Response to ABATE of Illinois Transportation PAC's Federal Candidate Survey

     I wrote the following as my response to ABATE of Illinois PAC's federal candidate questionnaire, titled the "ABATE of Illinois PAC General Election Survey". ABATE of Illinois PAC is a political action group that advocates for freedom on transportation issues.

     According to Wikipedia, ABATE stands for several things, among them:

     - A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments

     - American Bikers Against Totalitarian Enactments

     - A Brotherhood Aimed Towards Education

     - American Bikers for Awareness, Training & Education

     - American Bikers Aimed Towards Education

     - American Bikers Advocating Training & Education

     To learn more about ABATE PAC, visit the following links:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_motorcyclists%27_rights_organizations

     http://abate-il.org/abatepac/reports.html

Section 1 - Helmet Laws

     Issue: Since 1986, the Illinois General Assembly has had an ongoing debate over mandatory helmet laws. The Federal Government has occasionally tried to influence this debate using studies that have been refuted by independent research. Other States have slowly expanded youth and bicycle helmet laws to create a mandate on adult riders.

     ABATE of Illinois has consistently supported the freedom of a rider to do their own research and choose for themselves by opposing all forms of mandatory helmet laws.

     Ql) Would you vote for a mandatory helmet law for all motorcyclists? Yes or no, and if yes, would you sponsor or co-sponsor the bill?

     A1) No, not at the federal level.

     Q2) Would you vote for a mandatory helmet law for minors? Yes or no, and if yes, would you sponsor or co-sponsor the bill?

     Q2a) If you answered yes, for what ages?

     A2) Yes, for minors under 16, unless the helmet hinders their mobility, visibility, and/or reaction time.

     Issue: In past years bills have contained mandatory helmet requirements for both motorcyclists and bicyclists. Some have proposed confiscating the bicycle until parents can retrieve it from the police. In past, bills have tried to fine parents, third parties or even children for not wearing a bicycle

helmet.

     Q3) Would you support a helmet law for all bicyclists? Yes or no, and if yes, would you sponsor or co-sponsor the bill?

     A3) No

     Q4) Would you vote for a bicycle helmet law for minors? Yes or no, and if yes, would you sponsor or co-sponsor the bill? If you answered yes, for what ages?

     A4) No

Section 2 - LED Accent Lighting

     Issue: Illinois legalized solid LED accent lights for motorcycles 4 years ago but unlike neighboring states, they excluded Red and Blue colors. Modern LED systems have thousands of color options which creates an enforcement issue with Red / Orange colors and Blue / Green colors. Modern systems also glow Red underneath the bike when brakes are applied. This increases visibility & safety but is technically illegal in Illinois.

     Q5) Would you support legalizing all colors for accent lighting on motorcycles in Illinois? Yes or no, and if yes, would you sponsor or co-sponsor the bill?

     A5) Yes, as long as flashing LEDs with two colors or more aren't displayed in public (as they could trigger epileptic seizures). I would sponsor legislation to that effect; it would require a constitutional amendment to become a federal law, however.

Section 3 ; Autonomous Vehicles aka “Driverless Cars”

     Issue: Companies are testing driverless cars in Illinois with no regulations, and little oversight.

These vehicles rely on sensors to see" and a computer to drive for the human occupant" The federal

government has been very slow to issue any regulations on these vehicles, instead letting states

develop individual standards. ABATE is aware of independent research showing that the collision

awareness systems used by AVs do not see motorcycles effectively. Motorcycles are not being

considered in the design or the rulemaking process. Even here in Illinois, we have had an

Autonomous Vehicle Task Force for nearly two years, yet motorcycles were not involved in the

conversation until June of this year.

     Q6) Would you support legislation requiring IDOT to include representatives from all

vulnerable road users in developing regulations for Autonomous Vehicles?

     A6) I am a candidate for federal office, so the position for which I am running, should not have the power to shape the policymaking concerning the operations of the Illinois Department of Transportation. So I am neutral to this proposal in regards to the current race in which I'm running, but If I were a candidate for statewide office, I would say yes, and that I would co-sponsor legislation to that effect.

     Q7) Would you support regulations requiring the successful completion of closed circuit testing before allowing an autonomous vehicle on Illinois roads?

      A7) Yes, if I were a candidate for statewide office. I am running for federal office and I do not support federal government involvement in policymaking concerning transportation, aside from regulating interstate commerce. The proposed legislation pertains to transportation, and to transportation commerce, but not solely to commerce. What I can say for sure is that this issue should remain in the hands of the State of Illinois, and that I as a federal legislator would not interfere with Illinois's ability to test autonomous vehicles in closed-circuit trials (on the condition that such testing does not take place on public roads straddling two states or more).

     Issue: In addition to driverless cars, some companies are trying to enable remote control of Semi

Trucks on Illinois roads. This process known as 'platooning" allows the lead vehicle of a convoy to

control several trucks behind them. ABATE believes there are very serious safety concerns with this

technology

     Q8) Would you support allowing remote controlled Semi Trucks on Illinois Roads?

     A8) Yes, but only if they complete closed-circuit testing first. I would sponsor legislation to that effect.

