Tuesday, May 19, 2009

They Can Have My Gas Guzzler When They Pry It From My Cold Dead Fingers!

Not just no, but "hell no!"
Obama on Tuesday planned to announce the first-ever national emissions limits for cars and trucks, as well as require a 35.5 miles per gallon standard. Consumers should expect to pay an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016, officials said.
Michelle Malkin: "It's a $1,300 car tax. On the working class. On the middle class."

UPDATE: Wall Street Journal:
Disclosure of the agreement is expected Tuesday, with executives from several large auto companies, including General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Frederick "Fritz" Henderson, as well as United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, expected to participate, people familiar with the matter said.
Right. Feds help UAW take over GM, now Gettelfinger Motors is stooging for Obama's greenshirt fascism.

Got up early this morning, so I'm running ahead of Memeorandum on this aggregation.

UPDATE II: Washington Post:

The measures are significant steps forward for the administration's energy agenda by cutting greenhouse-gas emissions that contribute to climate change and by easing U.S. dependence on oil, most of which is imported.
(Please note that flat assertion of antropogenic global warming as fact.)

The administration is embracing standards stringent enough to satisfy the state of California, which has been fighting for a waiver from federal law so that it could set its own guidelines, sources said. Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) and Jennifer M. Granholm (D-Mich.) will be among a variety of state and industry officials who plan to attend an announcement today, according to sources close to the administration.
Of course, Arnold will support this. Him and all The Republicans Who Really Matter.

UPDATE III: Via Hot Air Headlines, a very timely New Republic feature:
Sometime after the release of An Inconvenient Truth in 2006, environmentalism crossed from political movement to cultural moment. Fortune 500 companies pledged to go carbon neutral. Seemingly every magazine in the country, including Sports Illustrated, released a special green issue. Paris dimmed the lights on the Eiffel Tower. Solar investments became hot, even for oil companies. Evangelical ministers preached the gospel of "creation care." Even archconservative Newt Gingrich published a book demanding action on global warming.
Which reminds me, BTW, of why I am such a staunch disbeliever in AGW (anthropogenic global warming). This trendy nonsense is so similar to, and is promoted by the same kind of "scientific consensus" argument, as the "Population Bomb" idiocy of 40 years ago. Idolators at the bloody altar of Science never seem to learn from their mistakes, do they?

UPDATE IV: Hyscience:
The costs to every American for having Barack Obama in the White House are adding up fast(and we haven't even gotten to his universal health care plan yet) - and not just for those making over $250K. The middle class and the poor are going to be the hardest hit.
Auto regulation always works this way. I lived in Maryland, which requires state vehicle safety inspection, compelling poor people to (a) pay for inspections, and (b) make costly repairs to older vehicles that are otherwise demonstrably road-worthy. State inspectors have been known to flag old junkers for body rust that has nothing to do with safety.

This kind of pre-emptive regulation -- that is to say, pushing people through an inspection process, rather than merely authorizing cops to ticket people for driving with a busted tail-light -- imposes no burden on the affluent, who can afford new cars. It is the poor guy, trying to get by driving a third-hand jalopy with 150,000 miles on the odometer, who is hurt by such regulatory mania.

UPDATE V: William Teach at Right Wing News:
When you go to the auto lot starting in 2012, expect your choices to be golf cart sized vehicles.
"RIP useful, roomy vehicles."

UPDATE VI: MSNBC's Mark Murray notes that Obama's doing Schwarzenegger a favor by sharing his aura of approval with Arnold, who's less popular than syphilis in California.

Murray wonders, "Is California ungovernable?" They wondered the same thing before Reagan was elected governor in 1966. What it takes is leadership with balls. Unfortunately, scientists say long-term steroid use leads to testicular atrophy, to say nothing of the inevitable side-effects of marrying Maria Shriver.

Michelle Malkin is no fan of the micro-testicled muscle-bound "Taxinator." Also see Ed Driscoll on the "Golden State Mobius Loop," and my thoughts on "California: Zimbabwe, U.S.A."

UPDATE VII: Cato's Dan Mitchell says Obama is "simultaneously destroying and subsidzing the auto industry," which reminds me of Ronald Reagan's description of liberal economic policy: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."

As Carol Platt Liebau observes:
These are hidden taxes, but they are taxes all the same. The American people are smart to be suspicious -- as most of them are -- about the President's claims that he will cut their taxes.
We are on The Road to Weimar America.


