BY DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI NEWS AND COMMENTARY

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, WEDNESDAY AUG. 17, 2016) — Tricia Farley-Bouvier, from whereof dost thou cometh?

This is the question of most everyone outside the Kool-Aid drinkers of the local Democrat Party. They know the answer. THE PLANET, alone among local media, knows as well. Everyone else wonders why TFB agreed to sponsor of a state house bill that would have penalized Pittsfield drivers already reeling from over-taxation and under-representation.

How could a nominal “representative” return to Pittsfield with a straight slip and tell citizens a paraphrased, “The vehicle mileage tax (VMT) will be good for you. Trust me.” As The Springfield Republican editorialized, “A Pittsfield Democrat, Tricia Farley-Bouvier, supports the pilot program. But why do a pilot program for an inherently flawed idea?”

Why, Trish, why?

It’s not so hard to answer, actually.

TFB Gets Paid $90 to Drive to Work

The inimitable Howie Carr wrote of TFB this week in a column for The Boston Herald:

But getting back to the VMT, which is now sidelined temporarily, … it will be back, count on it.

On Beacon Hill, you can never keep a bad idea down.

They were pushing another angle to the VMT — congestion pricing. In other words, if you drove during rush hours, it would cost you still more. Seriously. Why do people drive during rush hour? Because they have jobs. Which means they’re already picking up the freight for all the freeloaders. Aren’t the Democrats supposed to love “working people”?

Another thing I’ve noticed about these per diems. The higher they are for any rep, the more likely the statesman is pushing new taxes on the rest of us. The VMT’s prime sponsor was state Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier (D-Pittsfield).

She gets $90 a day for driving to work. Tax free, by the way. Plus, since she lives more than 50 miles from Boston, the $150-a-day write-off on federal income taxes for every day the Legislature is in session.

——– 000 ——–

Do you think the hegemony Democrats hold in the senate (34 to 6) and house (126 to 34) have anything to do with the bill? Thank God the governor is a Republican. Charlie Baker vetoed the measure.

The VMT would have taxed drivers for every mile driven. The legislature claimed the VMTwould be an experiment. If successful, it would replace the gasoline tax. As Carr wrote, how much you want to bet that the experiment would have been a wild success and installed permanently?

Actually, a gas tax is fairer, since it penalizes drivers of gas guzzlers. The VMT would encourage more people to buy these indulgent behemoths. Hello Humvee, goodbye Hyundai. The gasoline tax has driven many to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles and even electric-gas hybrids or all-electric. A VMT, which would penalize miles and not fuel inefficiency, would encourage motorists to “go big.”

How would the state monitor mileage? Would they only tax miles driven in Massachusetts? How would the tax be collected? What about concerns of privacy? These and many other questions arise. TFB was at a loss to answer.

Return of … Son of … Bride of …

Okay, so the VMT is dead for now. If TBF wins re-election, count on its return, like Frankenstein and Dracula in the old Universal movies. If they died at the end of the flick, no problem. They would be back again in Return of …, Son of …, Bride of ... and Spinster Aunt of … .

The tax burdens Western Mass. drivers especially because of their lack of access to reliable and affordable public transportation and longer commutes to work. So why did she do it? As one former city official told THE PLANET, “Maybe she’s that stupid.”

THE PLANET disagrees.

TFB let it slip out between the lines why she sponsored this measure when she said, “This program would be a smarter user fee.” Keep reading. When asked to explain, she said “the bill is difficult to explain” because the program would be experimental. Finally, she called the idea “progressive.”

Where’s the Uh-Oh Lady when we need her?

“Progressive?” Translation = “W’re gonna Big Government your ass to death, Mary Jane and Joe K.”

Add up these words, and you get your tea-leaf answer: The Bosses ordered her to sponsor it.

As THE PLANET has shared, TFB is, like Adam Hinds for senate, The Suits’ Chosen Ones.

Michael Bloomberg, running against TFB for the Dem nomination, told THE PLANET, “If a representative from Boston proposed and sponsored a pilot for a vehicle mileage tax I would not be in the least bit shocked, there are merits to this for big cities. But in Pittsfield we elect a representative to represent our district. In Pittsfield we have experienced continued job loss forcing many local residents to commute long distances. Our neighbor districts are some of the most rural in the state, what message are we sending to them when we not only support this, but actually sponsor this bill? I’m sure Rep. Farley-Bouvier sponsored this with the best of intentions, but I don’t think our priorities should be how can we raise more tax dollars from drivers. Our priority, my priority, is how can we bring good jobs back to Pittsfield and how can we better spend the tax dollars we already take in.”

Bloomberg is sure of TFB’s “best intentions?” That’s a canyon’s more certitude that THE PLANET can muster.

Plans such as the VMT are what you get when you send stooges to Beacon Hill instead of representatives. TFB? All seriousness aside, Pittsfield and environs are getting tired of sending WTF to office.

—————————————————————————————————-

“Kick a buck.” — George Kennedy, Cool Hand Luke.

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

LOVE TO ALL.

The views expressed in the comment section or opinions published within the text other than those of PLANET VALENTI are not those of PLANET VALENTI or endorsed in any way by PLANET VALENTI; this website reserves the right to remove any comment which violates its Rules of Conduct, and it is not liable for the consequences of any posted comment as provided in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and PLANET VALENTI’s terms of service.