As gas prices create more pain at the pump for the average citizen, politicians are looking for ways to be magnanimous and act like they care. Their efforts range from temporary reduction in gas taxes to stimulus payments. None of them will address the underlying problems or causes of high gas prices and inflation in general.

California governor Gavin Newsom announced a $400 payment to be issued to California residents who own cars. The $400 would be issued only up to two cars per person, so people like Jay Leno and LeBron James will get short shafted. It's unclear whether or not people with electric vehicles will receive the payment. I'm sure they will as a reward for being environmentally conscious. Never mind that such payments are inflationary and will damage the economy further.

Other states are reducing, temporarily, the amount of taxes collected on a gallon of gasoline. California is actually doing it also. But again it is a temporary "solution" that does not address the underlying causes.

Of course the politicians do not want to address the underlying causes, rather they want to use this opportunity to push us towards electric vehicles. And someday electric vehicles might be a viable option, but they are not viable for many people. The high cost of the vehicle is prohibitive for many especially in the lower income brackets. Neither are they a realistic alternative for long haul truckers, farmers, or people who live in rural areas.

But I want you to consider something else: what fuel taxes are used for. Maintenance of roads is paid for by the taxes you pay at the pump. It brings up two interesting points. First, people who drive electric vehicles are not contributing their fair share to the maintenance of the roads. Second, what is going to be the source of road maintenance funds when more people switch to electric vehicles?

Could the politicians decide to tax electricity? Of course they could and it's likely they will add a small amount to the price of electricity because you can charge your electric vehicle at home rather than at a public location where it would be much easier to begin charging people an additional fee for road maintenance. But that would of course require taxing electricity usage that was completely unrelated to charging a motor vehicle.

The other option, which on the surface might sound reasonable, is to tax each individual automobile for the amount of miles they drive each year. This might seem to be a reasonable option that treats each person fairly based upon their usage of the roads. But not so fast, Moriarty. This so-called solution has problems similar to taxing electricity in general.

Truckers drive on average 45,000 miles a year with some logging 100,000 miles. Total miles driven done each year by truckers hauling goods in this country is 140 billion. Adding $0.10 per mile cost would increase their expenses by $14 billion a year. That of course will be passed along to the consumer.

As we also know any usage tax that is placed upon anyone is also regressive. Those people in lower income brackets would pay a higher percentage of their monthly income in increased taxes. it also unfairly targets people in rural communities or those that choose to live in the suburbs while working in the city, especially if public transportation is not a viable option.

But that may reveal the ultimate goal of the progressives. They want to create a massive public transportation system that will eliminate the need for privately owned automobiles. but don't believe that they will build a mass transit system to serve those of us that live in rural areas. They want to bring us all into large urban centers where we are easier to control. Where it is easier to assign U.S. jobs, housing, transportation options, and more. Making it more expensive for us to own and use our own methods of transportation is just one step towards that goal.