The Seattle Times reports that the U.S. Secretary of Transportation wants to lower federal gas taxes. The bad news: Mary Peter wants to replace the taxes with tolls. "Peters aired her views Friday to the Washington Roundtable, a group of business executives who have backed transportation campaigns. She argued that Americans lack 'investor confidence' in higher gasoline taxes, because she said the money is spent inefficiently and hasn't reduced congestion." Reduced congestion? Since when was that the point of federal gas taxes? Since… "Her department is offering $139 million to launch congestion-price tolling on the Highway 520 floating bridge by September 2009. Peters said the federal government will yank a similar grant from New York City if the state fails on Monday to approve a toll for driving into Manhattan. And there's another unstated reason for the policy shift: as U.S. vehicles become more efficient (by law) and/or cash-strapped motorists drive less, Uncle Sam's fuel excise income will tumble. And just in case you thought toll taxes are regressive (they are), how about this? She praised an experiment on Highway 167 that begins April 26, when solo drivers will be able to pay to enter the uncrowded high-occupancy-vehicle lanes." [thanks to Ryan Kauzlarich for the link]
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Nobody really cars what any of Bush’s lame duck Secretaries have to say, so I wouldn’t be too concerned about it right now.
Gas Tax is a consumption tax and does what it is intended to best – tax those who buy fuel and tax those who drive gas guzzlers.
It is very difficult to try to substitute a use tax for a consumption tax. I’d rather pay more to fuel up my truck (and pay less to fuel up my car) than to have to deal with toll roads as the substitute.
Sometimes if you let them talk long enough, a Conservative will reveal his/her true colors.
One recent example: when Dick Cheney was asked to respond to the fact that a huge majority of Americans think the Iraq war isn’t worth it. His response? “SO?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SypeZjeOrY4
(Translation: I’m in charge and the American people can go “F” themselves. What’s with all this “democracy” BS anyway?)
Similarly, Secretary Peter thinks toll roads are a spiffy idea.
(Translation: People with lots of money should be able to drive on well-maintained congestion-free roads. Everyone else can go “F” themselves)
What’s next? Privatizing police and fire services?…
The problem with the 520 bridge, aka Evergreen Point Floating Bridge is that it was built 40+ years ago for 40+ years ago traffic volumes. The region has swelled over 2X in population since it was built and it really needs to be 6, or even 8 lanes wide. Everyone in the region knows this, but unfortunately the very wealthy NIMBY’s at either end of it have been preventing the (inevitable) expansion of the bridge for over 10 years.
Washington has a history of paying for bridge construction with tolls, but unique among states that I know of, once the bill has been paid off the toll plazas get taken down. This is how all our major bridges (except the replacement I-90 bridge after the old one sunk) were paid for.
I don’t have a problem with tolls, so long as they are used to actually finance construction and maintenance of roads. I have long suspected that in most places they are not used so wisely. I’m sure gasoline taxes are also not used very wisely either.
–chuck
I knew this was gonna happen sooner or later. Developments in alternative motors and efficiency are going to do to transportation taxes what prop-13 did to property taxes in California. Over time it is going to create a lopsided system where two people with seeming equivalent tax bases pay dramatically different taxes.
Driver A with a small 4-door sedan with a ICM V6 drives 12k miles a year. Driver B drives a Prius 12K miles a year. Driver B uses half the fuel as driver A, and thus pays half the amount in fuel taxes. Yet, driver B still uses the road just a much as driver A. Is that fair to driver A?
But… the most important part is that as people buy fewer units of fuel, they pay less fuel tax. Hence the government panic. That is why the idea of tolls roads or other usage measuring systems is being looked at.
I predict that what is going to happen is that we are going to see solutions like the one New Zealand uses for diesel tax. In NZ, they don’t tax diesel at the pump. Instead, the car owner prepays for mileage credit (I think in 10,000 km increments). The state issues a window sticker that reflects the mileage paid for. Law enforcement is responsible for enforcing the compliance.
Of course that will start a whole black market industry of rigged odometers and fake tax stickers. And I don’t think the police are going to be very thrilled about being fuel-tax auditors on top of all their other duties.
Chuck,
Doesn’t the 520 end up around the arboretum? That arboretum is one of the nation’s treasures, and I can sooner see building a third bridge than having 8 lanes going into or through the arboretum.
