Skip to comments.Obama's Sneaky, Deadly, Costly Car Tax
Posted on 08/29/2012 4:12:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
While all eyes were on the Republican National Convention in Tampa and Hurricane Isaac on the Gulf Coast, the White House was quietly jacking up the price of automobiles and putting future drivers at risk.
Yes, the same cast of fable-tellers who falsely accused GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney of murdering a steelworker's cancer-stricken wife is now directly imposing a draconian environmental regulation that will cost untold American lives.
On Tuesday, the administration announced that it had finalized "historic" new fuel efficiency standards. (Everything's "historic" with these narcissists, isn't it?) President Obama took a break from his historic fundraising drives to proclaim that "(by) the middle of the next decade, our cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon, almost double what they get today. It'll strengthen our nation's energy security, it's good for middle-class families, and it will help create an economy built to last."
Jon Carson, director of Obama's Office of Public Engagement, took to Twitter to hype how "auto companies support the higher fuel-efficiency standards" and how the rules crafted behind closed doors will "save consumers $8,000" per vehicle. His source for these claims? The New York Times, America's Fishwrap of Record, which has acknowledged it allows the Obama campaign to have "veto power" over reporters' quotes from campaign officials.
And whom did the Times cite for the claim that the rules will "save consumers $8,000"? Why, the administration, of course! "The administration estimated that the new standards would save Americans $1.7 trillion in fuel costs," the Times dutifully regurgitated, "resulting in an average savings of more than $8,000 a vehicle by 2025."
The Obama administration touts the support of the government-bailed-out auto industry for these reckless, expensive regs. What they want you to forget is that the "negotiations" (read: bullying) with White House environmental radicals date back to former Obama green czar Carol Browner's tenure -- when she infamously told auto industry execs "to put nothing in writing, ever" regarding their secret CAFE talks.
Obama's number-massagers cite phony-baloney cost savings that rely on developing future fuel-saving technology. Given this crony government's abysmal track record in "investing" in new technologies (cough -- Solyndra -- cough), we can safely dismiss that fantasy math. What is real for consumers is the $2,000 per vehicle added cost that the new fuel standards will impose now. That figure comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
War on Middle-Class Consumers, anyone?
Beyond the White House-media lapdog echo chamber, the economic and public safety objections to these sweeping rules are long grounded and well founded.
For years, free-market analysts and government statisticians have warned of the deadly effect of increasing corporate auto fuel economy standards (CAFE). Sam Kazman at the Competitive Enterprise Institute explained a decade ago: "(T)he evidence on this issue comes from no less a body than the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a report last August finding that CAFE contributes to between 1,300 and 2,600 traffic deaths per year. Given that this program has been in effect for more than two decades, its cumulative toll is staggering."
H. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis adds that NHTSA data indicate that "322 additional deaths per year occur as a direct result of reducing just 100 pounds from already downsized small cars, with half of the deaths attributed to small car collisions with light trucks/sport utility vehicles." USA Today further calculated that the "size and weight reductions of passenger vehicles undertaken to meet current CAFE standards had resulted in more than 46,000 deaths."
These lethal regulations should be wrapped in yellow police "CAUTION" tape. The tradeoffs are stark and simple: CAFE fuel standards clamp down on the production of larger, more crashworthy cars. Analysts from Harvard to the Brookings Institution to the federal government itself have arrived at the same conclusion: CAFE kills. Welcome to the bloody intersection between the Obama jobs death toll and the Obama green death toll.
55 miles per US gallon? That’s over 66 miles per UK gallon?
I can’t see that happening, even the most economical cars over here struggle to average more than 60mpg (UK) and they are all tiny little sheds you wouldn’t be seen dead in.
I have a friend that has a car that doesn’t run. He already saves $8,000 a year on gas...of course he has to walk everywhere he goes or bums a ride from friends...but he saves $8,000 a year on gas. Just think, if all the vehicles in the Nation didn’t run...we’d save trillions and trillions. Kind of like the Soviet Union of the past. Oh that’s right we’re already headed there.
Oh you probably would get it with those ugly Mini Coopers
55 mpg - not going to happen. He is a moron.
