When Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi sent the Detroit automakers away and told them to come up with a plan, it made me want to put my head through a wall.  Not because the automakers didn't need one, but because they're operating in a black box unless and until the government comes up with their plan. 

While the proposal Jeffrey Leonard puts forward isn't flawless (as Atrios notes), it does start to address the conundrum that the automakers are now faced with:

[O]ur automakers aren't as bad as you think. If you go to Europe or especially China and Asia, you will see excellent small cars produced by Ford and Chevrolet that sell very well. You won't see them in the United States, however, because these are not the cars American have been buying. Like it or not, a major reason that American automakers have built the cars that they've built for the domestic market is that they've had to contend with highly misleading long-term market signals based on cheap gas. While engines have become more efficient over the last thirty years, much of Detroit's ingenuity has gone into giving Americans more power, performance and luxury for the buck rather than more miles per gallon.

We can sit around and wax rhapsodic about highways covered in green cars, but until the government adopts policy that creates demand for them, there is no evidence that anyone will buy them.

There are a variety of ways to create that demand. The most effective would be to impose a substantial gas tax. Another would be to tax weight or horsepower, as many countries do. (This is far better than a luxury tax, as it directly targets the gas wasters, rather than those who might just want a fur-lined Prius.) Such taxes can be phased in slowly or quickly, but the important thing is that if Detroit knows to expect demand for fuel-efficient cars, it will produce many more of them.

You cannot create an effective business plan if you cannot project what the market for your product will be.  A market for green cars can only be guaranteed by government action.  It's a simple and very basic business principle.  If the automakers tell everyone what they want to hear and promise to make small, fuel-efficient cars and yet people continue to want SUVs, Honda and Toyota will supply that market and then everyone will bitch about how GM and Ford are not competitive because they've got shitloads of cars nobody wants.

You can ask them to be profitable, or you can ask them to be energy efficient.  If the government wants them to be both, they have to create the market conditions for that to happen.   

Comments (54)

1. I love the green movement. it makes me me feel all soft and glowy inside, but why are we exporting as much coal as we can mine? How are we going to get 100 miles per gallon out of a piston four stroke engine? Hybrids are a nice boutique idea, but not terribly pratical long run.

   Posted by julien38 at 11/27/2008 @ 1:06pm

2. Sure, just pass a law. That's the answer. Not.

   There are no political solutions to the marketplace. Don't you understand that conflict of incentives?

   "We can sit around and wax rhapsodic about highways covered in green cars, but until the government adopts policy that creates demand for them, there is no evidence that anyone will buy them." I contend that is a path to disaster. Let consumers' freedom determine true demand. What you propose will only lead to tyranny.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 11/27/2008 @ 1:53pm

3. So the government should force people to buy cars they don't want in order to save the auto industry?

   I thought the myth of a command economy had been disproven years ago but apparantly not in some circles.

   I know, maybe we could form a "Central Committee" that could develop a "5-year plan". Lord knows that's worked well in the past.

   Posted by vertigoskippy at 11/27/2008 @ 1:53pm

4. Well, actually guys I think what Ms Hamser is recommending is the usual solution in times of cheap gas (and $1.59 a gallon again is cheap gas)....

   raise gas taxes so it goes back to $3-4 a gallon.

   Problem is it hurts the working class and middle class and nobody in Congress (except a few safe Bluest of Blue district liberals) will support it.

   It's the same trap we get into EVERY time gas goes up...and then plunges again. Hybrids and electrics look good...everybody starts talking about them....then gas gets cheap again and everybody wants their SUV or F-350 diesel.

   Posted by Mask at 11/27/2008 @ 4:42pm

5. Though not without some problems, Ms. Hamser's recommendation seems reasonable. Clearly, the private sectors has not come up with its own solutions. So, even though the idea of targeting certain taxes may not be a panacea, at least it creates some guidance, as she says. I wish I could understand this "tyranny" freiheitz speaks of...

   Posted by erazma at 11/27/2008 @ 6:48pm

6. "When Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi sent the Detroit automakers away and told them to come up with a plan..."

   ...they were merely following the modern plutocratic legislative process, which is to ask the heads of corporations to submit proposals for rubber-stamping.

   We are a country in which the advertising industry has advanced much faster than the education industry, probably because the former generates more income faster than the latter, and in a plutocracy, that's what counts. So we are extremely good at selling ourselves crap, but very poor at knowing what is actually good for us.

   Real change cannot come from the salespeople who brought us the present economic disaster, but who still believe their own sales pitch, simply because they know nothing better. It has to come from people who believe that we must distinguish needs from wants, and that must use the power of the law to make what people need cheaper, and what they merely want more expensive. This is, I believe, the essence of Hamsher's proposals.

