I’ve railed on and on about this in conversation, but apparently the only place I’ve mentioned it on MO was in this comment on the post about Fulton County awarding water conservation with a rate increase.

Motorists’ habits spur call for tax increases

WASHINGTON – Motorists are driving less and buying less gasoline, which means fuel taxes aren’t raising enough money to keep pace with the cost of road, bridge and transit programs.

A federal commission created by Congress to find a way to make up the growing revenue shortfall in the program that funds highway repairs and construction is talking about increasing federal gas and diesel taxes.

A roughly 50 percent increase in gasoline and diesel fuel taxes is being urged by the commission until the government devises another way for motorists to pay for using public roads.

The commission will also recommend that states raise their own gasoline taxes and increase the use of toll roads.

But since the future seems to be filled with ever-increasing fuel efficiency, the long term plan apparently involves equipping all vehicles with GPS devices so that the government can charge you for how man miles you drive.

Seriously.

Via Jeff Soyer.

UPDATE: While posting at GunPundit, I realized that the GPS thing might be the diversion to keep us from looking at the tax increase.

I don’t often put a lot of stock in public opinion polls, but this one might bear a little discussion:

Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe that the U.S. media is making the economic situation worse by projecting fear into people’s minds.

The majority of those surveyed feel that the financial press, by focusing on and embellishing negative news, is damaging consumer confidence and damping investment, making a difficult situation much worse. The poll was conducted via telephone, December 4 - 7.

We talk about the media’s ability to “undermine” the war effort or how they “give support to our enemies” by focusing on negative stories and spinning reports to fit some agenda. This is true, of course, but the actual, material effect on the campaign is minimal. With the exception of Koran flushing stories that rile up mobs of angry protesters or leaking sensitive information, news reports have a very limited ability to directly impact the battle.

When it comes to the spending habits of Americans, however, they’ve got a lot of sway. A constant stream of doom and gloom stories can certainly create a sort of “self-fulfilling prophecy” when people see the stories and decide they had better not spend money. This, of course, directly impacts consumer spending, which sets off another round of doom and gloom stories.

Not that caution in uncertain times isn’t a wise thing, and I’m not advocating sun and daisies reporting to convince people to spend more in order to prop up economic indicators. But the press certainly has an angle on this and is playing it hard.

Instapundit writes:

…it’s not as if there are no real economic problems — but if we’re in a “panic” then the tone of press coverage certainly could be expected to make a difference, and the press doesn’t seem to be trying to moderate its tone, something it does in other areas. After all, the press is exquisitely sensitive to the impact of its reporting when matters of race, gender, or sexual preference are concerned.

I’m betting that the media’s hammering this issue softens once Obama is sworn in.

A while back the folks at the Smithsonian Channel web site asked if they could have a quick Q&A with ol’ Murdoc. I agreed, and it was posted a couple of days ago. Check it out if interested.

I’ve found myself taking a bit of an unexpected break from blogging. It’s actually kind of nice.

Go watch some football or something.

Some folks go on and on about how it’s futile to try and fight “terrorism”. It’s futile to argue with them.

David Bernstein notes something Glenn Greenwald wrote.

Greenwald:

Do you know of anyone who actually believes that at the end of this Israeli attack, there will be no more Hamas, or no more rockets?

Hey…what is that over there? Yeah, over there. I’m not sure, but it looks like a strawman.

Terrorism ends when the causes of it are addressed, typically via diplomatic means. That’s what history proves. I know that’s not as spectacular or exciting or blood-pumping as watching people you hate and their children get incinerated by bombs dropped from on high, but it’s still how it is.

Ah. It’s the “causes” which are to blame, and “causes” in this case mean something done by the victims of terrorism. This seems to be bordering dangerously close to “the United States deserved 9/11 because its foreign policies forced the hand of the terrorists.” (Okay, okay. It’s exactly like that.)

Convenience store owners who have been robbed at gunpoint should figure out a (different) way of getting some of their money into the hands of criminals? Is that how to address armed robbery?

How about serial killers? Rapists? Child abusers? Is there a diplomatic means available to end those horrors? Even if it’s less “spectacular or exciting or blood-pumping” than law enforcement and self-defense, I’d support it in the cases where it has a chance.

How about Nazi Germany? Should their “need” for more territory have been addressed diplomatically instead of with spectacular, exciting, blood-pumping bombs and guns? And, speaking of the Nazis, how about their attempted genocide of the Jews? What did armies and air forces do that a few kind words couldn’t have.

And, in case you weren’t paying attention, there go those Jews again. Why do they keep making people hate them so much?

Bernstein:

According to Hamas itself, the “cause” of Hamas’s terrorism is the very existence of Israel. Hamas spokesmen will occasionally raise the possibility of a long-term “hudna,” but then they are usually contradicted by others in Hamas, and in any event they acknowledge that the hudna would only be a temporary step toward the ultimate “liberation of all of Palestine.” So, there is really only one pure “diplomatic” solution to the problem of Hamas terrorism, and that is for Israel to capitulate.

Well, that’s (Israeli surrender) exactly what the point is, but never mind.

I don’t think anyone thinks the Israelis are totally 100% without blame here. No more than anyone thinks American foreign policy is perfect. But terrorism instantly de-legitimatizes you and makes you a valid target.

Can some of the less extreme groups be negotiated with? Then do so. You don’t have to be friends, just come to an acceptable agreement and stick to it. That’s how grown-ups get things done. That’s how you get taken seriously. That’s how everyone can come out ahead. But “acceptable” means both sides.

Play otherwise, prepare to take some lumps.

Say Uncle:

Ya ever notice?
How violence in the Middle East is usually covered in the back section of the newspapers or on the sidebars of major media websites until Israel starts shooting back?