Because Bush's Invasions Of Privacy Weren't Enough

[hblask 1]

Democrat Oberstar wants to force all Americans to get a GPS tracker in their car, so that the government can know everyplace your car has been. Don't worry, you can trust them not to use that data inappropriately. It's not like the government has shown any tendency to abuse private data. They just need it for a new tax increase on people who make less than $250K, that hits the poor disportionately hard. Let me guess, we'll need another tax increase to pay for this program so that the government can track our every movement more effectively in order to add yet another tax, since the poor won't be able to buy GPS units:--------------------------------http://www.therightperspective.org/democra...rs-by-the-mile/Democrat congressman James Oberstar wants to impose a mileage tax on cars and trucks running on American highways now instead of waiting years to see if pilot programs work - and says we have the technology to do it. “Why do we need a pilot program? Why don’t we just phase it in?” said the Minnesota Democrat, who is also chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Oberstar is drafting a six-year transportation bill that will use mileage taxes to raise a half a trillion dollars for highway and transit programs. “I’m at a point of impatience with more studies,” Oberstar said at a House hearing on the issue. Oberstar’s program calls for the mandatory installation of GPS technology into vehichles to see many miles a car has been driven and if it was on an interstate highway or a secondary road. The devices would also calculate the amount of tax owed. Gas tax revenues have fallen in the last two years, prompting the need for another income stream for government programs. While Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has ruled out raising gas taxes and the White House has rejected a mileage-based tax, neither has offered an alternative.

[Sal Paradise 57]

Gas tax revenues — the primary source of federal funding for highway programs — have dropped dramatically in the last two years, first because gas prices were high and later because of the economic downturn. They are forecast to continue going down as drivers switch to fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles.

so we're being forced to pay more for more fuel efficient vehicles... and then they're gonna charge us even more because we're using these more fuel efficient vehicles??I... I mean... jesustittyfuckingretardsandwich COME ON

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

This is what happens when Governments start looking at Taxes as "revenues". They start thinking they are a business and want to maximize their revenues to pay for their programs - even if the revenue stream is contrary to the public good.This leads to things like poorly timed traffic lights that encourage speeding and yellow light running, Prisons for profit, and "nex taxation" revenue streams.

[dapokerbum 0]

Gas tax revenues have fallen in the last two years, prompting the need for another income stream for government programs. While Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has ruled out raising gas taxes and the White House has rejected a mileage-based tax, neither has offered an alternative.

I got a crazy idea. Why doesn't the government SPEND LESS MONEY.

[vbnautilus 48]

It's not going to happen.

[CaneBrain 95]

It's not going to happen.

it does not matter that the article in the OP says specifically that the White House has rejected a mileage based tax. One Democratic congressman has a bad idea so they all have to be stopped!

[hblask 1]

It's not going to happen.

Probably not, but if it doesn't, part of it will be because of public awareness. Politicians float this kind of stupidity all the time. If there is no outrage, they pursue it. If there is outrage, they claim it was just a discussion and was never serious. This is how stupid ideas get through.So while it has little chance, you have to remember that the UIGEA got voted down 8 or 10 times before it got slipped into a bill in the middle of the night. No idea is so terrible that it is completely dead in Washington DC. Especially when it 1) gives the government more power over your life and 2) is a source of tax money.

[Nimue1995 1]

Democrat Oberstar wants to force all Americans to get a GPS tracker in their car, so that the government can know everyplace your car has been. Don't worry, you can trust them not to use that data inappropriately. It's not like the government has shown any tendency to abuse private data. They just need it for a new tax increase on people who make less than $250K, that hits the poor disportionately hard. Let me guess, we'll need another tax increase to pay for this program so that the government can track our every movement more effectively in order to add yet another tax, since the poor won't be able to buy GPS units:--------------------------------http://www.therightperspective.org/democra...rs-by-the-mile/Democrat congressman James Oberstar wants to impose a mileage tax on cars and trucks running on American highways now instead of waiting years to see if pilot programs work - and says we have the technology to do it. “Why do we need a pilot program? Why don’t we just phase it in?” said the Minnesota Democrat, who is also chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Oberstar is drafting a six-year transportation bill that will use mileage taxes to raise a half a trillion dollars for highway and transit programs. “I’m at a point of impatience with more studies,” Oberstar said at a House hearing on the issue. Oberstar’s program calls for the mandatory installation of GPS technology into vehichles to see many miles a car has been driven and if it was on an interstate highway or a secondary road. The devices would also calculate the amount of tax owed. Gas tax revenues have fallen in the last two years, prompting the need for another income stream for government programs. While Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has ruled out raising gas taxes and the White House has rejected a mileage-based tax, neither has offered an alternative.

