The folly of abusive driver fees

Editorial / News Virginian
Published: August 5, 2007

It is difficult to feel sorry for people who flout traffic laws and put others at risk by driving recklessly or getting behind the wheel after drinking.

Leave it to lawmakers to find a way to evoke sympathy for such a group. That, so far, is the most significant accomplishment of the abusive driver fees approved earlier this year by Virginia's General Assembly.

Backers say the idea will make roads safer while allowing the Commonwealth to pull in $65 million a year for transportation projects. Opponents see the fees - ranging from $750 over three years for driving on a suspended or revoked license to $3,000 over three years for a driving-related felony - as an unfair burden on working stiffs.

Few on either side of the aisle - including Gov. Tim Kaine - anticipated the ire the fees would generate among Virginians. More than 165,000 people have signed an online petition demanding that lawmakers repeal the fees by Election Day or risk being voted out of office.

That's a potent threat with all 140 House and Senate seats up for election this fall. Support among lawmakers is waning. Kaine, a proponent of the idea, even talked last week about reimbursing drivers who pay the fees should the program be overturned.

It's clear that lawmakers didn't heed the biblical maxim about counting the cost before stumbling into this quagmire. What's also clear is that while rattled by voters' anger, the pols in Richmond still don't quite get it.

While a judge Thursday declared the fees unconstitutional and some lawmakers are tripping over one another in a race to find cover, Kaine and others are adamant about waiting until January rather than calling a special session to tackle the topic.
Getting tough on problem drivers as a matter of principle is one thing. Using fees as a way to help fuel another massive government spending program - this one for $3 billion in road projects - is another. 

Exempting out-of-staters from the fees because collecting the money simply would be too problematic demonstrates that this idea never was about principle. Instead, it is just another way for government to dip into the pockets of its people.
And the people see through it.

So-called leaders talking about reimbursements while failing to call for a special session only compounds the absurdity. If our lawmakers are so unsure of the fate of this program, they should step forward now and kill it.

Otherwise, the Commonwealth will spend the rest of the year collecting fees it will only have to pay back later, further burdening an already bloated bureaucracy.

The folly of such a scenario alone - putting aside the fees themselves - should be enough to send a few of our legislators packing on Election Day.