Abuser fees: Northam Wants to Scrap 'Em, Rerras Wants to Keep 'Em

By: Lowell
Published On: 10/7/2007 9:11:12 AM

Amazingly, despite 170,000+ signatures opposing the Albo-Rust-Howell abuser fees, not to mention widespread anger over them by average Virginians, State Sen. Nick Rerras (R-6th) is standing by them.

Sen. Nick Rerras, R-Norfolk, is the two-term incumbent. He wants the fees to stay but says the state should apply them to all drivers, not just Virginians, and he would remove the less serious offenses from the list.

In contrast, Democratic challenger Dr. Ralph Northam wants to scrap the abuser fees and replace the lost revenue with a 1.5-cent-per-gallon gas tax icrease (perhaps $12 more per year for someone  "traveling 20,000 miles a year and averaging 25 miles to the gallon"). 

Which approach makes more sense?  Voters will decide in just 30 days, but in our view here at Raising Kaine, the choice is a no-brainer.  Either you get taxed regressively and unfairly through outrageous "fees" (of up to $3,000!) that disproportionately hurt rural and working class Virginians.  Or, you can pay a miniscule $12 more per year (what, 2 or 3 visits to Starbucks?) in gasoline and get rid of these stupid things. 

Oh, and before our Republican "friends" point out for the zillionth time that Tim Kaine supports keeping the abuser fees, let me just reiterate for the zillionth time that we -- as do many Democratic candidates running this year -- respectfully disagree with Gov. Kaine on this issue, and have said so repeatedly.  What I'd like to hear is something from the other side in which they acknowledge the overwhelming role of the Republican-controlled House of Delegates in devising these fees (plus the regional authorities) and ramming them down Tim Kaine's throat. 

But let's not hold our breaths; apparently, Republicans would rather run against Tim Kaine, who's not on the ballot this year and who is highly popular across the Commonwealth, then own up to their responsibility for the abuser fees, admit that they made a mistake, and promise to reverse course.  Instead, it looks like voters will have to reverse course for them, by handing control of the state Senate (and possibly even the House of Delegates) to the Democrats On November 6.


Comments



Night and day differences (elevandoski - 10/7/2007 10:58:37 AM)
On the one hand we have Ralph Northam, down-to-earth, smart, compassionate, honest and reality-based.  On the other is Nick "FemiNazi" Rerras disturbed, disturbing and living in a world far, far away. 


Northam and Unfair Gas Tax Increases (soccerdem - 10/7/2007 12:31:18 PM)
Although on the surface it would appear that Northam might possibly be right in wanting to scrap abuser fees and raise the gas tax by 1.5 cents per gallon, let us objectively look at Rerras's position.

As we know, breaking one's vows, pledges or swearings is nothing less than a sin: we will have lied either to our inner values or to One greater than us.  If we pledge not to raise taxes, we must hold that position like a pit bull on your big toe, for nothing is more sacred than one's pledge.

As to the abuser fees being regressive, I see nothing in Writ that says the fees can't apply only to Virginians.  Further, why shouldn't some driver going 45 mph in a 35 mph zone be fined $3000--where is individual responsibility?  Even if the driver earns but $15,000 a year, do you honestly believe, Lowell, that the $3000 would be an  excessive fine?  I thought not.

But most important to this discussion is the economics of the gas tax raise.  Do you realize that I, for example, a typical American consumer, would be paying $2.65 a gallon at Costco instead of $2.63.  That extra $12 a year may not mean much to you, Lowell, with your wealth-bringing Web site,  but it sure would buy a lot of chemicals for my swimming pool, chemicals you don't want me to afford under this socialist increase. And once that door is opened, what's to stop the tax-and-spend Democrats from raising the tax yet another 1-1/2 cents 3 years from now?  Now I'd be paying $2.67 a gallon instead of $2.63.  How much more of this gouging can a typical Humvee owner take?

Remember, too, that 170,000 signatures do not equate to a  majority of Virginians.  It may sound big, but it is not a majority!

So, in the name of fairness to we typical Americans, I ask you to reconsider your positions on the tax raise and abusers' fees.

Rerras Si, Northam, NO.

Thank you



thanks, soccerdem. (spotter - 10/7/2007 1:14:41 PM)
A fine Republican screed.  God, shameless invocation of the "personal responsibility" (for others), big trucks, destruction of natural resources, name-calling, selfishness and greed disguised as economic theory, stubborn, unthinking certitude, and tax cuts (for me).  Oh, wait, you left out gays, guns, and illegal immigrants.


I believe Soccerdem was using very dry sarcastic (Lowell - 10/7/2007 4:52:49 PM)
wit.  Read it again and let me know what you think.


No kidding! (elevandoski - 10/7/2007 7:02:06 PM)


Got it Lowell. (spotter - 10/7/2007 7:02:34 PM)
I guess I just didn't make that sufficiently clear.  Still waiting for soccerdem to work in the guns and illegal immigrants, though.


Let's try a reality check (Scott Surovell - 10/7/2007 4:43:24 PM)
Wait a minute Soccer"dem".

You'd rather stick thousands of poor people who can't pay with $900-2000 abuser fees, create "a permanent underclass" as many studies have found, great a whole bunch of new bureacrats to administer this brand new system, and clog our courts with trials, rather than everyone in the state pay $12/year PLUS charge out-of-staters who help cause our traffic pay a few bucks a year?

While I'm trying to figure out exactly who is the fiscal responsible, small government, conservative here, can you please explain to me exactly who you expect to pay for our roads?



Got it. Next time a ;-) or the like might help..... (Scott Surovell - 10/7/2007 8:59:46 PM)


Abuser Fees, continued--Stick it to the poor! (soccerdem - 10/8/2007 2:48:45 PM)
Funny, but when the blather I wrote in a progressive news venue can be taken seriously, despite the extreme  irrationality and hyperbolic nature of the writing, it shows how people who constantly listen only to the right-wing pundits are taken in completely when they are bombarded day after day by anouncers who BELIEVE in that crap, or make a living out of pretending to believe.  No reflection on you all at not sseing that I was using satire--you don't really see that much of it here to get acquainted with it, when some pops up.  Apology, by me.

BUT, amazingly, what I wrote is no different from what Bush and his media supporters speak daily to listeners who DO NOT get angry, as you did.  They actually agree with that line of crap, that illogical and inhumane garbage. That's the shame of it, and that's why I vote Democratic even though some candidates at the top like Lieberman or at the bottom like Houck will tick me off for their unlimited support for the war (Lieberman) or for stopping 2 gay guys down the street from getting married (Houck).  Heck, why shouldn't Larry Craig be allowed to marry anyone of the sex he prefers, I believe.

Thanks for your anger.  It's what our party needs. 

 



Correction: To above (soccerdem - 10/8/2007 2:56:43 PM)
I meant to say, of course, in my above blurb, that I was using "sarcasm," not "satire," as Lowell correctly noted. 


Good satire is always welcome as well! :) (Lowell - 10/8/2007 2:59:44 PM)
By the way, writing ;) or :) or *SNARK ALERT* is a useful way to tip people off that you're using sarcasm.  The thing with the internet is that people can't see you rolling your eyes or whatever, so you've got to do it in words or emoticons.  Thanks.