Parliament Enacts Annual 'Fine' On Hybrid Vehicles
Published 1:59 pm Tuesday, February 26, 2013
What's next, an annual state fee of $100 for homeowners with energy-efficient heat pumps?
The yearly $100 fee in the new state transportation plan on the owners of alternative-fuel vehicles, including hybrids, is grossly arbitrary and unfair.
The General Assembly and the governor can call it an annual fee but it is a fine, a penalty, a punishment.
I am surprised the statues of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington outside the capitol in Richmond didn't climb down, march into the House and Senate chambers and denounce that part of the transportation plan.
The state of Virginia is going punish the owners of vehicles that help distance our dependence on foreign oil while helping the environment.
The commonwealth is going fine them for taking America closer to independence from the machinations of OPEC.
And few people seem to care.
But what a precedent.
The state is shoving it right up the exhaust pipe because these cars get better gas mileage and therefore won't generate as much gas tax revenue as vehicles that suck up to OPEC?
Why not have an entire scale of taxes, then, an extra $100 yearly fine for every extra mile per gallon?
Someone who owns a vehicle that gets 40 miles to the gallon would pay a state fine $1,000 more than someone owning a vehicle that gets 30 miles to the gallon.
Outrageous, sounding, yes, but completely in keeping with what the House and Senate are doing to the owners of alternative-fuel and hybrid vehicles.
If the state can get away with this there is no limit on what future sessions of the General Assembly might contemplate and enact.
Based on the $100 yearly fine for owners of hybrids, the state could think it reasonable to fine motorists for driving safely on state-maintained roads. After all, those who get speeding tickets, fail to wear seatbelts, and drive recklessly are all doing more to add to the state treasury.
Why not, the state of Virginia might ask itself, fine motorists $100 a year if they are not ticketed for a traffic offense on a state-maintained road?
Doing so would be philosophically aligned with the $100 yearly fine on owners of the alternative-fuel and hybrid vehicles.
A yearly fine on owners of gas-addicted SUVs would make more sense but would still be wrong, wrong, wrong.
This annual penalty, punishment, and fine on the owners of one specific type of vehicle is grossly unfair.
If the state were imposing annual fees on all vehicles there would be a degree of fairness, though the state could never get away with that. But to choose one type of vehicle, and one that is so important to our national security when it comes to energy independence, beggars any logical defense.
The state is doing it simply because it can and there is no worse justification for doing something.
The British Parliament enacted the Sugar Act because it could, nailing a six-pence-per-gallon tax on molasses imports not shipped from England.
Those guys would have loved Virginia's new $100-a-year penalty on the owners of vehicles that get more molasses, no, excuse me, miles to the gallon.
What's next in Virginia?
Seriously.
Britain followed the Sugar Act up with the Stamp Act, which required a tax stamp for every legal document, for permits, for commercial contracts, newspapers, wills, pamphlets and, yes, playing cards.
So Virginia's got some good role-modeling to follow in the years ahead.
Don't forget the British Townsend Revenue Act and the infamous Tea Act which followed hot on soles of those marching the Sugar Act and Stamp Act into the colonies.
Weed-eaters that get more weeds to the gallon will probably be next.
Followed by lawnmowers that get more yards to the gallon.
And, of course, don't go so far green that you paint the shutters or trim on your homes any shade of green because an annual fine for using green paint must be on the horizon.
For those seeing red over this newest travesty from the General Assembly, just go ahead and paint your house the same color.
-JKW-