Agree with the sentiment of the first poster, but I suspect user fees will rear its ugly head no matter who the new admin is. Inevitable. People who want to postpone user fees should join numbersusa.com. Unless we stabilize the population, congestion is going to continue getting worse.
It amazes me that someone always has to vent their political agenda into things like that. Like yankinwaoz said, with more fuel efficiency on the horizon government has to find different sources of funding. One good thing that might come out of this would be the death of the congestion-inducing diamond lanes. I have nothing against use tax. If they made it vehicle weight dependent, it would actually make some sense.
Doesn’t the 520 end up around the arboretum?
No, it traverses Foster Island north of the arboretum. The main opposition of the proposed widening comes from folks in Madison Park, Medina, & Evergreen Point (the latter two being home to some of the wealthiest people on the planet.)
–chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org
re: equity of Prius paying half the tax of a similar sized ICE car for same usage of roadways.
Roads deteriorate from weathering and usage. Weathering suggest equal tax assessments on all. Usage is another story. Road damage varies by axle weight raised to the third or fourth power. A five ton axle load does as much damage as 125 to 625 one axle loads.
I don’t know what the most equitable solution is, but including a fair assessment of usage damage won’t make you any friends in the trucking industry. If you try and blend the a usage-justified formula and a level-for-all weathering formula, I wonder if anything proposed comes closer than the gas consumption tax? (I suspect the current gas consumption tax subsidizes truck pretty heavily).
@ yankinwaoz and hwyhobo- well, they could just continue to raise gas taxes to discourage consumption further. Still better than increasing tolls as it gets tax revenue for all of their driving, not just on highways.
@okatsuki: Gas tax is ultimately a losing proposition with diminishing use of gas. Therefore, sooner or later, a different source of revenue has to be found. I guess they decided to do it sooner rather than later. Maybe they foresee the move away from fuel-inefficient vehicles to be more rapid than people expect? Who knows. I am simply open to new proposed solutions, as long as they make some sense (are related to weight of the vehicle, etc – read interesting points raised by chuckR). Politicizing simple economic issues like that doesn’t help solve them, and that should be the focus.
government has to find different sources of funding
…and that, ladies and gentlemen, has always been the “end game” – how many more creative ways our government can get their hands on more of our money to squander it on their pet projects and their political patronage cronies rather than re-invest in our transportation infrastructure (where it’s supposed to go)…
Nobody really cars what any of Bush’s lame duck Secretaries have to say, so I wouldn’t be too concerned about it right now.
This is very true. I doubt that a Democratic president (or possibly even McCain) will allow the gas tax to be repealed, even if this Secretary has her say. It would kill their green cred, as just one example of why this would not happen.
One recent example: when Dick Cheney was asked to respond to the fact that a huge majority of Americans think the Iraq war isn’t worth it. His response? “SO?”
I detest Cheney but that’s kinda stretching what he was saying. On the surface, he’s saying that U.S. military policy shouldn’t be chained by the American people’s beliefs, because people will change decisions many times while never reaching a consensus, and that could damage the Americans’ ability to win a war.
Still doesn’t mean I agree with that sentiment though. Ironically, these two events are intertwined. Get rid of the gas tax to make gas prices seem lower which encourages Americans to buy more SUVs to use more gas; then continue the war in Iraq to increase domestic (i.e. Halliburton) gas industry dominance. Iraqis without oil derricks or with oil derricks controlled by the United States can’t drill for oil, after all…
No, that’s not stretch at all. Here’s a link to the conversation with Cheney:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4481249&page=1
I don’t remember it happening in a while, but several times in the past there’s been a successful push on the part of the trucking industry to increase the max weight for big trucks. Interestingly, an ally in these moves has been the roadbuilders. Wonder why. Meanwhile the tax payers slumber on.
Driver B uses half the fuel as driver A, and thus pays half the amount in fuel taxes. Yet, driver B still uses the road just a much as driver A. Is that fair to driver A?
One beneficial side-effect of this imbalance is that it forces driver A to pay for more of the damaging externalities caused by their fossil fuel consumption such as increased incidences of lung cancer, heart disease and childhood asthma among the general populous.
@vento97: “rather than re-invest in our transportation infrastructure”
Agreed. That should certainly be a part of any new provision.