Is this anything more than a bad idea from an idiot congressperson? I don't see this flying anyway since the Finance Committee will likely have to weigh in on it and the head of the Finance Committee is Max Baucus from Montana. Talk about a disproportionate tax on the poor,lol. In Montana, you're almost always at least 30 miles from anywhere. I know Slappsy Maxie doesn't often break with his party but on this I'm pretty sure he would.

[vbnautilus 48]

Probably not, but if it doesn't, part of it will be because of public awareness. Politicians float this kind of stupidity all the time. If there is no outrage, they pursue it. If there is outrage, they claim it was just a discussion and was never serious. This is how stupid ideas get through.So while it has little chance, you have to remember that the UIGEA got voted down 8 or 10 times before it got slipped into a bill in the middle of the night. No idea is so terrible that it is completely dead in Washington DC. Especially when it 1) gives the government more power over your life and 2) is a source of tax money.

Yeah, I agree with you. Although in this case I imagine the auto lobby would be against this. Or is that all owned by the government now too?

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah, I agree with you. Although in this case I imagine the auto lobby would be against this. Or is that all owned by the government now too?

No Obama only took 10% of ChryslerHe gave 55% to the UAW to thank them for the $200,000,000.00 they gave him to win the presidencyThe rest he graciously gave to the stockholders who actually used to own the company

[SpatsJ 0]

how do these people get elected in the first place. i mean on what planet do you come from if you think this is a good idea?

[El Guapo 8]

I don't know if you guys have heard this, but the apparent appointee for the head of the Department of Transportation, is the current CEO of MADD and he wants to reduce the national speed limit back to 55, make the legal drunk limit to somewhere between .02 and .04 and also make it ok for CHP and Police to stop you with no probable cause and search your car just to make sure you are not doing or do not have anything illegal.So at least we've got all this going for us.

[hblask 1]

I don't know if you guys have heard this, but the apparent appointee for the head of the Department of Transportation, is the current CEO of MADD and he wants to reduce the national speed limit back to 55, make the legal drunk limit to somewhere between .02 and .04 and also make it ok for CHP and Police to stop you with no probable cause and search your car just to make sure you are not doing or do not have anything illegal.So at least we've got all this going for us.

Several years ago, MADD stopped being a safe road organization and became a temperance-and-national-nag movement. It's time for them to disband.The 55 mph speed limit assumes that people's time is worth nothing. For people who have the time to volunteer for nanny-and-nag movements, this is true, but they shouldn't project their failures onto other people.As for the police searches, the Supreme Court finally got one right yesterday, so it looks like they'd have trouble pushing that through:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9042102125.html

The Supreme Court yesterday sharply limited the power of police to search a suspect's car after making an arrest, acknowledging that the decision changes a rule that law enforcement has relied on for nearly 30 years. In a decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, an unusual five-member majority said police may search a vehicle without a warrant only when the suspect could reach for a weapon or try to destroy evidence, or when it is "reasonable to believe" there is evidence in the car supporting the crime at hand. The justices noted that law enforcement for years has interpreted the court's rulings on warrantless car searches to mean that officers may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle as part of a lawful arrest of a suspect. But Stevens said that was a misreading of the court's decision in New York v. Belton in 1981. "Blind adherence to Belton's faulty assumption would authorize myriad unconstitutional searches," Stevens said, adding that the court's tradition of honoring past decisions did not bind it to continue such a view of the law. "The doctrine of stare decisis does not require us to approve routine constitutional violations."

[El Guapo 8]

Several years ago, MADD stopped being a safe road organization and became a temperance-and-national-nag movement. It's time for them to disband.The 55 mph speed limit assumes that people's time is worth nothing. For people who have the time to volunteer for nanny-and-nag movements, this is true, but they shouldn't project their failures onto other people.As for the police searches, the Supreme Court finally got one right yesterday, so it looks like they'd have trouble pushing that through:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9042102125.html

Hmm while i think what I stated was way over the top as far as what police would be allowed to do, I think this is too far in the other direction. If someone is arrested for a DWI, you should be able to then search his or her vehicle. I am not sure how far this correction reaches.

