DJ, I have to admit I'm a little disappointed in this post. While I agree with your thesis, that citizens shouldn't be viewed by our government as a "cash cow", that taxes should be severely limited, etc., I'm deeply troubled by the historical errors.

The colonists did not "rebel" against the King because he raised taxes on them one too many times. The king, in fact, had no power to raise taxes anywhere (even in England). In Great Britain, taxes had to be raised by British Parliament. That dates back to the Magna Carta, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong). In the Colonies, taxing privileges were reserved solely for the colonial congresses and was later given to the Continental Congress. But then a funny thing happened: British Parliament, who had no legal authority over the Colonies (only the British King did) decided they should tax the Colonists to help pay for the French-Indian war. Contrary to what most people thing, THIS is what eventually led to the Revolution. The Colonies did not leave the British Empire because they didn't want to pay legal taxes that just happened to be too high. They left because the taxes imposed on them were illegal to begin with, regardless of the amount.

So what's my point here? My point is this: We on the Right have a great respect for history, specifically American history. We believe it holds great lessons for us. We fear when our countrymen begin to forget history. We fear it even more when they begin to change history.

Bu that's exactly what you've done in this post, unintentionally to be sure, but no less damaging. When you assert something as historical (that the Colonists rebelled because they were taxed too much) that is not, and then proceed to draw valid points from an historical error, it only makes the final point look bad.

As I said, I agree with your final point. They way you got there is flawed.

Aside note: I think I agree with you final point, if it is that there should be some check on taxes. However be careful. The Founding Fathers would be horrified at the state of modern Libertarianism that pretends government has no authority to tax its citizens at all.

It would take a very, very long post to put the historical era of the time in perspective so a very brief summation is acceptable to me as long as I get the point of the post.

Pelosi promised a few things if the democrats got into power. Two are getting right out of Iraq, and doing something about the high price of gas which at the time of the promise was more then a dollar less then today. Now, more troops in Iraq and gas is higher. Way to govern there demo's. ww

Ofcourse, I think the Founding Fathers would find the Progressive Income Tax, despite the Constitutional Amendment, somewhat abhorrent. And the fact that it gave the Federal Government deeper pockets than the states and therefore more power.. yeah... I'm no Libertarian but that has been a recipe for increased socialism in this country...

Unfortunately, whether or not the British felt this way (it was possible), most elected officials do look at the American as a 'cash cow'. Or, probably a bit more accurately, a 'bottomless pit'.

State governments are just as guilty of this - as a former resident of NY and NJ, and a current resident of Taxachusetts, they make the Federal government almost bland by comparison. (Except for the Department of Energy, Education, Health & Human Services, etc)

"A good example is the price of gasoline. There is a great deal of talk about concern for the consumer, but no serious action. Indeed, despite promising to lower gas prices to below $2 a gallon, the present Congress has sat idly by while prices instead doubled. Plans have been suggested which could address the problem, both in the short and long term, yet the government stubbornly clings to unproven hysteric theories rather than act in prudent fashion." -- D.J. Drummond

Typical, short-sighted conservative response, blaming the government rather than himself.

CONSERVATIVES-WHO-WON'T-CONSERVE:

Have you so little education that you are unfamiliar with the economic laws of supply and demand??? We can't do much about the long-term supply of oil, an unrenewable resource (foolish attempts to despoil the environment notwithstanding), but WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT DEMAND:

CONSERVE, DAMN IT, CONSERVE!!!

Uh, that means no SUVs for your Bush-Cheney bumperstickers, and using a nonpolluting lawnmower if you don't like the height of your grass. Too freakin' bad!!!

Ten years ago, Osama been Forgotten (remember him?) stated that a barrel of oil should cost $144. ( http://thinkprogress.org/ ) Thanks to your spendthrift ways and to your opposition to increased fuel-efficiency requirements for cars, OSAMA'S WISH HAS COME TRUE: a barrel of oil is now $145.

Happy now, conservatives?

No SUVs Herman?

Ok...how do I transport my family? I'm married with six children, so whatever you propose needs to have seating for at least eight, and cargo space sufficient to at least carry luggage for a long weekend.

I have an idea for you, Herman. Why don't you conserve some of the quality air, food, and water we now enjoy? It'll make more available for all the rational humans.

Herman,
Go tell it to Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio and the Kennedy Clan.

DJ Drummond

You get taxed on your phone - if I recall correctly, we are somehow still paying for the Spanish-American War, you get to pay taxes everytime the US government decides it wants to help someone else.

