Obama's Sneaky, Deadly, Costly Car Tax

Townhall.com ^ | August 29, 2012 | Michelle Malkin

[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.

[Caulkhead]

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.

[Portcall24]

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.

[Kaslin]

Oh you probably would get it with those ugly Mini Coopers

[Girlene]

55 mpg - not going to happen. He is a moron.

[ltc8k6]

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 65–75 sq ft (6.0–7.0 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.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy#Agreed_standards_by_model_year.2C_2011-2025

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.

[Go Gordon]

and they are all tiny little sheds you wouldn’t be seen dead in. You would be if you were in an accident.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Drove to Houston on Monday in my Hyundai Elantra.

35.6 miles to the gallon. That’s good enough for me.

[ltc8k6]

In 2025, no vehicle is required to get 54.5mpg EPA window sticker, or even close to it. Obama is indeed a moron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy#Agreed_standards_by_model_year.2C_2011-2025

[CORedneck]

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.

[mazda77]

3.7L V-6 F-150 is already very close to.

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.

[VeniVidiVici]

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.

Yup. Forcing cars to get 56mpg will mean they will royally suck. No offense, of course ;)

[ltc8k6]

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.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/CAFE_2017-25_Fact_Sheet.pdf

[ltc8k6]

Last footnote on page 1, I mean.

[yldstrk]

yeah if your battery goes bad you are in a heap of trouble boy

[Delta 21]

He finally got the oil companies to give up the plans on the 100mpg carburetor !!

[TLI]

On Tuesday, the administration announced that it had finalized "historic" new fuel efficiency standards.

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.

.

[Bratch]

Hate the car.

LOVE the driver.

[The Great RJ]

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.

[Charles Martel]

Oh you probably would get it with those ugly Mini Coopers.

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.