   But we also need to think outside the automobile, which has become our cushy mental prison, because we imagine it is the only vehicle that will ever work for us. Did you know that commuters in other industrialized countries are freer because they DON'T HAVE TO drive cars? I believe we could create more jobs faster by expanding energy-efficient modes of transportation that we already know how to build. The "car of the future" may never arrive, but we already have the blueprints for rails. Let's create some jobs and help more US-Americans discover the advantages of a really well-functioning public transportation system. And let's NOT wait for GM to agree that it's a good idea.

   As for bailing out GM, try these three words: Universal Health Care.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 11/27/2008 @ 11:55pm

7. americans do not want to buy cars made by GM or Ford becauase their quality is perceived as very weak. Even if they are bailed out, I will not buy an American car - i will buy a fuel efficient foreign car. So will the rest of the world. A bailout won't make the quality suck less. But that's just pragmatism. Ideologically, shareholders bear the risk of their investment in GM and they should bear the loss. Funds should be provided to those who will be unemployed if GM fails to assist them through a transition to another job - the bailout should go to them, NOT to GM shareholders and execs.

   Posted by merwinwong at 11/28/2008 @ 01:56am

8. Here's a long-term plan for Detroit: apply CAFE standards for cars to 'light trucks', i.e. 2 1/2 ton tanks known as SUVs, or redefine 'light truck' to mean just what it says, i.e. a commercial vehicle for hauling cargo.

   A higher gas tax would penalize everyone, including those of us who've had enough brains (and concern for posterity) to drive efficient vehicles.

   Detroit is making efficient cars but has little or no incentive to sell them as long as some members of the public are stupid enough to believe that a top-heavy tank is 'safer' than a real car.

   Posted by samcrossett at 11/28/2008 @ 09:26am

9. Dear "SamCrossett,"

   I agree with everything you say and would add the following.

   The makers of behemoth cars frequently trot out claims about their "safety" that I always find highly suspect. These claims generally assume that crashes are unavoidable and restrict the consideration of safety to the question of who will fare better in a crash -- the little Jetta or the big SUV? The answer to this question is pre-programmed.

   Smaller cars are, by Newton's law of inertia (all other factors being equal), more maneuverable and therefore better able to AVOID crashes than the behemoths. If we assume that some crashes are avoidable, and of course some of them are, we can conclude that small cars are in this respect safer than bigger ones.

   The largest fact that the big-is-safe argument completely, and I believe deceptively, ignores is how the unfortunate people in the smaller vehicle fare when a larger vehicle, being less maneuverable than theirs, slams into them. The bigger the vehicles on the highway become, the more likely accidents caused by inferior maneuverability become, and the victims are people in smaller vehicles. And let's not forget bicyclists and pedestrians.

   The bigger-is-safer myth, I strongly suspect, has created an arms race on our highways in which people defend their own relative safety at the expense of the safety of others.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 11/28/2008 @ 09:52am

10. Jakob, thank you for your riposte.

    I just purchased a 2004 Caravan, which attains over 20 mpg while carrying 7 passengers or several hundred pounds of concrete and mortar mix. I could have paid considerably more for all-wheel-drive, but it occurred to me that awd and 4wd are only more effective in accelerating the vehicle, not stopping it. Another example of the false sense of security indulged in by SUV drivers.

    Posted by samcrossett at 11/28/2008 @ 10:09am

11. An astute reader may say: But didn't JK just endorse Hamsher's proposals, including a gasoline tax, then turn around and agree with "SamCrossett," who rejects the gasoline tax?

    You caught me!

    I am somewhat of two minds about a gasoline tax. On the one hand, I admire the Europeans for their use of the gasoline tax to curb the expansion of automobile transportation at the expense of everything else. On the other hand, I understand that we US-Americans so abjectly depend on the automobile that a gasoline tax might leave many people stranded or unable to get to work.

    We need to get more alternative transportation in place before we start using HEAVY disincentives to drive cars. Modest disincentives would be okay, provided that we compensate country folk somehow.

    I am leery about consumption taxes for the same reason that I am leery about sales taxes: they are regressive taxes. They hit everybody equally, without regard for differences in personal wealth and differences in the ability to bear the burden of the tax. We should never rely too heavily on regressive taxes.

    Although I support the environment and the arts, I am very sad that in my state (Minnesota), there is a movement to amend the constitution to provide a sales tax -- a modest one -- to pay for the environment and the arts. This should be a PROGRESSIVE tax, my conscience warns, and hopes that the constitution, if amended to add this regressive tax, may be amended yet again to undo this wrong.

    But this didn't stop my two-minded self from voting to endorse the amendment in its present, objectionable form. The environment and the arts are vital, and we cannot wait for a perfect law in this overwhelmingly ideologically regressive age. God forgive me if I have done more harm than good in my own time.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 11/28/2008 @ 10:19am

12. I just purchased a 2004 Caravan, which attains over 20 mpg while carrying 7 passengers or several hundred pounds of concrete and mortar mix.