I guess it also depends on what you expect from gas taxes. Raising the tax will have the effect of decreasing consumption, but is this really a fair and reasonable way of achieving conservation? Is conservation supposed to be the purpose of the tax? Like it or not, America has invested a huge sum in automobile infrastructure and as a result, many have no other alternative means of transportation. Really high gas taxes would be regressive and wrong. That said, people may not have a choice with their need to drive, but they do have a choice of what to drive. Rather than raising the cost of gas for everybody, I would propose that we have a registration surcharge/credit for each class of vehicle. Say mid size SUV’s have a cutoff of 17mpg. If your choice of vehicle returned 16, you would have a yearly surcharge of $xxx. Should your SUV choice in that category exceed the cutoff, you could be eligible for a registration credit. This would do way more to encourage efficient design that CAFE would ever do.
Toll roads are perfectly defensible in theory because the (primary) beneficiary is also the payer. Then there’s practice: politics gums up the works. In Oklahoma, the Turner Turnpike was “paid-off” many years ago. But it is such a cash cow its revenues are used to float bonds for turnpikes that could never otherwise be financed. It will never be “free.” (As if such a thing is possible in reality.)
Also, again I will plead for keeping gratuitous political comments off this site. TTAC is supposed to be about cars, and irrelevant political remarks can easily bump a discussion thread off the bridge. As for that YouTube clip: After the reporter responds by saying “So you don’t care what the American people think?” Cheney replies, “No, I think you can’t be blown off course by fluctuations in public opinion.” Lincoln could have said the same thing in 1862, 1863 or 1864.
Raising the tax will have the effect of decreasing consumption, but is this really a fair and reasonable way of achieving conservation?
It’s not a matter of fairness. It’s really the only way to do it.
There are only two fundamental ways to get people to consume less: raising the price of consumption, and rationing it. That’s it.
You can ask people to consume less, but without incentives to consume less, they probably won’t modify their behavior. They are more motivated by the stick (paying more money) than they are by the carrot (being a good citizen.)
Rationing is a mistake. If you ration it, you would need a law enforcement mechanism to police it. The inevitable results would be the endless pursuit of loopholes, and the creation of a black market.
If you raise the price, consumers will respond to the higher prices by buying less of it. Because they can quantify the expense, consumers will figure out ways to reduce usage on their own, without any further management efforts by the government. Because money is a scarce good, people will figure out ways to use it more efficiently; increasing the fuel tax is effectively the same as giving them less money to spend on fuel. Not everyone will respond equally, but across the population, consumption levels will predictably decline.
I still feel that there should be a tax based on your “road impact” which includes fuel economy, vehicle weight, vehicle use, etc. That way people that drive a Hummer H2 all pay WAY more taxes than people driving a SMART. How fast do you think drivers that don’t really need a guzzling SUV will ditch their huge dumb pseudo-station wagons?
Make Gasoline pricing to match what someone drives-you drive a Hummer; you pay $6.00 a gallon for gas when you put in your personalized card first identifying what you drive. You drive a fuel efficient vechicle that gets 35-40 mpg, then you pay 1.50 a gallon.The surplus over what gasoline REALLY costs at the moment goes to the highway infrastructure. The ONLY way that people are going to consume less Gasoline is for SOMETHING to make people use less. You want a huge 10 mpg SUV-then pay the price to over-consume. Why should everyone be penalized for those who use the most gas ? And while toll roads sound like an easy solution it’s only a stop-gap solution compared to opening oil fields in North America for exploration. Environmentalists have controlled oil exploration for far too long-we have more than enough oil deposits in the US alone to vastly expand our oil reserves; and making roads toll roads is the answer ? The U.S. Geological Survey has reported the Bakken Formation in Western North Dakota could hold more than 400 billion barrels of recoverable oil; so why isn’t it being recovered ? Because Oil interests want over-inflated Gasoline prices at the pump. And we just sit back and allow these things to happen-enough is enough
I kind of agree with SAAB95JD. I would like to see a reasonable attempt by someone knowledgeable to quantify the total contribution to road wear as a function of vehicle weight, miles driven etc. Then attempt to quantify negative externalities resulting from gas use. And while we’re being all rational and such, why not try estimating costs of such things as increased number and severity of accidents, as well as slower moving traffic, due to excessively large vehicles reducing sightlines, being slower to maneuver, reducing bikes ability to use the ‘third’ lane etc.