[dapokerbum 0]

Hmm while i think what I stated was way over the top as far as what police would be allowed to do, I think this is too far in the other direction. If someone is arrested for a DWI, you should be able to then search his or her vehicle. I am not sure how far this correction reaches.

Sliipery Slope IMO because then where do you draw the line? That will just leave a big gray area to work with.

[hblask 1]

Hmm while i think what I stated was way over the top as far as what police would be allowed to do, I think this is too far in the other direction. If someone is arrested for a DWI, you should be able to then search his or her vehicle. I am not sure how far this correction reaches.

Why? What does searching their car have to do with an arrest for a DWI? Does being accused of any crime automatically make you a suspect for every other possible crime?

[CaneBrain 95]

Hmm while i think what I stated was way over the top as far as what police would be allowed to do, I think this is too far in the other direction. If someone is arrested for a DWI, you should be able to then search his or her vehicle. I am not sure how far this correction reaches.

as a law student (who had to study these cases for Criminal Procedure and Advanced Criminal Procedure) you are better off with a decision that is too far in the "stop searching my car, copper" direction. This was a great decision for privacy......and what an odd majority (Stevens writes the opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas? Que pasa?).I agree that MADD has "jumped the shark" (there's that phrase, again) and that they are WRONG on everything these days (raising the drinking age is so dumb.....dont they know that making things taboo exacerbates the problem when dealing with kids......does no one have a clue how to deal with teenagers anymore!!!) but speaking out against them is the political equivalent of chugging Drain-O. How can you publicly be against mothers and for drunk driving? :)Our whole way of thinking is killing us.

[El Guapo 8]

Why? What does searching their car have to do with an arrest for a DWI? Does being accused of any crime automatically make you a suspect for every other possible crime?

If you are arrested for driving under the influence of drugs, doesn't it make it likely that you would have said drugs in possession and that you possibly have them with the intent to sell.

[hblask 1]

If you are arrested for driving under the influence of drugs, doesn't it make it likely that you would have said drugs in possession and that you possibly have them with the intent to sell.

Well, no, since the ratio of users to distributors is very high. That's like saying they should be able to search the computers of all internet users because some people use the internet for child porn. And your argument is another reason why it is ridiculous to outlaw peaceful consensual behavior. It creates incentives for police to go searching for crimes, since there is no victim to report the crime. And the only way to search for crimes in the absence of a victim is to intrude on people's right to privacy.If the person is under the influence, arrest them. The drugs/alcohol in the car isn't our concern, it's the ones in their body while driving that are a problem.

[CaneBrain 95]

If you are arrested for driving under the influence of drugs, doesn't it make it likely that you would have said drugs in possession and that you possibly have them with the intent to sell.

bolded, yesunderlined, NO. Not even close.And, of course, it is often really hard to tell if someone is driving under the influence (aside from alcohol where they have the breathalyzer). I mean if the entire car stinks of weed, sure. If the driver thinks the cop is a purple elephant, ok. But if you keep rubbing your nose....could be a cold, could be a coke problem. Letting police officers be subjective is tricky.also, see Henry's post above mine (2nd and 3rd paragraphs). It's that good and it bears repeating.

[strategy 4]

If you are arrested for driving under the influence of drugs, doesn't it make it likely that you would have said drugs in possession and that you possibly have them with the intent to sell.

does the term DWI apply to drugs other than alcohol?

[CaneBrain 95]

does the term DWI apply to drugs other than alcohol?

usually, most states use DUI for alcohol and DWI for other drugs but it varies.

[strategy 4]

usually, most states use DUI for alcohol and DWI for other drugs but it varies.

I figured as much. I know it sounds like a dumb question in the context of the way the conversation was started, but the different state laws tend to confuse things..

[CaneBrain 95]

I figured as much. I know it sounds like a dumb question in the context of the way the conversation was started, but the different state laws tend to confuse things..

you would be amazed at how much things vary from state to state (so your question is not so dumb).For instance, Texas allows you to have an open container in the car (as long as you are below the legal limit). In some (most) states, an open container will put you in handcuffs. In Florida, if a passenger has an open container, then he (the passengeer) gets a very small fine and the driver is ok. In some states, a passenger's open container will spell huge trouble for the driver and a fine for the passenger.And so on. States' rights is a big pain in the ass.

[Sal Paradise 57]

But if you keep rubbing your nose....could be a cold, could be a coke problem. Letting police officers be subjective is tricky.

plus, you know, if you were driving on coke, you'd actually be a LOT better at driving anyways.