In a conversation about the proposal to raise gas taxes by Rep Jim Oberstar (D-MINN) to fund repairs to infrastructure in the wake of the I-35W bridge collapse I heard the following;

HUME: Fred Barnes is not a big fan of government spending, but he is a fan of government spending on bridges and highways.

BARNES: But there is a better way to raise the money and also deal with our traffic congestion that is so terrible in so many urban areas. What you tax people on is not how much gas they buy, you tax them on where they drive and when they drive.

In other words you tax people…

HUME: Toll roads, you mean?

BARNES: No, we get to position technologically where we can have everybody taxed that way because of something on their car.

You want to tax people more when they are driving during rush hour, causing congestion, then you do if they are driving on Saturday morning at 6:00 a.m., when there is no congestion. It makes sense. We can deal with our traffic congestion, we raise revenue. It just makes a lot more sense.

KRAUTHAMMER: You want the government to actually know where your car is at all times.

HUME: Private investigators and divorce lawyers would want that information.

All I had to say at the time was; “Fred Barnes you F'ing idiot!”

But now that I have gotten over my initial reaction, I can come up with some other things to say.

He is not only suggesting we tax people based on when they drive, but to do so a government agency would need to track our vehicles in order to determine when and where they drive.

Maybe he should be a campaign consultant to Hillary “I want to take those profits” Clinton.

Doesn't Fred understand that most rush hours are determined by the times of day people are required by an employer to be at work? His suggestion is to punish people for driving to work at the times they have to in order to comply with their employers work schedule!

What would be the ramifications of such a tax?

• People would ask (or even demand contract stipulations in the case of union shops) that their employers change their work ours or shift schedules to put their drive times in the lower tax times. As seen with the sin taxes the revenue will drop as the driving habits (requirements) change, thus negating the reason for taxing based on certain times of day. The legislators would either have to come up with the needed funding from another source or change the law so that any time of day that becomes a rush hour would get taxed.

• Then once workers can no longer avoid the “rush hour” tax they will change their habits, but not always in the way desired.

•  

• The desire would be to encourage ride sharing and mass transit, but many would opt for jobs closer to home which may not be as well paying or even not working so they do not have to drive at all. Both of the undesired change in habits that I suggest would result in an increase in dependence on social services such as welfare and food stamps.

•  

• Those who continue to drive despite the tax would be subject to having the tax go up as others stop driving, and as law makers see it as a way to raise revenue for other pet projects, and still there is no guarantee that the revenue collected would go to the intended infrastructure repairs.

• Those who have their data collected would be subject to misuse of that data, or even future laws allowing the use of that data for many other purposes, as Brit Hume sarcastically pointed out.

Tom Tancredo said it best; “an income tax is designed to manipulate behavior, and that is too much power for the government”. He said that in a debate when commenting in favor of the FairTax, but I'd extend that logic to all taxes, including this suggested one by Fred Barnes.

We are taxed on pay day, when we buy gas to get to work, in some places in the country people are taxed to drive toll roads, and now Barnes wants to add another layer to that by taxing when we drive?

In this same segment another suggestion was made that I think is a better solution, and one which doesn't continue to penalize tax payers or try to manipulate them.

KRAUTHAMMER: You can spend the money either way, but nobody is spending on it because everybody wants his name on a new bridge and not on the new rivets on an old bridge.

The way to fix this is what Utah has. Utah has a law that says that you cannot spend money on a new project until you have appropriated all the money required for the maintenance of old projects. You ought to have that as a Congressional law.

He said this right before the comment Brit Hume made which started the portion I quoted above that included Fred Barnes' asinine tax idea. In my Opinion Krauthammer's suggestion is a much better one, and it is a shame that idea was not expanded on instead of giving Fred the time of day. The costs to make infrastructure repairs could easily be covered with the current revenue (Fed, State, And Local) but the revenue isn't being properly spent. We do not need more revenue, we need better spending of the revenue!

If Fred is a “card carrying” conservative or Republican he needs to have his cards seized and he needs to undergo socialist rehab. He has been in the “Beltway” too long and he has become addicted to the concept of government existing to dictate how the people live. It is the other way around Fred! The people dictate how the government works!

Ok, rant over.

I have yet to locate a video clip of the segment but If you want to read the transcript of the entire segment you can find it here; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294301,00.html