While I doubt such a thing will have much effect on lobby money addicted politicos and the gullibles who keep lapping up their every word and empty promise, some of us would find a reasonable estimate of who is truly subsidizing who interesting nevertheless.
Lincoln could have said the same thing in 1862, 1863 or 1864.
But he didn’t have Keith Olbermann or liberal bloggers blathering to a nationwide audience and airing heavily edited clips every day.
A 5,000 SUV that gets 15mpg does more damage to the road than a 2,500 35mpg car does. A gas consumption tax can provide a transative use tax.
The best idea I’ve heard to date for reducing US energy usage came from a UC Berkeley professor whose name I have forgotten.
His proposal is increase the tax on oil (or gasoline), but do it consistently and gradually.
For example, tax oil at $0.10/bbl this month, then $0.20/bbl next month, then $0.30/bbl two months hence, etc.
This gives people and businesses time to adjust their lives and operations to the new reality. The tax doesn’t really start biting hard for several years, but incrementing it every month keeps peoples’ attention on it.
Coupled with this increase in energy taxation is a simultaneous crediting and phaseout of income taxes, so that peoples’ tax burden remains approximately constant during the transition period.
As for that YouTube clip: After the reporter responds by saying “So you don’t care what the American people think?” Cheney replies, “No, I think you can’t be blown off course by fluctuations in public opinion.” Lincoln could have said the same thing in 1862, 1863 or 1864.
It’s easy for Cheney not to care what Americans think because most of us are not directly affected by the Iraq war. Very different with the Civil War. There were a total of about 25 million Americans at the time, roughly 3 million served in the two armies–that’s one out of 8.3, which means few families would have been spared, and an estimated 618,000 died. If we even had a draft now, the Iraq war would have ended by now because Americans wouldn’t have tolerated having their kids drafted.
Finally, comparing Lincoln and Cheney is like comparing (insert your favorite car here) with a Chevy Aveo. As much as he had to resist public opinion during that war, Lincoln was not the sort of person who would have said FU to public opinion. Lincoln had both amazing political skills and a level of human decency which is seldom seen in a modern national politician. I highly recommend the biography, Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Chuck,
Thanks for the map. Yeah, I do remember that Madison Park area, and others and they are gorgeous. I lived about half a mile west of the old Floating Bridge, which was the only one when I lived there. David
Make Gasoline pricing to match what someone drives-you drive a Hummer; you pay $6.00 a gallon for gas when you put in your personalized card first identifying what you drive. You drive a fuel efficient vechicle that gets 35-40 mpg, then you pay 1.50 a gallon.
Sorry, but this is totally unworkable. This would be impossible to enforce, and would only inspire minimum wage gas station attendants to accept favors from the owners of gas guzzlers. The idea of bribing guys for a cheap fillup is about as good as it sounds, and expecting gas jockey to act as cops (“You in the Suburban trying use that Prius ID card — back away from the pump!!!”) is no better.
One of the advantages of fuel taxes in their presence form is that they are easy to tabulate and collect. There is very little room for gamesmanship and minimal opportunity for evasion, and enforcing the collections effort is cost effective. Trying to tax everyone differently at the pump would be an absolute nightmare for everyone, and would help no one.
If the goal is to stop people from buying SUV’s, then the best times to do it are at purchase time, and again at registration. Of course, make it too costly to register vehicles, and you’ll end up with a lot of unregistered trucks on the road, along with a lot of fake registration documents, so you can only do so much with this.
Re Eric Stepans, 4 above me: the Berkeley prof might have been Dan Kammen. I agree it’s a very good proposal. Also agree w/ PCH101 directly above me–excellent comments.
Again, raising the price punishes those who drive efficient choices as well as those who choose guzzlers. Why should the guy who has to drive to work and selects a high mileage vehicle get nailed along with the Excursion driver? The registration surcharge would encourage buying efficient. It is also easy to implement requiring virtually no additional effort. You have to register at the point of purchase when buying new, so there would be a great incentive to have vehicles efficient enough to miss the penalty. As for illegal registrations, or none at all, make the fine for such activity seriously stiff as a deterrent. (same should be done for intentional uninsured driving IMO). Being forced to sell your rig to cough up a $5k fine for falsified documents should do the trick.
