Americans Would Pay More to Own Cars Under Republican Proposal
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Republicans serving on the House Transportation Committee on Tuesday unveiled a new spending bill, which, if passed, would implement an annual fee of $20 for most car owners.
Why It Matters
The GOP bill would shape the federal government's funding of transportation programs while cutting key initiatives designed to combat climate change. The new annual fee would provide more revenue for the Federal Highway Administration, which oversees construction and maintenance of the country's highway system.
What To Know
The bill would require a $20 fee for any "covered motor vehicle" that is not an electric or hybrid. Americans who own those would be required to pay $200 or $100, respectively.
Any state that does not comply would lose some federal funding. The fees will be increased "on an annual basis to account for the rate of inflation each fiscal year in accordance with the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers of the Bureau of Labor Statistics" if signed into law.
Gridlock snarls I-5 in Los Angeles on November 23, 2022.
Gridlock snarls I-5 in Los Angeles on November 23, 2022.The measure would take effect in October 2031, according to the bill. It would raise $50 billion for highway repairs within 10 years, reported Reuters.
House Transportation Committee Chairman Representative Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, explained during a hearing Tuesday morning why the committee believes the fee is necessary.
"Let me be clear. Republicans support investing in infrastructure, but our highway funding system is founded upon the principle that roadway users must pay for their use of the system. Failing to restructure our surface transportation funding sources will have severe consequences for our nation's transportation system and the American people," Graves said.
He continued, "That is why tomorrow, as part of reconciliation, the committee will take the first step towards [Highway Trust Fund] solvency and stability. We will vote on a proposal to leverage existing state vehicle registration systems and assess a new fee of $200 on electric vehicles (EVs), $100 on hybrid vehicles and a $20 fee on most other passenger vehicles. If successful, these new user fees would represent the first new funding streams into the Highway Trust Fund in more than 30 years."
When reached by Newsweek for further comment, a committee spokesperson pointed to Graves' earlier statement.
At the moment, the fund is financed primarily through fuel taxes, which EV owners don't pay.
What People Are Saying
Representative David Rouser, North Carolina Republican who serves as highways and transit subcommittee chairman, said during the hearing: "Without a serious solution, our state, local, and private sector partners risk losing a reliable funding source critical to project delivery and our national economy. While General Fund bailouts have offered short-term relief at the expense of the individual American taxpayer, they do not address the long-term challenges that plague the Highway Trust Fund."
Conservative radio host Dana Loesch wrote on X: "This is the proposal that @chiproytx just told me about on air. It is one of the stupidest, big gov proposals (next to expanding welfare to pay women to have babies instead of just cutting taxes and regs) that I've seen in recent years."
What Happens Next
The bill will be considered by the GOP-controlled House of Representatives. It's unclear if it has enough support to pass.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
35 minutes ago
- USA Today
4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts
4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts Show Caption Hide Caption Biden criticizes Trump administration's handling of Social Security Social Security overhaul sparks criticism from Biden over service disruptions, layoffs and automation as Trump defends changes as efficiency. Straight Arrow News Social Security is an important source of income for millions of Americans, but the program has a serious financial problem. Costs have increased faster than revenues in recent years because the aging population is growing more quickly than the working population. As a result, the trust fund, the financial account that pays benefits, is on track to be depleted within a decade. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the trust fund will be exhausted in 2034. That would eliminate one source of revenue (i.e., interest earned on trust fund reserves), and the remaining tax revenues would only cover 77% of scheduled payments. That means a 23% benefit cut would be necessary in 2035. Fortunately, the lawmakers in Washington have several years to find a better solution. Here are four Social Security changes that could prevent deep, across-the-board benefit cuts. 1. Apply the Social Security payroll tax to income above $400,000 Social Security is primarily funded by a dedicated payroll tax, which takes 6.2% of wages from workers and employers. But some income is exempt from the payroll tax. Specifically, the maximum taxable earnings limit is $176,100 in 2025. Income above that threshold is not taxed by Social Security. Importantly, the Social Security program is projected to run a $23 trillion deficit over the next 75 years as it's strained by shifting demographics. But the deficit could be slashed by applying the payroll tax to more income. For instance, including income above $400,000 would eliminate 60% of the 75-year funding shortfall, says the University of Maryland. 2. Gradually increase the Social Security payroll tax rate to 6.5% over six years Under current law, the Social Security payroll tax rate is 6.2% for workers and their employers. But gradually raising that figure would eliminate a portion of the long-term deficit. For example, increasing thetax rate by 0.05% annually over a six-year period would eliminate 15% of the 75-year funding shortfall, according to the University of Maryland. Now that I've discussed two possible changes, let's step back and look at the big picture. There are basically three ways to resolve Social Security's financial problems: (1) increase revenue, (2) reduce costs or (3) some combination of the first two options. The changes discussed so far would increase revenue, but the next two changes would cut benefits. However, they are more subtle cuts than the 23% across-the-board reduction that would follow trust fund depletion. 