Sensible Earmarks Need to be Brought Back So Legislation Can Get Passed Again.

Me, "The problem with Earmarks was that they were abused, but without them, it makes getting sensible legislation passed impossible. If a member of congress would go up to a representative, even from another party, and say 'look, I'll vote for your legislation, if you vote for my earmark,' was how things got done. With that process removed, we got congressional gridlock.
I agree there was some abuses, but instead of putting some reforms on it to make it less abused, and more beneficial, it was scrapped totally. It's kind of like going to the Dr. and saying your arm hurts and instead of giving you a painkiller, he cuts your arm off. Earmarks need to be brought back in a sensible way so legislation can get passed again."



From article, "Bring back bacon? Southern Illinois congressmen push for return of budget earmarks"


(For decades until the late 1980s, southern Illinois earned a generous share of federal earmarks that helped fund projects such as its interstate highway system, post offices and hospitals.

“Why wasn’t Obama like Johnson? One good reason was he didn’t have earmarks,” Jackson told The Southern Illinoisian. “There’s no more wheeling and dealing. Johnson would say to a Southern senator or House member, ‘I’d like your vote on the Civil Rights Act.’ They’d say, ‘No way. Not going to happen.’ And he’d say, ‘You know that lake or highway or dam or federal building you’ve wanted, I can make that happen, but I need your vote.’

“It’s called horse trading and people think it’s unseemly, but it was part of the legislative process."

Earmarks were scrapped about five years ago by former House Speaker John Boehner in the face of corruption charges and embarrassing projects like Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" that were funded by the practice.

Administrative funding decisions are intended to remove politics from the equation through need-based formulas, but Shimkus argued that does not always happen and that House and Senate members should have a say in prioritization of some projects in their districts.

"We have a couple of members in jail because of it," he said, acknowledging that congressional earmarks did get abused. "So not only was it abused, we had members who broke the law and did time. Now, we are trying to find a way to reclaim our constitutional authority and ensure the public trust through transparency."

Bost said by bringing earmarks back, certain "sensible" guidelines would be implemented to protect the process from corruption.

Shimkus said he would be in favor of limitation on earmarks, where the process only could be used to direct federal dollars to other government agencies and public infrastructure projects, not to businesses or individuals.)

A Tax on Electricity Used to Recharge Your Electric Car for Highway Funding.

Me, "I think Indiana and Michigan are going about raising state highway funding for electric cars the wrong way. Think about how highway funding is done. When you take a gasoline car to a gas station you pay a tax on the amount of gas you buy. This is then used by the state to pay for road repair and new road projects. Why can't the same thing be done for electric cars? You take your car to an electric recharge station and it charges a tax on the amount of electricity you use to charge your car. The same could be done for when you plug your electric car in at home. You electric charger would count how much electricity you use to charge your car, tell your electric company, and your electric company would add a tax surcharge to your electric bill. For those who use solar panels, or some other kind of off the grid technology, only then would you be charged per year by how much electricity your car uses. The electric car owner would voluntarily report to the state how much electricity his car used and a meter reader would come, every few year, to make sure you are reporting the correct amounts of car electric use. On that information, you would be taxed accordingly. Simple. Right to the point, and covers everybody fairly."



From article, "Indiana too slaps electric cars with $150 fee for not using gas"

(Indiana may soon follow Michigan in implementing fees for electric cars, with the stated goal of helping to pay for road repairs.

Michigan is now adding fees for electric cars, as well as plug-in hybrids and battery-electric cars, because they don't burn enough gasoline to generate the same state tax revenue as other vehicles.

Similar reasoning supports a new bill before the Indiana legislature that calls for a $150 annual fee for electric cars registered in the state.

The new fees for electric cars are being proposed alongside increases to both the gas tax and the registration fees for all vehicles, reports TheIndyChannel.

The bill also calls for a $15 increase in registration fees, which electric-car owners would have to pay on top of the $150 fee.

However, the electric-car fee does not apply to hybrids.

That at least creates a more clear-cut situation than in Michigan, where language in the relevant state law seems to exclude hybrids, even though hybrid owners have been hit with the increased fees.

In addition to higher registration fees, the Indiana bill also proposes raising the gas tax by $0.10 per gallon, from the current $0.18 per gallon.

Based on legislators' assumption that the average Indiana driver covers 12,000 miles per year, the owner of a car achieving 25 mpg combined would pay $134.40 per year with the increased gas tax.

The owner of a standard Toyota Prius hybrid, which is rated at 50 mpg combined, would pay $67.20 annually.

That means an electric-car owner, paying the $150 annual fee, would pay more than either of the hypothetical drivers regularly paying for gasoline.

The bill was introduced by Indiana House Republicans, who believe the electric-car fee could generate $2 million in revenue per year.

The need to recover lost gas-tax revenue has led several states to propose higher gasoline taxes, after years of avoiding such increases for fear of political backlash.

Packages that increase highway funding by raising gas taxes often include fees specifically levied on battery-electric and plug-in hybrid cars, because they can travel several miles or more without using any gasoline at all.

These fees have been met with criticism from electric-car advocates, who worry that they will dissuade potential buyers.)