The real idea here is tracking. The Congestion Pricing Tax they are attempting to pass in NY has at core a system to in real time track law abiding citizens. A gas tax cannot do this.
While I don’t have too many tinfoil hats, there are those who think this “would be for our own good”. I respectfully dissent.
Why should the guy who has to drive to work and selects a high mileage vehicle get nailed along with the Excursion driver?
It depends upon the issue that you are trying to address.
If the goal is to reduce fuel consumption, then the most direct way to do that is to reduce the usage of fuel by raising the price. Making things more expensive reduces their use.
From a social policy standpoint, if reducing fuel usage is our primary motivation for creating laws and taxes, then we really shouldn’t care how individuals choose to save fuel, just so long as they figure out ways to save it. If they save it by driving a smaller car, let them. If they save it by taking the bus, let them. If they save it by walking, let them. Our interest should be primarily in results, because our goals are ultimately results based.
In this scenario, we really don’t care how they save fuel, just so long as they use less fuel. How everyone gets there is his own business. If someone with an SUV uses 400 gallons per fuel per year, that is better for meeting our social policy goals than someone who drives a Corolla who uses 500 gallons per year.
The fuel tax is the most direct method of creating linkage between behavior and results. Its main problem is a practical one — no politician in the US who wants to keep his or her job will ever support a tax set at a level high enough to impact consumer behavior.
The never ending chant to “punish” SUV drivers by any means possible is really getting old. These environazi liberals would all scream bloody murder, (and it would get you warned and banned from TTAC) if you started hatin on gays, blacks, islamists or any other minority, at just a small fraction of the never ending HATE spewed out towards people that choose to drive an SUV. I don’t give a damn WHAT reason the enviro freaks use, a persons personal choice of vehicle is NONE of thier F___ing business. Quite frankly, it gets disgusting… and I have a hard time understanding why it is tolerated by TTAC.
The personal “choice” of a person to drive a fuel hog doesn’t just effect themselves, it effects everyone. Visibility on our roads is way down thanks to all the monster trucks. Fuel costs are up for everyone thanks to the huge consumption of those driving gas hogs.
From a road wear & damage standpoint the difference between a 5000lbs SUV or a 3000 lb car is a rounding error relative to Trucks.
The wear on the road is the cube of the vehicle weight.
95% of the damage comes from heavily loaded trucks. When you have a loaded dump truck piling on 50-65k lbs. in a 25 ft span or a 80k semi with a 40 ft span is where the real damage happens.
SUVs do impose externalities on the rest of the motoring public. They reduce visibility and increase congestion for all. They have sparked something of a vehicle weight arms race where you a less safe in a run of the mill 3500lbs. car than you were a decade ago.
As far a picking on them for their poor fuel consumption its not fair. All cars have backslid on fuel consumption in the past 20 years. Almost all cars have significantly more engine than required to perform their given role.
Heck Edmunds did a tongue in cheek comparison a little while back of a Ferrari 308 versus a Kia Sedona minivan. The minivan has more power than the Prancing horse.
Toll Roads = Toll Booths, which wastes fuel due to large numbers of vehicles stopping, then accelerating like mad to get back into the flow of traffic, sometimes (as in the case of I-294 around Chicago) to pay an 80-cent toll every 10 miles or so.
Very wasteful, and pollution-producing — more of this can’t be good.
Solution? Get an “EZ Pass” so that your travel can be billed and monitored.
Just raise the gas tax, but allow low-income people a rebate.
Reduced congestion? Since when was that the point of federal gas taxes?
Gasoline taxes have nearly always been promoted and justified as a means of paying for road construction and maintenance — that’s certainly been the case in the past. That happens to make her statement perfectly sensible, so I’m not sure where your shock and amazement come from. Perhaps you were living in England when gas taxes have actually been raised in this country.
The idea of taxing gasoline in order to reduce consumption is a pretty new idea for Americans, if that’s what you’re thinking of. And even in Europe, high gasoline taxes originated long before high oil prices and environmentalism — they started as a means to limit oil imports so as to fend off trade deficits in the era of the gold standard (when countries stupidly bounced gold bricks back and forth to each other depending on their trade balances).