3. Gradually increase full retirement age to 68 by 2033 Workers are eligible for retirement benefits at age 62, but they are not entitled to their full benefit — also called the primary insurance amount (PIA) — until full retirement age (FRA). Anyone that claims before full retirement age receives a smaller payout, meaning they get less than 100% of their PIA. FRA is currently defined as 67 years old for workers born in 1960 or later, but raising the figure would reduce the long-term deficit. For instance, increasing FRA to 68 years old by 2033, meaning it would apply to workers born in 1965 or later, would eliminate 15% of the 75-year funding shortfall, according to the University of Maryland. 4. Reduce benefits for retired workers with income in the top 20% Social Security benefits are determined as percentages of two bend points. Specifically, income from the 35 highest-paid years of work is adjusted for inflation and converted to a monthly figure called the average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) amount. The AIME is then run through a formula that uses two bend points to determine the PIA for each worker. Modifying the second (highest) bend point would eliminate a portion of the long-term deficit by reducing benefits for high earners. For instance, the University of Maryland estimates that reducing benefits for individuals with income in the top 20% could reduce the 75-year funding deficit by 11%. Here's the big picture: The four changes I've discussed would eliminate 101% of Social Security's $23 trillion funding shortfall, which would prevent across-the-board benefit cuts in 2035. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Don't underestimate Donald Trump — he and his goals will survive without Elon Musk
Among other things last week, President Trump played host to Germany's chancellor in the Oval Office, issued a travel ban against 12 countries whose citizens routinely violate their visas, had a 'very positive' conversation about tariffs with Chinese leader Xi Jinping and twisted arms to push his 'one big beautiful bill' across the congressional finish line. Meanwhile, a stream of good economic news sent stock markets higher, with a jobs report beating expectations while inflation fell and wages rose. Oh, and Trump also had a brutal falling out with Elon Musk. Advertisement 3 Elon Musk attends news conference with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House, Friday, May 30, 2025, in Washington. AP No need to guess which of the above dominated the news. Bad news travels fast and predictions of calamity win eyeballs, but I've learned a few things knowing and covering Trump for a decade. Rule No. 1 is always to remember to take a deep breath when it feels as if the end of his days is near. Advertisement Whatever the sensational event of the moment, the smart play has been to realize that this too shall pass — and to feel sorry for cats because they only have nine lives. Rule No. 2 is to be prepared for the next big end of days event, which is coming soon, and to expect another one after that. The 47th president is a human machine full of pride and plans, but only rookies still attempt to define him by a single event. If a stream of nasty Democrat prosecutions and threats of jail didn't derail him, the end of a partnership with the world's richest man won't either. Advertisement While Trump often appears to be courting disaster, reports of his imminent political demise still remain premature. That's not to say he is impervious, only that he is the closest thing to it on the American scene today. The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. Advertisement So long, Elon, it was nice knowing ya. Need for speed Another thing to remember about Trump is that he's in a hurry to get big things done and is determined not to get sidetracked by anything. He's well aware of how Dems used the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax to win the House in the middle of the first term and showed no compunction about impeaching him over a nothing-burger phone call. He's not going to squander his second chance with a GOP-controlled Congress to engage in wild goose chases or pout over setbacks, even when they involve an important ally such as Musk. The clock in his head is always ticking. 3 The Musk-Trump feud sparked the day after the DOGE head left the White House. NY Post Despite his occasional talk of a possible third term, he knows that's not going to happen. Besides the constitutional prohibition, the reality is that he turns 79 next Saturday, and the last thing Trump wants to do is stay too long at the party and repeat Joe Biden's decrepit decline in office. Thus, Trump's need for speed is what makes the Musk divorce important. It ends, or at least interrupts, an iconic alliance that was good for both men and was paying big dividends to America. Whether Musk is right that his support and his extensive financial contributions made the difference in last year's campaign is impossible to know. But there is no doubt that the addition of Musk, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard to the Trump train broadened his appeal well beyond traditional GOP circles and MAGA diehards. Advertisement Consider, for example, that Kamala Harris foolishly tried to counter Trump's moves by adding former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney to her team and claiming they were evidence she had bipartisan appeal. The advantage to Trump wasn't a close call. As for Musk, most critical was his commitment to DOGE and to the idea that spending cuts are not only possible but essential to the nation's future. He used his