Let’s help the economy by making cars more expensive!

posted at 9:30 pm on June 29, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Clearly the word has reached the White House that Americans are having trouble making ends meet and they need to cut costs, just as the federal government does. And one of the expenses most families have to deal with is transportation, whether it be getting to work, school, or just the normal needs of day to day life. Quick like a bunny, the government recognized the benefits of making vehicles less expensive, and gas less expensive to boot.

But on second thought, maybe there’s a better plan

White House proposes increased mileage standards for cars, light trucks

The Obama administration wants cars and light trucks in the United States to average 56.2 miles per gallon of gasoline by 2025, a standard that will cut the nation’s oil consumption and carbon output significantly while also raising each vehicle’s cost by about $2,375.

The White House’s ambitious opening bid, which it revealed in conversations with domestic auto companies and lawmakers last week, has already sparked resistance. U.S. automakers have offered to raise fuel efficiency over the next eight years to between 42.6 and 46.7 mpg, according to sources who had been briefed on the negotiations.

I’m sure we can all immediately recognize the benefits of such a plan. The First Lady has been urging everyone to get into better shape, so if you can jack up the cost of getting around you will all doubtless tone up those calves and thighs via walking while looking for a new job. And, of course, your carbon footprint will go down even as your actual footprint expands with fresh callouses.

All snark aside, there were some of the usual wet blankets looking to dump cold water over this spectacular idea.

15 governors call on Obama to adopt “sensible” fuel economy standards

Fifteen Republican governors have sent a letter urging the Obama administration not to enact draconian new fuel economy standards.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are expected to release new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in September. The Obama administration has already issued guidance suggesting that the new rules would require vehicles to average as much as 62 miles per gallon by 2025, though 56 miles per gallon is more likely.

This absurd standard would mean the average car would have to get mileage higher than the 50 mpg Toyota’s Prius does now, driving up the cost of automobiles, and limiting consumer choice.

Enhanced fuel economy is desirable from all sides. And it’s not as if the auto industry is intentionally designing cars to burn more gas. The free market is in play, and they know they can sell cars which sip gas rather than guzzling it, providing they are of good quality and suited to the consumer’s needs. But to have Washington’s far from invisible hand attempt to push the technology past currently viable limits serves the opposite purpose, pushing the cost of the vehicles upward and making them less desirable.

But don’t let that stop you. This is a fabulous plan.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Well, to be honest, if your car was getting 56 miles to the US gallon, that would put a lot more than $2375 in your wallet.

Of course, 56 miles to the gallon ain’t going to happen unless you go hybrid and then the premium is $10,000 or more.

keep the change on June 29, 2011 at 9:34 PM

Of course, 56 miles to the gallon ain’t going to happen unless you go hybrid and then the premium is $10,000 or more.

And pluggin it in to your local coal fired power plant? How much does that cost per year?

gaius on June 29, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Obama has no logic in his mind. If a man has one large pickup truck, it will take 2 small ones to haul the same load. Rail. It is the most carbon intensive form of travel. it takes more to ride a train than it does to fly. If we had long passenger trains, and they were full, then we sould be ahead with rail. But that is ideology. The world deals with reality.

seven on June 29, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Why not just raise it to 1000 miles per gallon? Think of the savings.

BDavis on June 29, 2011 at 9:41 PM

“Under my Cloward-Piven administration, the price of cars will necessarily skyrocket.”

Django on June 29, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Any of you that still adhere to the theory he isn’t trying to kill this country??

Tim Zank on June 29, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Light trucks, or as I like to call them: cars with open-air trunks.

Bishop on June 29, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Someone should ask Obama, just for the good old fashioned heck of it, what is 2 + 2.

Something tells me the answer we will get will sort of indicate that math is not exactly The One’s strong suit.

pilamaye on June 29, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Who cares about price? The State can just issue a diktat that requires all of us to buy Chevy Volts. Most of us will use a car at some point in our lives, therefore the power clearly falls under the Commerce Clause, or whatever.

forest on June 29, 2011 at 9:45 PM

Someone should ask Obama, just for the good old fashioned heck of it, what is 2 + 2.

pilamaye on June 29, 2011 at 9:44 PM

He would have to refer to his daughters as they would be able to give you the answer yesterday.

Electrongod on June 29, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Easy-peasy! First strike down the first and second laws of thermodynamics by executive order. Then mandate eleventy-hundred million miles to the gallon. If it doesn’t work, blame Bush!

jl on June 29, 2011 at 9:52 PM

So, apparently, just having the right tire pressure won’t really work Barry?

bluemarlin on June 29, 2011 at 9:53 PM

I have the window sticker off my parents wagon,from
1967,bought shiny new!

