Traffic Guide All about traffic

When oh when is the Obama administration going to save us money instead of costing us money and jobs?

EPA’s new fuel economy mandates—more job killing regulation

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/04/01/epas-new-fuel-economy-mandatesmore-job-killing-regulation/

As if disregarding the will of the American people on the health care bill wasn’t enough, the Administration today announced that Americans don’t make the “proper” choices about the cars they drive. That might sound like an April Fool’s joke, but the Administration isn’t kidding.

Instead of allowing the American people to choose the cars that best fit their safety, convenience, size, and fuel economy needs, the Obama Administration announced today that the federal government is better equipped to make those choices, and will require that new cars and light trucks get an average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. As a result, each vehicle will cost over $1,100 more and more autoworkers will lose their jobs. The real joke? This policy will have zero impact on carbon emissions or climate change—its purported goal.

Why Limit American’s Automobile Choices?

For decades, Americans have had the option to purchase fuel efficient vehicles. Twenty-five years ago, Honda produced the Civic Coupe HF, which got 40 mpg in the city and 48 on the highway. But when it comes to making choices about vehicles, it turns out that fuel economy is just one of many factors Americans use to make their car purchase choices. Americans also want cars that are comfortable, safe, practical, and fun to drive.

Over time, cars have become bigger, quicker, and more comfortable, while at the same time retaining decent fuel economy. Consider the following table[1] that compares today’s cars to the same version from 25 years ago. In every case, the fuel economy is similar even though the 2010 version of each car is larger, the engines are larger, the cars have more passenger volume, and provide more luggage volume. Interestingly, the 2010 versions generally get slightly worse city fuel economy and slightly better highway fuel economy.

Moreover, when the government mandates fuel economy improvements, car makers are forced to make sacrifices in other areas, such as comfort, size, or power. What’s wrong with automakers building cars that the American people want? Should auto manufacturers really be forced to produce the cars the Obama Administration thinks we should have?

This mandate will increase the cost per vehicle between $1,100 and $5,000 per vehicle

It certainly is possible to build cars that meet the president’s mandate with similar features—but they will be more expensive. Automakers have the technology to build cars out of exotic materials that make them lighter and more fuel efficient, but those materials are very costly. In a best-case scenario, the Obama Administration says that its regulation will increase the price of a car by $1,100 per vehicle. [2] Other estimates are much higher—a study by Global Insight found that this kind of regulation would increase power-train costs by $1,000 for small cars and $5,000 for larger vehicles. [3]

This mandate will likely destroy 50,000 jobs in the auto industry

During the Bush Administration, the National Highway Transportation Administration estimated that imposing a mandate similar to Obama’s would destroy 50,000 jobs in the automotive industry.[4] The reason is simple—if cars are more expensive, people will hold on to the cars they already have longer. That means, overall, car companies will sell fewer new cars.

This mandate will likely result in more deaths in traffic accidents

In addition to killing American jobs, this mandate will come at a cost of American lives. A 2002 study from the National Research Council found that the federal government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy mandate contributed to 2,000 deaths per year.

This may sound shocking, but the fact is this: there is a tradeoff between fuel economy and safety. Smaller, lighter cars are generally more fuel efficient than larger, heavier cars. Cars have become safer, but today’s small, fuel efficient cars are still more dangerous than other cars in two-car frontal offset collisions, even against medium sized cars.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/04/01/epas-new-fuel-economy-mandatesmore-job-killing-regulation/

"cut and paster
i know your a foxbot but do try to think"

Attack the messenger, but not the message. Typical behavior from someone who doesnt have an answer to the problem posted. And when wass the last time you criticized a fellow lib for cutting and pasting a piece of an article, even if you agreed with it?

***crickets***
"but the government will make 5-7 BILLION dollars on the Citigroup bailout when they sell that stock.
I'm sure the facts won't get in the way of your opinion."

So Hector, this fact wont get in the way of your opinion?:

"Despite returns from Citi and other banks, analysts and the Treasury Department predict the bailout will cost taxpayers at least $100 billion"

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.citigroup30mar30,0,2045548.story

"wearing a baseball cap at a slightly 'jaunty' angle', tounge protruding from the side of my mouth in focused concentration...ctrl + C.....ctrl + v. "

Yet another hypocritical "attack the messenger, not the message" post. Gee, how DARE I cut and paste from a source. As if I was the first. And how many of your fellow libs have you criticized for doing the same?

***crickets***

And by the way, I dont wear baseball caps.
"i know your a foxbot but do try to think"

Oh, by the way percy, before lecturing others on trying to think, that's "you're", and not "your"