  1. If it's driving an electric car or losing the ice caps, I'd better start fixing floaties to by SUV.


  2. I guess no one has ever told these clowns that if you make cars more fuel efficient, people drive more, using more gas, so your pollution levels barely change.


  3. The big four automakers have carburator design hiddin in thier safe that gets about 50 mpg on a v8 engine. The only reason they don't want to make all vehicles more fuel efficient is all the kickbacks they would lose from the petroleum companies for producing cars that use more fuel.

    By the way my 2005 Saturn Ion 1 with the 2.2L 4 bangers averages around 36 miles to the gallon on the highway.

  4. Some anonymous person stated that they would rather drive an electric care instead of letting the ice caps melt from the planet. I cannot believe the how powerful people think we are. Our planet has been warming up since the ice ages, what makes you think we had anything to do with it. It is mearly a coincidense and scientists get credit for blaming it on greenhouse gases. How obnoxious can we be???

  5. Stacy,

    I think you're on to something with your skepticism founded in the sham of the "population bomb," which was "scientific consensus" not that very long ago. I've made the same comparison on several occasions.

    As I've often said, they propose the same remedy, and have merely substituted a different crisis to justify implementing it.

  6. Exactly.

    Perhaps those so enamored of him during the election cycle should have checked out precisely what kind of "Change" he represented. For example, this latest grab for my pockets will cost my family an estimated $5200 a year. We have 4 cars; 4 drivers. Wow. Just wow.

    We have paid our mortgage on time for years - now we're punished. We have paid our credit cards on time for years - now we're punished.
    With the cost of everything else going up and no raises in sight for many years to come, thanks again to his policies, the future gets for this little family bleaker by the minute.

  7. Many thanks for the link.

  8. (Please note that flat assertion of antropogenic global warming as fact.)But of course. They have an agenda to shill for their party.

    Global warming explorers in Arctic get nasty shock: polar ice caps blooming freezingThere is no warming I cannot believe the how powerful people think we are.It really is very Narcissistic -- typical for our prog friends.

  9. Free tip to John W - cars do not come with carbs anymore.

  10. So a President takes over two gigantic car companies just to ramrod his stupid ideas down our throats.

    And where is the media, where are our wonderful leftist anti-fascists?

    Well, they are shoved right up his mocha ass as far as they can go.

    Unreal. Unfuckingreal.

    What the hell is Ford going to do? Jeezis what a fucking mess.

  11. Why the hate for the Brazilian Integralists (Green shirts)? It's not their fault millions of poorly educated Americans have converted to mindless, demagogic Gaia-worship. ;)

  12. Rising CAFE standards, it seems I have seen this before oh yeah in the late 1970’s with another wonder of miracles Jimmy Carter. That resulted in models being made that rusted in the showroom as nobody wanted them. The way of automakers thinking is to improve fuel mileage is to reduce weight or reduce engine size this will result in compacts that slow get good mileage but are death traps. No a Google search of unsafest cars and compare the list to Green Cars. And to John W. being an automotive journalist I have interviewed auto executives, they all tell me the same thing we can make a stylist car that doesn’t use gas, but they have one thing that stands in their way-the government rules.

  13. While I respect the idea of child safety with regard to car seats, if vehicles get much smaller families will be limited to 2 kids by virtue of not being able to schlepp them places--probably a side effect that thrills the green/population control/environMENTAL crowd.
    Or they could do what I saw a family with 7 do, and just take two cars, thus defeating the purpose of smaller ones.

  14. This is typical nanny-state crap. As Alec Leamas indicated, different "crisis", same "remedy". Does anyone remember why CAFE standards came in originally? Because of the oil "crisis" of the '70s, but it was done to conserve fuel, not for environmental reasons. The 55 mph speed limit accompanied it, for the same reason. And when Congress was deliberating getting rid of THAT (during an era of VERY LOW gas prices), the "but it saves lives" canard was tossed into the mix, another argument that's been thoroughly debunked, by the way.

    IMO, there shouldn't even be CAFE in the first place. It's government intrusion on the economy, which is never a good thing (food/drug, truth-in-advertising regulations excepted). This is definitely a case of LET THE MARKET DECIDE.

  15. It's all about manipulation and control anymore.

    This kind of control, like you said, will put greater pressure on the less fortunate, putting them at the mercy of government aid when they can't afford to retrofit their vehicles and end up loosing them and their jobs. They sure won't be able to afford the new vehicles that will cost 25 to 35 thousand.

    From this at Zero Hedge it looks to me like there is signs of greater manipulation going on in the stock market as well.

