I have no objection to people buying an electric car. What I object to is someone who buys a leaf getting me, the taxpayer, to pay for $7,500 of that purchase:
Not only does that subsidy take from the pocket of the taxpayer, it also gives an unfair advantage to Nissan.
Imagine you were a small manufacturer or inventor trying to create a vehicle or product EVEN BETTER than the Leaf. The federal government is basically enabling your competition--Nissan--and helping it put YOU out of business.
This is exactly what happened when the feds bailed out the failing GM/Chrysler, etc.
Ford, Toyota and other companies had managed their resources well and did not want bail out monies. But the people who worked for Ford and Toyota ended up PAYING for the bailout of their competition.
If you owned a pizza store and the pizza store three blocks down was failing, would you want the government took a few hundred of your tax dollars to keep your competitor afloat, what would you say?
Finally, I notice there are state incentives in California to buy a Leaf. I would put that into the category of a state's prerogative. If the citizenry of the state has no problem paying for that kind of thing, then let 'em. The federal involvement is what I oppose. Such crony capitalism crushes competition and steals from the taxpayer.
“Not only does that subsidy take from the pocket of the taxpayer, it also gives an unfair advantage to Nissan.” All the big automakers (Toyota, Ford, Nissan, GM, Chrysler-Fiat, Honda) have cars that qualify for the federal tax credit.
“This is exactly what happened when the feds bailed out the failing GM/Chrysler, etc.”
I can't say that I'm a fan of the bailout, either. Mostly because the big difference between a bailout and bankruptcy was that the unions got bailed out. Though I like the fact that the new GM ended up domestically owned, unlike the way Chrysler ended up. Maybe there would have been a way to do that through the bankruptcy courts, but I'm not sure.
“Finally, I notice there are state incentives in California to buy a Leaf. I would put that into the category of a state's prerogative. If the citizenry of the state has no problem paying for that kind of thing, then let ‘em. The federal involvement is what I oppose. Such crony capitalism crushes competition and steals from the taxpayer.”
Many conservatives make the mistake of assigning the $7,500 tax credit to democrats or some sort of cronyism. The truth is that the tax credit was signed into law by none other than George W. Bush. He was the one who said in his State of the Union address, “America is addicted to oil,” and, “We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen.”
Like you said, the citizenry should decide. I would bet that if you went beyond the bounds of Free Republic, a poll of Americans would show support of subsidies to help the adoption of electric cars. However, you won't find many Republican politicians in that camp these days, what with the avalanche of Koch campaign money being spread around.
Many people oppose the rebate on principle, but I think it serves a public interest. Besides reducing urban pollution, it would have huge geopolitical benefits if the United States and Europe transitioned to EVs. No more oil wars and our biggest national rivals would be in the poorhouse.