Also, FWIW, most drivers may not like tolls but economists love the idea, as they directly assign the costs of roads to those who actually benefit from them. It’s not a stupid idea. And as far as I know, cabinet secretaries aren’t constitutionally banned from merely talking about things that may be politically unpopular during dinner conversations.
The governistas don’t give a good two sh*ts about saving the environment as much as they care about keeping the cow (taxpayer) milked! As consumption goes down, we the people, pay less to the tax mafia. They have to maintain their equity stake in our pay checks.
I really have to believe that at some point in time, we will be working half of our lives just to pay the tax man.
@ Wolven – So you think people who dislike SUVs are racists or neo nazis? Wow – you just shot down any credibility you had. But thanks for the laugh!
mykeliam,
Just wanted to point out that if you make anywhere near the average income, the tax man (government) ALREADY takes well over half of it. The taxes you see are just the tip of the iceberg. It’s all the taxes buried in the base price of everything you buy that you’re missing.
@ jaje,
Anyone that hates a person because of their personal choice of vehicle is EXACTLY the same as someone who hates because of skin color, hair color, ethnicity, choice of clothing, so forth and so on… And hating a machine requires about the same IQ as hating a rock, way below childish.
These environazi liberals would all scream bloody murder,
So Wolven, if liberals are all environazis in your book, how should liberals label people like you so that they can dismiss your rantings with a wave of the hand instead of listening to what you have to say? And how will this labeling illuminate any policy questions and further intelligent discussion on TTAC?
You mean under this proposal, the driver of a Corvette ZR-1 would be taxed the same amount for going the same distance at the same time on the same road as I would be taxed driving my Prius?
The horror, the horror.
RedStapler: They have sparked something of a vehicle weight arms race where you a less safe in a run of the mill 3500lbs. car than you were a decade ago.
Vehicles are getting heavier because of consumer and government demands for more crashworthiness, along with consumer demands for more refinement (i.e., less noise, vibration and harshness).
Those require stronger structures (not to mention more air bags), and unless car makers use exotic materials that add cost (both to the purchase price and to accident repair costs, which will drive up insurance costs), those stronger structures will be heavier.
Also, air conditioning, power door locks and power windows are pretty much standard on Focuses, Corollas and Civics.
When I was growing up, a Pinto or Corolla was considered well-equipped if it had a radio and an automatic transmission, and only Cadillacs, Lincolns, Olds Ninety-Eights, Buick Electras and Chrysler Imperials and New Yorkers could be expected to have power windows, door locks and seats.
So Wolven, if liberals are all environazis in your book, how should liberals label people like you so that they can dismiss your rantings with a wave of the hand instead of listening to what you have to say? And how will this labeling illuminate any policy questions and further intelligent discussion on TTAC?
First, while it could be construed as vague, the statement began with the word THESE… i.e. reffering to the people that are relentlessly expressing their hatred of SUV’s and the people that drive them.
As to how we should label people, how about first respecting peoples freedom to choose what they wish to drive without hurling a never ending stream of derogatory comments towards them?
If people that dare drive a vehicle that liberals don’t like are going to be subjected to all the “gas guzzling, bloated, unneeded, unnecessary, ego enhancing, phallic symbol, world destroying, child killing, efficient car crushing monstrocities, etc., etc.”, what further need do the liberals have for a label?
As to “how will this labeling further intelligent discussion on TTAC?”, perhaps you could help me understand how the pointless hatin on SUV’s is furthering intelligent discussion on TTAC?
Personally, I believe the level of intelligent discussion would rise dramatically as soon as the anti-SUV crowd quits trying to IMPOSE their personal religion on everyone else.
As to how we should label people, how about first respecting peoples freedom to choose what they wish to drive without hurling a never ending stream of derogatory comments towards them?
You have a right to have your preferences, and others have a right to dislike your preferences. That’s what freedom is all about.
You really put yourself out on a weak limb when you try to compare a dislike of a given vehicle choice to racism. Nobody chose to be black, Hispanic, Asian or a female, but every SUV owner made a conscious effort to become one.
If you like SUV’s and those who love them, then you’d be more convincing if you’d defend them based upon their merits. Still, not everyone is going to agree with you, and you’ll just have to learn to deal with it.
@ Wolven
Are you the SUV owners of america president? If not then you must be a client. Drink that kool aid!