I heard somewhere that the phone tax was finally repealed a couple of years ago. Need to check to make sure of this. Ok I found the info:

Several recent federal court decisions have held that the tax does not apply to long-distance service as it is billed today. The IRS is following these decisions and refunding the portion of the tax charged on long-distance calls. The IRS is also refunding taxes collected on telephone service under plans that do not differentiate between long distance and local calls including bundled service.

The telephone tax continues to apply to local-only service, and the IRS is not refunding taxes charged on local-only service.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161506,00.html

It's appalling just how much of our money goes towards paying taxes of some sort. There are hidden taxes everywhere. I don't mind paying for services and things necessary to keep our country safe. But what I get really upset about is that the government abuses my hard earned money.

In my personal life, when my income drops or when my expenses go up, I back off on my spending. When that happens to the government, they raise my taxes. I'd like to see a little fiscal discipline.

Sen. John Warner suggested Thursday [July 3] that Congress might want to consider reimposing a national speed limit to save gasoline and possibly ease fuel prices. Warner cited studies that showed the 55 mph speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day, or 2 percent of the country's highway fuel consumption, while avoiding up to 4,000 traffic deaths a year.

The prospects of bringing back the national 55 mph seed limit infuriate me for a number of reasons. First, if you live or drive out west you know how boring and tiring it is to poke along at 55 when all you can see is open road stretching to some hill on the horizon and when you get to that hill you see noting but open road stretching to some hill on the horizon. Repeat that for a few hours and you get a sense of the wide open spaces that define much of the west. On most of the western interstates the speed limit is 75 mph, but Texas has a stretch of freeway where they upped the speed limit to 80 mph because it was safer than at 75. Turns out most people are wide awake and paying attention to the road at 80 mph and attentive drivers are the number one requirement for safety.

I remember one trip I took out west during the 55 mph speed limit. I had a big van that I hauled my motorcycle in (I don't like riding in the rain and it always rains when I ride long distances). Anyway, I was so bored that I put it on cruse and tied ropes to the steering wheel and sat in the back using the ropes to steer the van. Stupid? You bet, but not as stupid as letting myself fall asleep behind the wheel, which too many people have done. That 20 second trick kept me awake for a long time first thinking how funny it was and then thinking how stupid it was. Well, I was just on that same road two weeks ago and cursing at 78 mph (per GPS) and I didn't feel the least bit sleepy or bored even after 10 hours on the road. Some forks were passing me doing at least 85 mph pushing the leniency of the local highway patrol, but I bet they were really alert.

Anyway, it seems saving 167,000 barrels of oil a day is pointless as long as anyone is making the argument that a million barrels a day from drilling in ANWR would be pointless. If by some unexplained means saving 167,000 barrels a day did lower prices, then people would drive more and consumption would go up. The high price of gas has already done far more to conserve fuel than a 55 mph speed limit can. It has also reduced the miles driven and less miles means less accidents. It's just hard for some politicians to accept the idea that the market if far more effective in dealing with this issue than imposing stale ideas from the past.

Now if politicians feel they have to do something to conserve fuel one idea is to impose a selective speed limit. The principle is to slow down only the least fuel efficient passenger vehicles. The idea is that more fuel would be saved by getting people out of their full sized SUV's and pickup trucks than by slowing down everyone. The reason that works is because a 55 mph speed limit has no effect in built-up areas where the speed limits are already low. It's also were most fuel is used and untouched by the 55 mph speed limit. If you can get people out of their full sized SUV's and pickup trucks than fuel is saved both on the open highway and even more so in built-up areas. High gas prices are doing that, but if politicians need to tamper then a selective speed limit makes sense. That's because some people make so much money that even $7 gas is not going to get them out of their large SUVs. However, make them spend their time driving 55 while more fuel efficient vehicles go 75 and they are going to change their ways quicker than by high gas prices alone. Also, I find it unfair to impose the same gas saving speed limit on someone driving a 40 plus mpg vehicle as someone driving a 12 mpg vehicle. One driver has already done their part and is using far less fuel at 80 mph that the other uses at 55 mph.

The way this would work is that the next time a low mileage passenger vehicle's registration is due the owner would be given special 55 MPH stickers to place on the front and back bumpers. If they didn't comply there would be a substantial fine. Vehicles with such stickers would be limited to a maximum speed of 55 MPH even if the posted speed limit is higher. This law wound not apply to commercial vehicles that need to haul goods, tools or equipment as large vehicles are needed for such purposes. Some will claim that it would be too hard to enforce, but I don't think that's a significant issue. Such vehicles are easy to spot just by their size and the special stickers could be designed to reflect certain wavelengths of lasers so that they could be detected from great distances. The sticker would also be far cheaper to implement than changing the speed limit signs (again) and states could pass the cost on to the owners of such vehicles. Another advantage is that the minimum mileage to avoid the 55 MPH designation could be raised every year. It could be a simple formula like EPA highway mileage needs to be greater than 12 plus the last two digits of the year until 2020.