1967 Chevelle 300 Deluxe Wagon(283/powerglide/positraction)

$3,163.00,after options,$3,646.35

Destination Fee:$97.00

canopfor on June 29, 2011 at 9:54 PM

If this keeps up it won’t be long until the neighbors will hear me as I head off to work, “Hi-yo Silver, away!”

predator on June 29, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Solar fins!

Call the model The Chevy Jumdashark.

profitsbeard on June 29, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Someone should ask Obama, just for the good old fashioned heck of it, what is 2 + 2.

pilamaye on June 29, 2011 at 9:44 PM

pilamaye:Oh….Oh….*Waves hand in air*..I know..I know..

A Pontiac!!(sarc):)
======================

Pontiac 2+2
*************

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_2%2B2

canopfor on June 29, 2011 at 9:58 PM

Solar fins!

Call the model The Chevy Jumdashark.

profitsbeard on June 29, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Jumbashark…I call Obama that.
No.
I call him JabberJaw.
No.
I call him UniBlab.

Electrongod on June 29, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Light trucks, or as I like to call them: cars with open-air trunks.

Bishop on June 29, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Bishop:Lol,that might be a El Camino!:)

canopfor on June 29, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Rainbow colored unicorn farts! That’s what we need to power our cars!

Either that, or the gas that comes out of Barry’s mouth in an inexhaustible supply.

GarandFan on June 29, 2011 at 10:06 PM

A 56 mpg car is necessarily going to be uncomfortable to anyone larger than a hobbit, and inherently much less safe.

Let the goddamn market do its job, butt the hell out, and we might see an actual recovery in a decade or so.

Big government believers are not that bright, are they?

hillbillyjim on June 29, 2011 at 10:09 PM

We’re boned.

southsideironworks on June 29, 2011 at 10:13 PM

Barky is full of ideas that work great in college faculty lounges.

Cicero43 on June 29, 2011 at 10:15 PM

If doubling milage costs only $2,375 per vehicle, why does the Chevy Volt cost $28,000 more than the Chevy Malibu?

Haiku Guy on June 29, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Prez crash test dummy

Sonosam on June 29, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Why not just raise it to 1000 miles per gallon? Think of the savings.

BDavis on June 29, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Yeah, that would be a good first step. And while we’re at it, mandate we have to buy one. Mandate we have to scrap our old cars. Mandate you go to prison if you don’t. Mandate you have to have a new furnace in your home, one that saves 100 times as much energy as your old one. Mandate you go to prison of you don’t buy it. Heck, mandate freaking everything. Mandate we all eat salads. Mandate world freaking peace for God’s sake! I’m sure we’ll find 15 freaking Republican RINO’s to support it!

JellyToast on June 29, 2011 at 10:21 PM

The anti-liberty administration at it’s best. Putting the freedom of the open road out of reach for millions.

At least we’ll have high speed trains.

But I bet they can’t make them run on time.

Stephen Macklin on June 29, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Why not just raise it to 1000 miles per gallon? Think of the savings.

BDavis on June 29, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Don’t be a piker, let’s raise it to 1000 miles per unicorn fart.

PackerBronco on June 29, 2011 at 10:41 PM

How many miles to the gallon does Barry’s fleet of limos get?

Oh I know. He needs armored cars for security.

Would just be awful if anything happened to him. Awful for America’s enemies, anyway. And they’re people too.

NoDonkey on June 29, 2011 at 10:49 PM

How many miles to the gallon does Barry’s fleet of limos get?

Oh I know. He needs armored cars for security.

Would just be awful if anything happened to him. Awful for America’s enemies, anyway. And they’re people too.

NoDonkey on June 29, 2011 at 10:49 PM

We call them limos, but they are really built on GMC truck frames, with GMC 6.0L diesel engines to haul that tremendous load. In the end they tack on some sheet metal that makes it look like a Cadillac. I’d be surprised if they get 5.0 mpg.

slickwillie2001 on June 29, 2011 at 11:24 PM

I could get several thousand mile to the gallon, assuming I am using fissionables as fuel.

Slowburn on June 29, 2011 at 11:41 PM

The problem with ever-escalating CAFE is the law of diminishing returns. Idiots like little Bammie think that because raising MPG standards decades ago worked, you can just keep going. You can’t. The engines are nearly tapped out, at the end of their development curve wrt economy. Any further improvements will be much more expensive than the fuel saved over the life of the vehicle.

