lesson that America's children need to learn, not just simply never be exposed to. Leagues where every kid has a #1 jersey, and gets a first place trophy, and no one keeps score are detrimental to America's youth, not beneficial.
I am disappointed that so many Americans do not realize the harm that we are doing to these kids with the "everyone wins" mentality. How is your little slugger who played in a league where everybody won going to take not being hired for a job they really wanted, interviewed for, but just didn't get?
Will they persevere, move on, and get the next job, or will they simply give up because they've never had to deal with losing?
A company who places an employment ad is not going to hire everybody so that it is fair, they are going to weed out candidates, and one of them is going to win. If the first time your child deals with losing is when they're in their early 20s, just out of college and looking for their first job, you will have done them a great disservice as a parent and as an American, and they will not be as well off as they would have been with some healthy winning and losing when the stakes were just a game, not their ability to provide a good lifestyle for themselves.
I learned from sports that you can't win all of the time, but if you try your hardest and do your best, even when you lost, you still had something to be proud of because you didn't give up.
I also learned that if you're not ready to compete and give it your all, you need to stay out of the arena. I have applied all of these principles to my business life as well. I truly feel that I am a better businessman because of the principles that sports taught me at such a young age.
That, my friends, is why I do not believe in the "mercy" rule. I don't think you should intentionally do physical harm to an opponent, especially one that is mismatched, but if you are not ready to step out onto that field, or that court, and take some lumps and be blown out if you're having a bad game, then you should never walk out onto that field or court in the first place.
Not everyone is #1 and not every team is going to be #1, and dealing with that is a lesson that America's children need to learn, not just simply never be exposed to. Leagues where every kid has a #1 jersey, and gets a first place trophy, and no one keeps score are detrimental to America's youth, not beneficial.
I am disappointed that so many Americans do not realize the harm that we are doing to these kids with the "everyone wins" mentality. How is your little slugger who played in a league where everybody won going to take not being hired for a job they really wanted, interviewed for, but just didn't get?
Will they persevere, move on, and get the next job, or will they simply give up because they've never had to deal with losing?
A company who places an employment ad is not going to hire everybody so that it is fair, they are going to weed out candidates, and one of them is going to win. If the first time your child deals with losing is when they're in their early 20s, just out of college and looking for their first job, you will have done them a great disservice as a parent and as an American, and they will not be as well off as they would have been with some healthy winning and losing when the stakes were just a game, not their ability to provide a good lifestyle for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)