Having spent several days in Washington DC for two conferences, I have several things I want to report but finding enough time is a challenge. I also have some pictures that I took that you might enjoy seeing. So, when I don't have time to write about one view, I'll try to post the other kind. This is my favorite.
 

UPDATE: This picture represents Transportation and was taken in the Washington Metro system. Part of the time I spent in Washington was with Mayor Ron Jones at the Transportation and Infrastructure Summit. Now the thoughts that were to accompany that picture:
 
Every leap in transportation has seen a corresponding expansion for mankind: the horse, the Erie Canal, paddle boats, the Model-T, the airplane, and the Interstate Highway system are just samples. Roads and highways are the lifeblood of our economy. And, frankly, that lifeblood, the health of our highway system, is deteriorating.
 
The only reason that is true is lack of money. There is a lack of money because we don't have a sustainable funding source. People understand that to have the benefits of police and military protection we must fund them and we do that through taxes. The necessity of roads and highways is indisputable, first for economy and secondly for security, and that too must be funded.
 
For decades, we have paid for our highways with a gas tax levied on each gallon. The more you traveled and used the highways, the more you paid because you used more fuel. The more efficient your vehicle, the less you paid, and the more inefficient, the more you paid. The level of tax could be adjusted to our needs to build and maintain our highways. It worked fine until (1) we quit raising the tax to match inflation and need, both at the federal and state levels, and (2) we started diverting the tax for other uses. Now we are in a double mess. The Federal Highway Trust fund is broke, already requiring emergency appropriations this last year. The granting legislation expires this year, yet we have zero consensus in Congress on how to proceed.
 
Compounding the problem is that we have neglected all other forms of transportation, such as transit, ports, regional airports and air control systems. (The airline industry as a whole is somewhat an exception but it has been essentially self-funded.) We no longer have a plan for future transportation and we have inadequate funding for necessary improvements and maintenance in the present.
 
As part of President Obama's 2010 budget, he plans to introduce a cap-and-trade system to regulate carbon dioxide. Even though much of the money from such a initiative would be a tax on transportation (and utilities), none is planned for transportation. [I mention that initiative as introduction to the next topic, not as an endorsement.] There is a great deal of talk, such as by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, for a new tax that would be calculated on vehicle miles traveled. In some ways its not too different than the fuels tax: the more you travel, the more you pay. However, it is a radical divergence in every other respect.
 
Using satellite and cellular technology (a prominent suggestion), government would measure every mile you drive. A bureaucracy would have to be created to manage the collection of the tax; technology and databases would have to be established. The fuel tax is blind and non-discriminatory. The VMT (vehicle miles traveled) tax has the ability to be "tweaked." It would be higher for "gas guzzlers" and lowered for fuel-efficient vehicles, such as hybrids — all at rates determined by Congress and bureaucrats. Though I've not heard it specifically mentioned, it could be adjusted for income levels or other "desirable" or "undesirable" classes. In the end, it could be applied as unevenly as the income tax. There is not even a hint in any of the mouths mentioning it that it would be blind and non-discriminatory.
 
Beyond fairness, there is a privacy issue.
 
I would rather see the fuel tax increased to address the undeniable problems of worsening infrastructure and congestion that we face and that will continue to worsen. I would support some limited diversion of that tax revenue for other transportation infrastructure for an established limited period, such as fifteen years. I don't mind that those with the more efficient vehicles will be paying less for use of our roads (there is, for now, generally the advantage of less wear and tear on the roads) or that electric and natural gas vehicles will be able to drive without paying the tax. I think almost everyone would agree that moving toward alternative fuel and electric vehicles are worthy goals over that same period (even though our individual reasons may be quite different and may come from opposite perspectives). My reasons are: conservation is always a worthy goal and over-dependence on foreign energy is a security risk in the long-run and an economic risk in the short-run.
 
All that said, it is obvious that the gas tax will not work for much longer. Theoretically, in the not distant future, we may not use gasoline to power hardly any vehicles. At that time, we'd be just as broke as we are today.