The more large vehicles off the road the safer it will be for drivers of fuel efficient vehicles. Sure there are always going to be 18 wheelers on the road, but even your super sized SUV is no match for them in an accident. Need to haul lots of people, get a minvan. Toyota Sienna hauls eight passangers in more comfort than any SUV and is rated 26 mpg on the highway by the EPA (Consumer Reports got 28 mph and this is with a 266 HP V6 that does 0-60 in 7.8 seconds. You can get it in AWD but give up 3 mpg highway).

Unfortunately such out of the box ideas are also likely out of the realm of political possibility.

Mac, judging from some of your other posts, I'm guessing your ignorance on the SUV question is unintentional...you generally seem more rational than that.

SEATING for eight does not make it work. Sure the cute lil Sienna can seat eight people, but if you're headed on vacation, you'd better be planning on a clothing-optional resort, as you won't be able to carry much more than a toothbrush for everyone with all the seats in "passenger" position.

The ONLY vehicles that have sufficient passenger AND cargo room for a large family are the extra-large SUVs, and those of us who truly need the extra room are already being penalized pretty harshly, thank you.

Your idea is about as "out of the box" as the 55 mph proposal...still more government doing things that "feel good" but won't make two sh*ts worth of difference. Still stuck on the "punish the SUV owners" meme.

Oh, one more point re: Sienna vs. SUV

When real-world road tests on the Sienna show around 17-18 mpg, exactly why should I give up the extra room, convenience, and safety of my Excursion for 2-3 mpg (if that much after one puts 900-1000 lbs of people in the Sienna)?

Gandalf, I did say both money and power. I left off the power part, because that's worth quite a few posts on its own.

Jamie,

I don't know what real world tests you are referring to, but Consumer Reports does controlled and instrumented real world tests and they got 28 mpg for the Toyota Sienna on the highway. The now discontinued Ford Excursion got 13 mpg. That means you're paying over $14.50 more for each 100 miles you drive on the highway. I just did a 2800 mile vacation trip with lots of 78 mph driving and got an averaged of 26.9 mpg. You would spend an extra $400 in gas driving your Excursion. Now I'm sure that's unimportant to someone who can afford six kids. However, the minivan is statistically safer than your SUV. I don't expect you to agree, I didn't when I was driving a V8 4x4 pickup truck, but overall minivans are the safest passengers vehicles on the road apart from a commercial tour bus.

A person could tow a trailer behind a Toyota Sienna if they needed more room for luggage and they would still get better highway mileage than your Excursion. Then get double the mileage of your Excursion in everyday use. That's more than a $2,100 savings over 15,000 miles.

It's not about hating SUVs, it's about reducing demand for fuel and there's usually an valid higher mileage vehicle that will do the job. If not, you can drive 55 MPH, which is better than all of us driving 55 MPH. I've already done my part.

Jamie, my Sienna has averaged 21 MPG so far in the two years I have been driving it... not too bad...

Duncan, what kind of terrain do you drive vs. Jamie. How much is commuting just yourself vs. the whole family.

The acronym YMMV exists for a reason.

"Ok...how do I transport my family? I'm married with six children, so whatever you propose needs to have seating for at least eight, and cargo space sufficient to at least carry luggage for a long weekend." -- Jamie

Conservatives, sometimes it seems as though you have no ability to go out and find information yourself. Jamie, it's quite simple:
Just get yourself two of these
here:

(not surprisingly, the solution comes from Canada). And yes, cargo trailers can be acquired for what's in the picture.

Alas, the link didn't work, Jamie. Try this one instead.
http://communities.canada.com/shareit/photos/bicycles/picture64837.aspx

And, Jamie, one more thing. Having six children truly is quite excessive, unless, of course, most or all were acquired through adoption.

Conservatives, the world's population WILL continue to rise sharply at least until the middle of this century. Already, there are reports that the North Pole might soon completely melt. Something for you to think about.

Herman, you're on the line again. This is not your soapbox, and I am in the mood to exercise a virtual Rottweiler or two.

You have no place to tell someone how many children they may have, and Climate Change is for the Chicken Little page, not here.

Capisce?