    Not to mention some of the rumors of Comex manipulation of gold prices. I've been tracking gold with the widget ExactPrice and it continues to surprise me that in spite of all this bad news and the printing of more paper money that gold continues to stay sub 1,000. Though it does say something that it continues to be pretty steady in the 915-930 range.

  16. I am dumbfounded that the entire country isn't up in arms about this. Of course the primary AP article doesn't mention a peep about any potential downside to this insanity-only to mention that paying an additional $1300 on top of your car's price tag will be magically 'recouped at the pump.' No word on what affect this will have on the poor or middle class. In AP land, this is 'historic' and responsible and doesn't amount to an enormous financial blow to the working class.

  17. It looks like we'll be driving our current vehicles for the indefinite future. We NEED a Suburban, or something similar, with 6 kids. My wife racks up 20k miles a year. I hope Chevy built this one real well, because it's going to have to last a long time.

    Do you think the nany state police will come and confiscate my 9 mpg truck? Wait till I put new heads and cam in it and get the really big tires I've been waiting for....I'll be lucky to get 6. But 400 rwhp and an 8" lift on a 3/4 ton 4WD don't come free.


  18. "I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, belief in us, (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the Enemy."

    his Abysmal Sublimity Under Secretary Screwtape

  19. You people are fucking idiots pull your heads out of your asses
    Who do you think you are that you can be so careless about the environment? What a fucked up blog
    Rot in hell assholes

  20. Hmmmm.... we are sheep. My house is paid for but if I don't pay property tax they will take it (which means I am renting), my car is paid for but if I don't pay property tax and have it emissions tested, they can take it or I wont be able to drive it and when I die they will take half of everything that I have worked a lifetime to pass to my children.... What kind of contry has this become??

  21. I don't think humanity is super smart - but I do have serious problems with believing that mechanical and chemical engineers can't produce a fuel efficient engine that has similar power production to the current engines available. Plus...people piss and moan about how much more fuel efficiency costs and how those vehicles only sell when gas prices are high. The reason those cars only sell when gas prices are high is because they look retarded. Back to my point about engineering a car with similar power ratings...the auto industry does that then they can build "useful" vehicles that resemble today's vehicles. Just a thought.

    These issues are always so polarizing. How about being willing to look at all the factors involved - because there's more to it than just fuel efficiency vs. cost. Instead of choosing to personally veto the bill atomatically because of the cost to the consumer, make the industry take responsibility for their prior and current irresponsibility and make society as a whole - the producer and the consumer - share the cost. Because "we're all in this together."

  22. Quote: "The big four automakers have carburator design hiddin in thier safe that gets about 50 mpg on a v8 engine."

    Do you even know what a carburetor IS? It's an archaic device predating electronic fuel injection that sits on the intake manifold and sets the fuel/air mix going into the cylinders.

    Do you honestly believe there's a magic carburetor that knows some golden ratio of fuel/air mixture which would instantly double mileage? And that no greasemonkey has ever discovered this magical setting, despite the fact that carburetors are manually tuneable?

    All of this ignores, of course, the fact that changing fuel/air mixture is what controls throttle.

  23. No cars do not come with carbs anymore, but what he is saying is the car companies have had this tech filed away for years, just think what they could do with fuel injection if they would unlock their little secrets! The american economy is all about kickbacks and payoffs.

  24. "I don't think humanity is super smart - but I do have serious problems with believing that mechanical and chemical engineers can't produce a fuel efficient engine that has similar power production to the current engines available."

    It's not a matter of ability, but of cost. Engineers can design and build a lot of things, but at some point the company for which they work has to be able to sell them to people at a price those people are willing to pay, which is the sticking point.

    How much would it cost to build one? How much more expensive would it make an automobile? Businesses have to worrk about those sort of things, at least the businesses that aren't owned subsidiaries of the Federal government.

  25. John W.-I would get grammar lessons before you even begin to think about anything science related. It is ignorant thinking like John W's statement that will keep up from progress. We will see how many you people want to keep your gas guzzler when gas skyrockets to $400 a barrel when oil reserves start to run out. You can see that happening in the next century. Ignorant conservative America is a cancer.

  26. Maybe I was unclear...

    A carburetor passes fuel-air mix to the engine... that mix can be anywhere between 100% air, and 100% fuel. Any garage-hand who's ever done a tuneup on a carb has set this ratio somewhere more toward the middle. Too much oxygen, called "running lean" and you don't get enough power because you lack fuel. Too much fuel, called "running rich" and you don't get enough power because the fuel doesn't burn completely.

