What follows is my response from the last campaign to a situation that required two sessions to rectify. Why did a matter of such concern to the public take so long to resolve?


ABUSER FEES

Or, as they are called in the new Code section

"CIVIL REMEDIAL FEES"

Are you one of the more than 175,000 Virginia residents who have expressed their dissatisfaction or objection to to the recent transportation bill that is supposed to raise funds for highway maintenance that heavily penalizes Virginia drivers but lets out of state drivers go scot-free?


I am among those 175,000 who oppose the law for many reasons. For one thing, it is unconstitutional to impose one punishment for one group or class of persons and to impose a different punishment, or no punishment at all, on different class of persons who commit the same offense. My second major objection is that it is not the best way to raise revenue for highway maintenance. A one cent raise in the gasoline tax would produce the same amount of revenue, would be a hardship on no one, would let those who use the roads pay for them, and out of state drivers who use our roads would share the cost. I expressed these sentiments in a recent letter to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, which I am including on this Web site, or you can check the RTD editorial section for Sunday Sept 2.


Letter appearing in the September 2, 2007 Richmond Times Dispatch:

NOTE: The letter has been formatted here for better presentation on a Web page. Emphases have been added for that purpose.


I want to thank the Times-Dispatch for allowing candidates to offer their comments on House Bill 3202, the civil remedies bill -- affectionately referred to as the abuser-fee law.


More than 174,000 people have voiced their opposition to the law by signing an online petition. There has been an avalanche of letters to the editor opposing the law. It is the topic of conversation wherever you go. It has been called excessive, confusing, unfair, outrageous, unjust, and ill-advised -- and those are just the comments that can be printed.


I agree with all those descriptions. The law also definitely is unconstitutional. It violates the principle of equal treatment under the law by establishing one punishment for one class of persons and a different punishment for another class of persons who commit the very same offense.


How did such a law come about? Simply because of the mindset against taxes of any kind, by certain legislators. But those legislators' explanations treat voters as unintelligent. Fines are not meant to raise revenue, but to discourage and punish unacceptable behavior. Legislators try to dupe us by saying the purpose was not to raise revenue, but they earmarked the fines for a different program than fines usually go to. It just so happens that the fines go to the program they have been crying about for the past five years.


Voters are intelligent enough to know if there is an immediate need for funds in a crucial area, such as our road system, there must be a reasonable way to raise the funds. Larry Sabato said, "The blinders were on for the obvious solution: the user fee known as the gas tax." Legislators missed a golden opportunity to pass a reasonable law because they did not want to upset voters. Instead, they passed an unfair and ridiculous law that has upset nearly everyone.


A raise in the gasoline tax was the best solution for many reasons:


I oppose the abuser-fee law and will work to repeal it.


William K. Grogan


And remember Grogan's Law:


"The COST of government is directly proportional to the AMOUNT SPENT to obtain an office."

Grogan's Law