CAFE does not equal EPA window sticker. Even the Obama admin doesn’t seem to understand CAFE.
“For example, the 2012 Honda Fit with a footprint of 40 sq ft (3.7 m2) must achieve fuel economy (as measured for CAFE) of 36 miles per US gallon (6.5 l/100 km), equivalent to a published fuel economy of 27 miles per US gallon (8.7 l/100 km), while a Ford F-150 with its footprint of 6575 sq ft (6.07.0 m2) must achieve CAFE fuel economy of 22 miles per US gallon (11 l/100 km), i.e., 17 miles per US gallon (14 l/100 km) published.”
In 2025 an F-150 would be required to meet 23mpg EPA window sticker, something the 3.7L V-6 F-150 is already very close to.
Drove to Houston on Monday in my Hyundai Elantra.
35.6 miles to the gallon. That’s good enough for me.
In 2025, no vehicle is required to get 54.5mpg EPA window sticker, or even close to it. Obama is indeed a moron.
Kind of funny, under Reagan, there was talk to get rid of CAFE. Too bad it didn’t succeed. Looks like Will try an hold on to my older vehicles. Then again, I am sure there will be regulations come out to force states to regulate them out of existence such as emissions or safety inspections.
That can carry an amazing payload of . . . . the pickup bed.
Smokey Yunik did it in the 70's and 80's.
A gentleman came to me to inquire about adding fuel injection to his manually fed four cylinder engine that has been modified to a whole new way of thinking that can get in theory well beyond that number. We will be applying the EFI very soon so it can be released to the public and marketed to manufacturers interested in building super fuel efficient cars with a great deal of power available. Up to 400hp.
I was skeptical at first, but after seeing what was done to it and studying the logic behind it, I went all in to help this guy move it forward. Will be adding data logging to the ECU system we have specified so all dyno testing can be logged to verify its performance. There is nothing exotic about it at all and that is the beauty in that the manufacturers can be in production of this concept very easily.
Yup. Forcing cars to get 56mpg will mean they will royally suck. No offense, of course ;)
Where the Obama admin got the 54.5mpg number:
“163 g/mi would be equivalent to 54.5 mpg, if the vehicles were to meet this CO2 level all through fuel economy improvements. The agencies expect, however, that a portion of these improvements will be made through reductions in air conditioning leakage, which would not contribute to fuel economy.”
Last footnote. The number is bull.
Last footnote on page 1, I mean.
yeah if your battery goes bad you are in a heap of trouble boy
He finally got the oil companies to give up the plans on the 100mpg carburetor !!
Congrats jug-ears, you just invented the Trabant II...
Probably manufactured in Gooberstan by Government Motors, it will have a "historic" price of only $62,999.99 (after a government rebate of $60,000.00 in tax credit over 46 years), comes with a pre-approved 2,000,000 carbon credit account at AlGore Inc. A no-cost 30 day bumper to bumper 50% trade-in allowance (for new Trabant II) assures you of worry-free driving for, uhh, a little while.
Free DNC voter registration card with every purchase.
What about the construction industry, farmers and ranchers and other small businesses that depend on trucks especially pickups to haul equipment, pull trailers and delivery heavy goods? Just how many sacks of feed or cement, rolls of barbed wire or trailers full of hogs will these new high mileage trucks be able to handle? My bet is next to none. President you didn’t build that has no clue about what makes this country work.
The new Minis are too heavy to reach those mpg numbers (best is around 35 mpg highway). The lighter classic Minis edge the new ones out, if in good tune and driven carefully - maybe 40 mpg highway or a tiny bit more. Still way short of the goal, and that's as small a car and as small an engine as practical.
Locked away in a safe at the oil companies is a secret carburator that will give cars 100 mpg........ /sarc.
Thanks for the link. I see what you are saying.
Let’s see now...Obama doesn’t like the suburbs...he wants gas to be $10 per gallon, and wants cars to attain and impossible 50+ MPG, as in “buy an electric golf cart (Volt).
It’s almost like he wants to “corral” us all into the inner cities...you know, for more efficient “herding” and easier gun confiscation.
It’s the Muslim/marxist/commie way.
