Death Of The SUV?

George Bush started a mess by signing a law requiring vehicle fleets to average 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

Barack Obama and the Congress changed this to 2016 forcing vehicle manufacturers to step up efforts and spend billions to retool at a faster pace and the automotive industry had no choice but to accept because the government owns two of the big three. The move will greatly curtail the sales of SUVs because SUVs will not be able to get the kind of mileage that the CAFE requires and will incur a surcharge for being a gas guzzler.

The reason that SUVs and other powerful vehicles consume more is because it takes more fuel to generate more power, power required to use these vehicles to their fullest potential.

The CAFE standards will not apply to Barack Obama’s limousine, a vehicle that weighs 5 tons and though the fuel mileage is not published, one can safely assume it is fewer than 10 miles to the gallon. The vehicle has 5 inch think bullet proof glass and is armored to protect its occupants. There is no way to get fuel efficiency in a vehicle like that. The same is true for Bush who signed the original law. His limo got poor mileage as well.

But, but, he is an important man and needs the protection.

No doubt, but he is no more important than any of the citizens who employ him, pay his salary and pay for his vehicle. Yes, he gets the protection and we pay for it.

Fine, but why should we not be able to choose vehicles that suit our needs without having to pay more? Why should our selections decrease because the people who drive gas guzzlers (many of whom drive leased vehicles we pay for) and who do what they want?

Many people need SUVs or similar vehicles to do their jobs. People have to go to work regardless of the weather. Doctors, nurse, police officers, firefighters, and many others all have to go to work no matter what it is like outside. Why should any of these people not be entitled and FREE to buy the vehicles they think will best meet their needs without paying more? Why should their choices be limited?

It is pretty hypocritical for these people to drive gas guzzlers that we pay for and then to tell us that we have to drive vehicles that meet standards that do not apply to them.

Obama said that he asked if this type vehicle (his limo) comes in a hybrid (only a moron would not know that answer) and he basically has no choice in the matter. This is true but remember that Obama did not drive a hybrid as a personal vehicle until he started his bid for the White House. Prior to that he drove a Chrysler 300 with a Hemi engine. Those cars get about 17 miles per gallon.

If that is the car he wanted to drive then good for him. He chose a car that got fuel mileage that is about half of what will be imposed on us (just to note, my Jeep gets better mileage than that Chrysler 300) and that was his choice. That is what freedom is about.

In order to appeal to the enviro-nuts he went to a hybrid when he ran for the White House. And he asked about a hybrid limo knowing full well that they could not make one.

This is another case of good enough for me but not for thee.

Where I live it snows during the winter and sometimes those snowstorms are heavy and deep. People in critical jobs must get to work and many people with SUVs offer to drive critical employees to work. Unlike the slugs in DC who closed down the city, those in the real world with critical jobs must get to work.

Why should people who pay the salaries of every person in Congress and the Obama administration be required to pay more for vehicles they have to have when those very people who make the standards drive vehicles that will never meet them?

In fact, why should someone pay more for a vehicle, whether he needs it or simply wants it, just because it is on the hit list of people in DC?

The new standards go in effect in 2016. People who want SUVs need to buy them before then to slip in before the standards take effect.

One other thing to keep in mind. Any savings reported by changing to a more fuel efficient vehicle are dependent on the price of gas.

Freedom means the freedom to choose a vehicle that you want without being punished for the choice.

Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]

They Asked Us To Conserve And Now They Need New Taxes

The Congress, particularly the Democrats, have been after auto makers to make more fuel efficient cars and they have been after us to drive less and save fuel to save the Earth and prevent global warming. We have done a pretty good job of that because now there are more cars that get better gass mileage and people are not using as much of it because they are driving less which is probably due as much to the economy as anything else.

The problem is that revenue from gas taxes is way down. The state and federal governments are not getting as much money as they did before because people are not buying as much gas. The idea of raising fuel taxes probably amounts to political suicide so they need a new plan.

A plan is under consideration to tax us based on the number of miles we drive. Vehicles would be equipped with GPS trackers that would report on the number of miles driven and we would be sent a bill for out taxes. I have some issues with this.

First of all, a GPS will also allow them to track us anywhere we go. What would stop them from deciding that they needed to track us because of an amber alert or some other crime that we might have committed? What would stop them from using the GPS to see if you told the police your where abouts on the night in question? I have a problem with them being able to track me everywhere I go in my car. They can already track cell phones and I am not happy about that.

Secondly, How will this work for people who are driving on private roads? How about people who drive into Canada or Mexico? A private road is not repaired with public funds so people should not have to pay taxes when they are driving on them. People should not have to pay taxes if they drive on roads in Canada or Mexico (though those governments might like to get a cut).

Also, will they END the gas tax? Will they completely remove the taxes from the cost of a gallon of gas? If they add mileage tax on top of gas tax then they might as well just raise the taxes on gas. My bet is they would not remove the tax. Government has a hard time cutting the tax umbilical cord.

I also want to know how this will apply to currently owned vehicles. I own both of my vehicles and do not plan on replacing them for a while. Will I be required to put a GPS on them? Who will pay for it and what right do they have to tell me that I have to install that on a vehicle I own?

I also see a huge potential for the theft of personally identifying information when people hack into the database and get personal information. I imagine some of the smart techie people will find a way to beat the GPS system.

This is a real bad idea if for no other reason than the invasion of privacy involved in government being able to track us when we drive.

Source:
McClatchy
The article says that this will replace the fuel tax but how can they do that if currently owned cars are not equipped? They could deduct what a person has paid at the gas pump from the monthly bill but this will lead to even bigger problems. What will happen if people drive even less because of this? We pay both taxes…

Big Dog

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]