Hey, Herman, if you can tell Jamie how many children he/she should have (sorry, Jamie, but you have one of those androgynous names) out of concern for natural resources, can I tell welfare recipients how many children they can have out of concern for my own financial resources -- whose affect is a hell of a lot more immediate and verifiable?

J.

Six fellow employees and myself recently drove an XL version of an expedition on a trip and averaged 18 MPG. A good portion of the trip was on Interstate at 75 miles per hour. My Mazda will do twice the MPG on the road, but not with four adults on board. We saved fuel by driving the big SUV.
At one time I owned a larger minivan. We basically wore it out and decided to trade it in on an expedition on our way home from vacation. All of the stuff that we carried inside the minivan wouldn't fit inside the 'larger' vehicle so we had to tie some of it on the rack.

Hey, Herman is just being a good little socialist, just like the Party back in China. Enforced birth control, scrape out any baby beyond the quota.

Jay, "He" would be the correct pronoun.

I'm getting 15 on my daily through-the-country commute in my Excursion. I get around 18 on the highway. I'd be dubious on 28 mpg on the Sienna...that's higher than the EPA estimates by a significant percentage, although 21 sounds reasonable for a V-6.

And Mac, be careful with that "doing my part" bombshell. How would you feel if only hybrids were allowed on interstate? If you still feel like dictating how someone else should drive based upon some holier than thou bullshit yardstick, then kindly fuck yourself. Idiotic ideas like yours are what stands in the way of the free market correcting itself.

Herman, you sad little fuck, I'll be damned if you have any place telling me how many children I should have. Pseudo-liberals like you make me realize all too well why our country seems to be circling the drain. I pity your miserable existance, waiting on Big Brother to tell you when how, and how often to wipe your diaper-rashed ass.

Mac, with all due respect, the selective speed limit would wreak havoc on our highways. We're simply not set up for that. As it is, we can't get a Prius doing 50 out of the fast lane of a 70 mph highway to allow others to pass. We'll have to start ticketing anyone not in their properly assigned lane as well.

A few years ago I bought a Tahoe because I was hauling quite a lot of stuff around town. Things have recently changed for me and I no longer have to, but I'm stuck with it. I can't even give it away. Never mind being able to afford another car payment. My husband drives the more economical car to work. So I do my best to conserve and don't drive it unless I have to. (Here's where I tell Herman, "Cram it where the sun don't shine, you pompous ass. Why don't you conserve and quit making trees work so hard to provide the oxygen you're so obviously squandering?")

Furthermore, my Tahoe is in top-notch condition and isn't spewing the noxious fumes and gases my holier-than-thou neighbor's gas efficient, 1985 Nissan is as he smokes his way out of his driveway and down the street bragging about how he's "not supporting those nasty Arabs" but robbing his neighbors of clean air.

Jamie,

And Mac, be careful with that "doing my part" bombshell. How would you feel if only hybrids were allowed on interstate?

That's a straw man argument. Nothing in my plan would prevent you from driving your super sized SUV on the interstate.

If you still feel like dictating how someone else should drive based upon some holier than thou bullshit yardstick, then kindly fuck yourself.

I'm not dictating anything. Try reading what I wrote before making such foolish and emotional comments. You'll see that I oppose Congress imposing the dreaded 55 MPH speed limit again, but the possibility is real.

Idiotic ideas like yours are what stands in the way of the free market correcting itself.

Once again, I stated I would rather let the free market work, but as you can see from my link, Congress may not allow that. You really need to work on your reading comprehension before commenting on my posts as such obvious mistakes make you look stupid.

My objection is that a blanket 55 MPH imposed to save fuel treats all vehicles the same and that's an idiotic idea. It makes no sense to impose the same fuel conserving speed limit on the guy driving a Toyota Prius as on someone driving a super sized SUV. Far more fuel is saved by getting people out of their super sized SUVs and a differential speed limit is just another incentive for them to do that.

I understand you really need your super sized SUV as do people who tow large boats or other RVs, but many people also have smaller vehicles that they could drive at the full speed limit under a selective 55 MPH speed limit. Isn't that better than being limited to 55 MPH all the time? Or are you one of those selfish individuals who thinks that if they have to drive their super sized SUV at 55 than everyone should have to drive at 55 even if they're getting 40 mpg on the highway?

Mac, with all due respect, the selective speed limit would wreak havoc on our highways. We're simply not set up for that. As it is, we can't get a Prius doing 50 out of the fast lane of a 70 mph highway to allow others to pass. We'll have to start ticketing anyone not in their properly assigned lane as well.