Section 4 - Gasoline / Ethanol Fuel Blends

     Issue: Com growers and environmentalists push for increasing Ethanol in our gasoline supply by

subsidizing higher percentage ethanol blends with tor credits. It is against federal law for motorcycles to use any blend higher than 10% (E-10). Fuel blends higher than 10% can void motorcycle warranties. E-15 pumps are not clearly labeled prohibiting motorcycle use, and some pumps are so called "blender pumps" which could cause a motorcycle to fuel with up to 4 gallons of E-15 when they thought they were fueling with E-10.

     Q9) Would you support requiring E-15 and higher blend pumps to be clearly labeled "not for

motorcycle use"?

     Q9) Yes, on the grounds that the federal government has an interest to regulate commerce in such a way that protects the consumer's right to be fully informed about the product (and protects his property rights in his vehicle).

     Q10) Would you support requiring E-l5 and higher blends to have their own dedicated pumps to

prevent accidental misfuels caused by blender pumps? 

    A10) Yes, on the grounds that the federal government has an interest to regulate commerce in such a way that protects the consumer's right to be fully informed about the product (and protects his property rights in his vehicle).

Responses Written on September 4th, 2020

Submitted on September 4th, 2020

Introduction Written on September 8th, 2020

Published on September 8th 2020

States Could Experiment with Export and Resource Backed Currencies

Written on September 15^th, 2016

 

Edited and Expanded on October 4^th, 2016

 

            Balancing government budgets, instituting Georgist taxation, and legalizing competing currencies, could potentiate new ways to back legal currencies.

Imagine that community land trusts flourish; that state and local governments had balanced budgets, based their revenue sources solely on user fees, voluntary contributions, and a Land Value Tax; and that they governments establish citizens' dividends and residents' dividends and permanent funds, funded by exports and fees on natural resources.

If each state were to produce its own official state currency, within its own boundaries, controlled by a state public bank, based on and backed by its chief export, it would provide a local alternative to the fiat paper dollar, and to gold and silver.

 

The three states whose chief export is gold - Utah, Nevada, and Massachusetts - would have only gold, silver, and paper dollars as their official legal currencies; unless they were to produce their own state currencies to compete with the $10 U.S. Golden Eagle, or legalize Bitcoin, or undertake some other measure. Perhaps two or all three of these states would adopt a single gold currency.

Four states - Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Texas - export gasoline more than anything else. North Dakota exports crude oil the most; and Montana, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania claim coal as their biggest export. Unless these eight states were to join into a single currency backed by fuel and energy exports, we would likely see them adopt "Gas Dollars", "Crude Oil Dollars", and "Coal Dollars". Gallon tanks of gas might even become media of exchange.

Six states claim food products as their chief exports; they might join into a united currency - or currency composite - based on the average of the values of food exports across all six member states. Colorado and Nebraska would have a "Beef Dollar"; South Dakota and Virginia would have a "Soy Dollar"; Iowa would have a "Corn Dollar"; Maine would have a “Lobster Dollar”; and Idaho would have a “Potato Dollar”. Well-preserved potato, corn, and soy products - as well as beef jerky - might become media of exchange under such systems.

Eighteen states export vehicles more than any other good. Alabama, Maryland, and South Carolina would have a "Car Dollar"; while Michigan and Missouri would have a "Truck Dollar". States adopting an "Airplane Dollar" include Arkansas, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Washington State.

New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont would have an "Electronics Dollar", exporting electronic devices more than anything else. Delaware, Indiana, Tennessee might have a "Medicine Dollar", chiefly exporting medical goods.

Other states would take unique approaches to establishing their own currencies, having unique chief exports. We would likely see such things as the "Alaska Zinc Dollar", the “Minnesota Needle Dollar”, the “New York Diamond Dollar”, the “Rhode Island Metal Waste Dollar”, and the “Wyoming Soda Ash Dollar”. Finally, the District of Columbia - exporting arms and armaments - would adopt a “D.C. Arms Dollar”.

 

Of course, the downside to each state having its own currency backed by its chief export, would be that states would be largely incapable of avoiding promoting their own industries; and this would interfere with free trade. States and the federal government subsidize - and grant other favors and protections to domestic industries - too much as it is; and such currencies would only embolden government to put more taxpayer money into increasing exports.

The federal government would be obligated to get involved, given its role in ensuring regular, uninhibited, uninterrupted flow of interstate commerce in such goods. This is especially so, if states were to attempt to tax the same goods they back their currencies on, when those goods come from out of state.

Truth be told, if every state subsidized its own chief export in order to keep its state currency strong, then the states couldn't rightfully blame each other without being hypocrites. But on the other hand, the federal government doesn't hold states accountable for favoring themselves or for interfering with free trade, and that rationale ought to stop.

     Another thing to consider is whether states should be encouraged to back their currencies on - instead of their chief exports - their chief natural resources (by whatever measure). This might ultimately prove to be better for the economy and for the environment, because when a state's chief natural resource is a mineral resource or an agricultural product - like wood, fiber, oil, coal, or gasoline - it might be less hazardous to the environment, and more popular among the voting populace, that the real value of the product lies in leaving it in the ground.