soapbox to set a new standard for Washington, even if the results fell short of the promise. Advertisement Whatever started his break with Trump, it was complete when he attacked the tax cut and spending legislation the president helped to craft, saying at one point, 'I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don't know if it can be both.' No damage to agenda The oddity is that the break came after Musk officially left his temporary DOGE post, complete with a happy sendoff in the Oval Office where Trump praised him and gave him a ceremonial key to the White House. Given the nasty nature of the rupture, attempts by others to forge a reconciliation are not likely to succeed. Yet even if the break is final, I don't believe it will do serious damage to the president's agenda, despite the hopes of media doomsayers. As even The New York Times ruefully conceded in a Saturday headline, 'Elon Musk May Be Out. But DOGE Is Just Getting Started.' Advertisement 3 President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference with Elon Musk in the Oval Office of the White House, Friday, May 30, 2025, in Washington. AP Another mistake many Trump observers are making is seeing him through the eyes of his chaotic first term. As I have noted before, Trump 2.0 is a very different person. Being on the sideline for four years served him well in that he better understood Washington, and was smarter about what he wanted to achieve and who could help him do that. Advertisement In raw political terms, Biden's spending-palooza that drove inflation to 40-year highs and the inexplicable decision to open the southern border were gifts that helped pave the way to a Trump return. And then came the brush with death from a would-be assassin's bullet in Pennsylvania. 'God spared me' I had previously arranged to interview Trump the next day on his flight to the GOP convention in Milwaukee, and to my everlasting surprise, he kept his schedule. It was during that interview that he first raised the idea of divine intervention, saying, 'I'm not supposed to be here . . . I'm supposed to be dead.' His wry sense of humor remained intact, as he noted that people were already calling the photo of him standing up, pumping his fist and shouting 'fight, fight, fight,' with his face streaked with his own blood, an 'iconic' scene. 'They're right and I didn't die,' Trump said. 'Usually you have to die to have an iconic picture.' Although he was never an especially religious man, Trump began to embrace the idea that 'God spared me for a purpose, and that purpose is to restore America to greatness.' It's a fat target for haters, but the important thing is that Trump himself believes it to be true. One result is that he is a much calmer and more gracious president. Even his demeanor last week reflected a 'what, me worry?' approach, as he demonstrated in a series of quick phone interviews with media outlets, including The Post, where he insisted he was not rattled by the blowup. His explanation was simple: Musk suffers from 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' Woof, woof, and the caravan moves on.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
San Antonio mayor live election results: Gina Ortiz Jones leads
Gina Ortiz Jones is leading the race to be San Antonio's new mayor, edging out Rolando Pablos in early election results posted Saturday. Why it matters: The mayoral election, the city's first in 16 years without an incumbent on the ballot, has evolved into an unusually partisan race for a nonpartisan seat, drawing money and influence from across the state and nation. Neither Ortiz Jones nor Pablos have held elected office before, and San Antonio has not elected a mayor who hasn't served on the City Council since Phil Hardberger in 2005. The latest: Early vote results as of 7pm Saturday showed Ortiz Jones with 52% of the vote, with 48% for Pablos. State of play: Ortiz Jones served as an Air Force undersecretary in the Biden administration and was twice the Democratic nominee for the 23rd Congressional District. Pablos is a former Texas secretary of state who has served as a senior adviser to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. During the runoff campaign, both leaned on their families' immigrant backgrounds. Ortiz Jones spoke of being raised by a single mother who immigrated from the Philippines and Pablos of his family moving from Mexico to El Paso when he was 8 years old. Follow the money: Pablos and his supporters appeared to both outraise and outspend Ortiz Jones in the runoff election, campaign finance reports show. Pablos raised nearly $333,000 and spent more than $275,000 from late April through May 28. He got a big boost from the Texas Economic Fund, a political action committee run by Abbott's former political director, which raised $1.35 million and spent over $623,000 during that time. Ortiz Jones raised nearly $249,000 and spent over $133,000 in the same period. She had help from Fields of Change, a national Democratic PAC, which spent more than $160,000 for her campaign. The big picture: The new mayor will lead San Antonio at a pivotal time, as officials seek to gain public support for a new downtown Spurs arena that could be surrounded by a sports and entertainment district. They will also lead the city through the remaining years of the Trump administration, under which San Antonio has lost millions of dollars in federal funding. The city is also expecting a budget deficit. Catch up quick: Mayor Ron Nirenberg reached his term limits after eight years in office, making him the city's longest-serving mayor since Henry Cisneros in the 1980s. San Antonio's next mayor will serve for four years after voters approved increasing term length from two years. They will work alongside several new City Council members. Flashback: Nirenberg's departure left a rare opening that drew a crowded 27-candidate field to replace him. Four sitting City Council members struggled to break through the noise as traditional backers in local elections, like the police union, sat out the first round of voting.