These new advances will also come from horribly expensive lightweight materials, and simply reducing the loads that they can carry. It will also come from fleet-arithmetic smoke and mirrors, pushing golf-carts out at a loss, and making money on the larger vehicles that people really want.

slickwillie2001 on June 29, 2011 at 11:51 PM

“Under my plan, energy costs will necessarily skyrocket…”

At least he’s honest once every few years…

shorebird on June 30, 2011 at 1:59 AM

Cannot make the connection or just doesn’t care. The enduring question about this regime: Stupid or evil. When the end product is the same, the reason may not matter, but humans are a mostly rational species. We like to know why.

Extrafishy on June 30, 2011 at 6:57 AM

Welcome to the reality of 50 mpg cars. I’d bet this will be much more common once they are operating in coal or logging country.

http://www.car-accidents.com/2007-crash-pics/3-19-07-fatal-2.gif

http://blog.autoshopper.com/photos/310_Cloaseupsmallcar.jpg

http://images5.fotki.com/v81/photos/9/95737/359991/CarWreck-vi.jpg

TugboatPhil on June 30, 2011 at 7:14 AM

Screw this. If you are going to mandate fairy tales, I want saddled unicorns!

TubbyHubby on June 30, 2011 at 7:17 AM

You know, if all it took were some Poli Sci retards writing some policy, to get my car up to 50+ miles per gallon, at the cost of $2,375, I’d do it. It passes my cost benefit test.

But, alas, here in the real world, with people that actually left the party long enough to accomplish something a little more in college than a Poli Sci degree, there comes this little thing called the Conservation of Energy, which even an all star Poli Sci retard can’t overwrite.

MNHawk on June 30, 2011 at 7:27 AM

What’s gauling is, that these standards will be in place when Sarah Palin takes office in 2013, and undoing this miasma is gonna take all her strength.

But she can do it.

44Magnum on June 30, 2011 at 7:48 AM

Prez crash test dummy

Sonosam on June 29, 2011 at 10:20 PM

You know, this is a damned good idea!

Make this the Official Crash Test Dummy for Government Motors!

CDOTUS!

pilamaye on June 30, 2011 at 8:09 AM

Well, at least they’re not wasting a “good crisis”…

Axeman on June 30, 2011 at 8:10 AM

Douche.

tree hugging sister on June 30, 2011 at 8:38 AM

At least they’re acknowledging that we’ll still be using gasoline in 2025.

John Deaux on June 30, 2011 at 8:38 AM

“But, alas, here in the real world, with people that actually left the party long enough to accomplish something a little more in college than a Poli Sci degree…”
MNHawk on June 30, 2011 at 7:27 AM

I’m pretty proud of my PoliSci degree, actually. I earned it after I got out of the service, and going back to school was the hardest thing I’ve ever done.

I think the fact that I didn’t minor in liberalism helps though.

Washington Nearsider on June 30, 2011 at 8:41 AM

What about people who require larger vehicles due to family size? I. Can still put my family in a car this year, but we’ll be upgrading to a minivan in 2012 as we will be planning a fourth child. I do not see how they’ll make minivans super fuel efficient, or SUVs either. Not all of us live within walking distance of civilization.

This is madness.

Anna on June 30, 2011 at 9:14 AM

Dang it! I just realized I posted the same pic 3 times….

Getting older sucks some days!

TugboatPhil on June 30, 2011 at 9:41 AM

What about people who require larger vehicles due to family size? I. Can still put my family in a car this year, but we’ll be upgrading to a minivan in 2012 as we will be planning a fourth child.

Sorry, Anna, you’re being horribly irresponsible by having more than one child. You’re going to have to pick the one you like best, and get rid of the other three (in a sustainable, environmentally-conscious way, of course). Then you won’t need a minivan. Problem solved!

TSUGambler on June 30, 2011 at 10:34 AM

No one has told me yet how I’ll be able to haul my steers and horses with a Prius.

2nd Ammendment Mother on June 30, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Wow do the communist liberals hate freedom of choice or what? So will this new fuel standard mark the introduction of the eagerly-awaited styrofoam transport vehicle (STV)?

I can’t wait. For 2012.

dave_ross on June 30, 2011 at 3:09 PM

The headline of this story should read “Let’s help the economy by adding cars to the list of everything else we’re making more expensive”. There won’t be a damn thing that doesn’t cost drastically more than it used to, and oh yeah, gas and unemployment will remain ridiculously high at the same time. What could go wrong?

Hope and Change baby! Change we can believe in!

dave_ross on June 30, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Anna @ 914

2nd Ammendment Mother @ 1131

You guys do realize that people with larger families and people who live rurally tend to be more conservative, right? You are non-conformists who love and teach liberty.

Since you will not give up your freedom willingly, you must be coerced. These standards don’t just ignore you; they are aimed at you.

rwenger43 on June 30, 2011 at 3:48 PM