The solution is lane discipline, which the Germans have proven works. Yes it has to be enforced just like any other traffic law. I would rather Congress not impose a 55 MPH speed limit, but if they feel they must, then I'm making the case that a selective speed limit would be better at saving fuel as it adds a non-monetary incentive to move to fuel efficient vehicles. These fuel efficient vehicles save fuel even in urban areas where the 55 MPH limit has no effect.

The last time the 55 MPH limit was imposed it was in effect for over 20 years. Long before that amount of time passes you'll be out of your Tahoe, so a selective 55 MPH speed limit could still benefit you and have little downside for you if you don't drive much on roads with higher than 55 MPH limits. Even if you do, it costs you nothing more than time.

... are you one of those selfish individuals who thinks that if they have to drive their super sized SUV at 55 than everyone should have to drive at 55 even if they're getting 40 mpg on the highway?

No, I'm one of those "selfish" individuals that don't believe in further penalizing those who are already more under the gun than others.

I'm one of those "selfish" individuals who believes that what goes for the goose goes for the gander. The percentage of savings quoted in the 55 mph proposal isn't proportional to the miles-per-gallon of the vehicle in question.

I'm also one of those "selfish" people who don't think that the solution to more government intrusion lies in pushing that intrusion towards "someone who isn't me."

Don't accuse me of not reading your post, Mac. I'm calling you to task because you propose the solution is still more government, but you've weaseled your way out of the line of fire. To me, that's worse than a 55 mph national speed limit being resurrected. Of course, I don't live in an "so long as it won't affect me, fuck those who it will" universe.

Driving 55 is not only dangerous here in the western United States, but highly inefficient -- due to the high mountain passes that we must travel over to get anywhere. It takes more fuel to pull the grades than to coast up most of them. Driving 55 in the congested major metropolitan areas is feasible, because of all of the traffic, but out on the long open stretches of highways and freeways out here in the West where there is an excellent chance of getting bored and falling asleep at the wheel.

No, I'm one of those "selfish" individuals that don't believe in further penalizing those who are already more under the gun than others.

I had nothing to do with you being more under the gun. I was also driving a gas hog, but decided it wasn't in my interest to do so. Maybe you don't have that option right now, but my driving a high mileage vehicle at 55 does nothing to elevate your situation. Why then do you think everyone should drive 55?

I'm one of those "selfish" individuals who believes that what goes for the goose goes for the gander.

Herman could use that line to argue that if some limit their reproduction then all should. I agree with DJD that that is your choice, just don't try to impose the costs of your choice on others.

The percentage of savings quoted in the 55 mph proposal isn't proportional to the miles-per-gallon of the vehicle in question.

You are making my point. Getting someone out of their super sized SUV and into a higher mileage vehicle saves far more gas than a one-size-fits-all 55 MPH speed limit. That works because most of the miles most people drive with their super sized SUV are in city or mixed driving where something like a minivan gets way better mileage than a super sized SUV.

I'm also one of those "selfish" people who don't think that the solution to more government intrusion lies in pushing that intrusion towards "someone who isn't me."

We have many laws that discriminate between vehicles such as the license taxes. You benefit from not paying the same tax as large trucks. What, you think the tax should be the same for all vehicles? Do you ever use high occupancy lanes? The reality is that laws do discriminate and are used to change behavior. I'm proposing nothing out of the ordinary.

I'm calling you to task because you propose the solution is still more government, but you've weaseled your way out of the line of fire. To me, that's worse than a 55 mph national speed limit being resurrected. Of course, I don't live in an "so long as it won't affect me, fuck those who it will" universe.

And yet you like the safety of your super sized SUV knowing that it comes at the expense of the occupants of any smaller vehicle you squash. And you likely claim the income tax exemptions of all six of the kids who you use as an excuse to drive a super sized SUV. Well, that makes you a hypocrite by the standard you would judge me by. You just can't stand the ideal of people who have made other choices having some advantage, yet you take every advantage you can find for the choices you have made.

You're exactly the type who needs to be in the right lane doing 55 in your super sized SUV while fuel efficient vehicles wiz past at 75. You'll have time to contemplate switching to a minivan, and even if it doesn't get much better mileage fully loaded, you'll be able to join the 75 MPH club on those vacation trips.

Two points to consider;

1. Are freight trucks designed to travel 55 mph, or 70+?

2. Which is more polluting, a 385-mile trip which takes five-and-a-half hours at 70 mph, or seven hours at 55 mph?

1. Are freight trucks designed to travel 55 mph, or 70+?

In my long winded post #10, I said "This law wound not apply to commercial vehicles that need to haul goods, tools or equipm