[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

The elite are looking for a justification to require car tracking to bill us “fairly.” A gas tax is the fairest way to collect revenue and it doesn't track you. A tiny liberal “Smart Car” that is light and uses little gas and consequently contributes less wear than a gas guzzling conservative’s F150. What could be more fair. Make up the $16b shortfall by cutting welfare to illegal immigrants and able bodied loafers.

[KarlInOhio]

About the only vehicle not covered properly is that darling of the left, the electric car. Dump the subsidies and do a mileage tax verified and charged at registration time so no GPS is needed.

[American in Israel]

How about putting illegals to work building roads?

[Alberta's Child]

I am opposed to anything involving the tracking of vehicles on public roads, and you raise a lot of good points, but the fuel tax has three key flaws:

1. Because it's a tax that is paid up front at the point of purchase and is not tied to the specific use of any road, it doesn't function like a direct user fee. As a result, it functions a lot like a prepaid "all you can eat" meal you get on a cruise ship. Yes, the money you pay generally covers the cost of what you are getting -- but the end result is that you eat more than you normally would, and the food isn't very good. This is a perfect analogy for a congested highway system.

2. The Smart Car might contribute less wear and tear than the F-150, but the difference in the wear and tear caused by these two types of vehicles is almost inconsequential compared to the amount of fuel taxes paid by their owners. Even an F-150 contributes almost nothing to the wear and tear of a road or bridge compared to a tractor-trailer with an 80,000-lb. gross vehicle weight.

3. Fuel tax revenues decline over time as our vehicle fleet gets more fuel efficient, but the cost of maintaining highways does not. For that matter, electric vehicles use our roads just like everyone else, but generate $0 in fuel tax revenue.