When these standards ultimately prove to be unattainable (which they will), Government Motors will get a waiver. None of the others will.
our cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon, almost double what they get today.
and with this increased mileage, guess what the tax per gallon will be?
looks almost like a “Henry J”!
Obama is indeed a moron.
But what the “ONE”, says you must believe!
Gosh! That's wonderful!
Why wait? Let's do it now!
I also have a bridge, formerly found in Brooklyn, that I can ship to any buyer. Sorry. No COD's.
Be sure and ask our operator about free shipping.
But wait! There's more!
Are you following me camera guy?
I heard over the weekend storm coverage that approx 3% of the people in Cuba own cars.
That’s a reasonable goal for the Baraqqis.
Any engineering projection more that 5 to 8 years in the future and any political projection more that 3 years out is nothing but smoke & mirrors, swampland real estate brochures or “of course I’ll respect you in the morning” talk.
If it can be done and you REALLY want to do it then 3 to 5 years is usually enough. (Going to the moon took a bit longer, but I’ll cut them some slack on that achievement)
(Sorry, but I can’t do Tables in HTML, though I’ve tried)
Table 2: Indices of American Manufacturing Output (1939 = 100)
1940 1941 1942 1943 1944
Aircraft 245 630 1706 2842 2805
Munitions 140 423 2167 3803 2033
Shipbuilding 159 375 1091 1815 1710
Aluminum 126 189 318 561 474
Rubber 109 144 152 202 206
Steel 131 171 190 202 197
She needs to convert that 2 stroke to Direct Injection, even better if it was LPG-DI....
It that’s what comes with it, no other cars need exist
Ont eh radio this morning they said this new standard will help consumers save about $8,000 per year on fuel...however they didn’t say how much more expensive a new car is expected to cost (the unintended consequences of liberal intentions).
I have four cars and the most economical of those only manages 25mpg! :)
Here Is A Table 1 20 299 4 20 144 12 333Of course, you leave out the " marks ...
I just renewed my subscription to Hemmings Motor News.
ANY vehicle I buy in the future will probably come from there.
When PBS interviewed a retired EPA type about it 10-12 years ago, he was quite smug. They were fully aware that demanding that U.S. manufacturers "Trabantize" their offerings in order to get weight down for CAFE improvements, AND modify their carburetors and combustion engineering as well, that the cars would wind up shedding up to 2000 pounds per vehicle.
They knew. They did it anyway.
That simple? Thanks! It has been very embarrassing having to post unformulated gobble-gook.
Month Widgets Thingamy-bobs Glittersnatches Zithers June 2654 1013 67 14 July 77 659 8547 3What did you fly in the Air Force? I was flying the Sikorsky CH-53D with the USMC, 74-78.
A couple of strokes worth of Direct Injection with her would do me some good...
Oh, no, you're missing out on a lot of fun cars! ;-)
An who can forget the Deux Chevaux!
Two Opel GTs?
Can anyone say, “Project Time!”
If you really want to go wild & crazy, here are a few ideas:
If you wanna go fast and straight; then I guess one could stuff a V8 in one, but for better driveabilty, a V6 (aluminum block if possible) takes a LOT of weight off of the nose.)
I’ve always wondered about opening up the trunk area and putting a front wheel drive engine back there; relocating the gas tank to the front.
Thanks for that link, Elsie. I have done tables of several types successfully using HTML tags longhand, but that will be useful some time or other, I suppose. I, too, have bookmarked it.
I find that the pre /pre tag works just fine for almost all applications I need... can just copy and paste - the most important part of pre is that it forces a fixed-width font, and also forces keeping multiple spaces. That allows pretty simple typing of tables by hand, or simple adjustment of columns after a copy/paste operation.
Bwana- I flew the LookingGlass mission (airborne command post) in SAC - EC-135s mostly (refueling as both receiver and tanker) though also remained current in KCs and supersonic T-38s.
(Not sure where supersonic fits in that scheme of things)
Not meaning to flippant or irreverent, but remember, the Lord said, “...lo, I am with you always...”. Matt 28:20
Also, “...the Spirit of God was hovering...” Gen 1:2
Helicopter: a collection of spare parts flying in loose formation, beating the air into submission!