    A carburetor doubling gas mileage, is like a paint mixer which makes a gallon of paint cover twice as much surface area without any chemical change to the paint. It would defy basic laws of physics.

    Besides, if car companies were getting all these alleged kickbacks from big oil... #1 they'd show up in SOX reports, and #2 they wouldn't be bankrupt right now.

    I'm just saying, let's have a wee bit more skepticism than 9/11 truthers, and I'm not saying that to be mean.

  27. Anonymous
    Never start an argument with an ad hominem, it just cheapens any relevent point you might have made.

    While you are right that fewer people will keep gas guzzlers when fuel prices skyrocket, it is not comments on a messageboard that "keep us from progress," but simple free market dynamics. At such a point when fuel prices rise, demand for fuel efficient vehicles will naturally rise, thus raising the price to the point where there is a profit over their cost to manufacture WITHOUT government subsidy. When fuel efficient vehicles are #1 profitable and #2 in high demand, then progress will be made on them, and not before. This is a gradual market process, not the judgement-day scenario you seem to worry about.

    Ending your argument with an ad hominem isn't very persuasive either, you ignorant slut. Q.E.D.

  28. "make the industry take responsibility for their prior and current irresponsibility "

    Quit being so prejudicial and judgmental.

    And mean.

    I want to now if you take the same attitude towards Obama spending us into oblivion?

    Or is that too Bush's fault.

  29. I would get grammar lessons before you even begin to think about anything science related. It is ignorant thinking like John W's statement that will keep up(sic from progress. We will see how many you people sic want to keep your gas guzzler when gas skyrockets to $400 a barrel when oil reserves start to run out. You can see that happening in the next century. Ignorant conservative America is a cancer.A comment upon grammar, followed by a typo-laden, poorly written rant.

    Dumb progressive America is a never ending source of amusement.

  30. Mein car vust made in Stuttgart, Anonymous funboy.

    Why put some poor Kraut family out of a job just to satisfy your obnoxious assjackery?

    Personally speaking, I rather don't see the point of owning an automobile if the speedometer doesn't actually read 200.

  31. At the end is unavoidable, we will be driving small cars with small engines just like the rest of the world. As peak world oil production nears, there will be less fuel available for everyone; is not a matter of what we want, but what will be available.

    Gas prices will go up again after this recession is over, and seriously we can expect prices over $5 a gallon, maybe even $10 within 15 years.

    So the decision of increasing the efficiency standards is a smart one, they are just preparing the car manufacturers and us the consumers for what we will be coming our way.

    Smaller cars are less safe, that it is true if you have an accident with a larger vehicle, but in the future we all will have smaller cars, so the rules of the road will be even for everyone.

    I am just counting the days that I will be able to use my boat and my SUV, and I will hold on them for as long as I am able to.

    Also how comes that everyone blame the car manufacturers for the gas guzzler SUV? Do not blame the car manufacturers; blame yourself for buying the wrong vehicle for the wrong purpose.

    SUV’s were called 4x4 in older days, were manufactured for people that were hauling boats, campers, horse trailers or just for off road use. We had a valid reason for buying those types of vehicles, and we knew perfectly clear about the fuel consumption, as a matter of fact in case that you are complain about the MPG on a Tahoe, or an Expedition the true is while hauling a trailer you may expect no more than 7-10 MPG.

    Most people that buy a boat do not even know what the full consumption on an outboard motor is; I will give you an industry standard that it is not to far way form the true.
    If you have a 150 HP motor, divide that by 10 that will be 15, you can estimate a consumption of 15 GPH at full throttle x $3 a gallon, that it is $45 an hour. Do not buy the boat if you do not have that type of money, do not blame later on the boat manufacturer of the engine manufacturer.

  32. I don't think Progressive America has any clue, at all, whatsoever, none, nada, about economics, about real hard science, about progress...

    They do know about turning us back to the Dark Ages however, and seem to have a terribly suicidal bent towards achieving that goal.

    One of the most illiterate, yet entirely full of himself with how smart he is, people I've met is a graduate student in neuroscience.

    He cannot go a day without congratulating himself on how great he is, a complete basket case, but he cannot write a coherent idea, cannot communicate clearly and succinctly, and is an atrocious speller.

    He once said that "he writes long emails, so he''l be a good scientist".

    Wasn't it Lenin who said something about the leftist philosophy being one of adolescence?