    Posted by samcrossett at 11/28/2008 @ 10:09am

    hey, i know lots of folks whose hands made that thing.

    enjoy.

    watch that transmission. i've got a friend, who after replacing it twice, put in a manual transmission instead.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/28/2008 @ 12:45pm

13. y'all can save a lot of gas if you learn to drive better.

    i get around 40 mpg from a 30 mpg rated civic.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/28/2008 @ 12:46pm

14. a civic that's made in canada.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/28/2008 @ 12:48pm

15. Ms. Hamsher is quite correct, although this has been obvious for many years. The Europeans have taxes that make gasoline twice as expensive and have cars that get twice the gas mileage---not too complicated.

    Again, to point out the obvious, tax policy is not just for raising money. It is an instrument of public policy. Occasionally we need to act in a way that is of benefit to the community as a whole---for example, lower the amount of oil we import. Individual self-interest will not solve problems like that.

    Posted by SK9 at 11/28/2008 @ 1:38pm

16. FZ, you must make all the other drivers on the road crazy driving that way. 20 mph in a 30, or something like tha? At least you won't have to worry about speeding tickets.

    Posted by jackwells at 11/28/2008 @ 2:31pm

17. Government gives 700 billion to finance companies that can't run their businesses well enough to stay open, triggering a nationwide credit freeze. Government asks for no "plans" from these banks. In fact, government doesn't even ask them to come to Washington.

    Government makes auto makers, who have to pay for the health care of their employees, and compete against foreign companies who can easily set up shop in this country, beg for a tiny loan of help during a recession started by the banks.

    Government cares for rich financiers, not for workers.

    And y'all want to debate a gas tax? A gas tax, or the lack of one, ain't gonna save my job, or feed my family. And here in the manufacturing district of America, that's what we're worried about.

    And by the way, Ford builds the best truck in the world, and a 35-mpg sedan that costs under 15K. Quality is not the problem.

    Posted by joesmith at 11/28/2008 @ 2:38pm

18. Social regression is still in full sway as we speak. Forty years ago there were two bus lines going north & south of this community with two trips a day each way. A person could flag the bus down & board or disembark in most locations. Today there's one bus line & you'll be lucky to get off, let alone board in a small town or village. The cost for a short trip is high. You might arrive in town at 3am & the "depot" is a truck stop five miles from city center. For many security is now having three vehicles on hand as there are now commuters living far out in the boonies. This wasn't true in the past.

    Posted by Sorelish at 11/28/2008 @ 2:45pm

19. No kidding, FZ - you can actually get a manual trans for a Caravan? I thought I would have to buy a Honda or VW to enjoy the improved economy and performance of a stick shift.

    Even I hadn't believed in buying American, the weak dollar would have decided it for me. A comparable Passat wagon with a V6 and manual trans would have been 50% more.

    Posted by samcrossett at 11/28/2008 @ 5:42pm

20. We can sit around and wax rhapsodic about highways covered in green cars, but until the government adopts policy that creates demand for them....

    So now the government is in marketing?

    Posted by Incoming at 11/28/2008 @ 6:43pm

21. RE: Gas tax.

    While consumption taxes are "regressive", we should consider how many other tax dollars go into the bizarre military machinations we've gone through, to "secure" our supply.

    Yes, we've been doing energy policy all wrong, but it is what we do. I would not be surprised if there were about a dollar a gallon "tax" hidden in your other taxes.

    The tax should ramp up slowly, but surely. And (as if this is possible) the excess used to 'smooth out' the price fluctuations. Hence, not too high now, but better plan on replacing your vehicle with more efficient one, 'cause the price WILL go up.

    I was in SC last week and mentioned that, if they raised their gas tax .15 to match my state, their roads might not suck so bad. You would have thought I was talking about murdering babies.

    Everybody yelled at once.

    Then I pointed out that, at 25,000mi/yr, 0.15 was:

    $250 for a 15mpg gas sucking truck.

    $125/yr for an Accord/Camry.

    And about $80 a year for a subcompact.

    Bad roads cost FAR more than that a year, I said. No one said anything except mumbling about how taxes are bad.

    People are dumb.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/28/2008 @ 7:19pm

22. No kidding, FZ - you can actually get a manual trans for a Caravan?

    Posted by samcrossett at 11/28/2008 @ 5:42pm

    nope. he put it in himself.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/28/2008 @ 8:04pm

23. "Fewer than half of the most popular GM, Ford, and Chrysler models are made with at least 75% domestic parts. On the other hand, Toyota's Sienna has 85% American-made parts."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/28/2008 @ 8:21pm

24. Thanks to every one for an incredibly informative post. I learned a lot.

    FROSTY Z: are you gonna tell us how you get that extra mileage out of that car? I'm a big Civic fan. I killed one after 275,00 miles. Best car I ever had, so far. Pray tell, are you shutting the engine down when you're going down a hill, things like that?

    Posted by ficheye at 11/28/2008 @ 10:16pm

25. Free Willy was a great movie........

    Free GM......let it solely decide what vehicles to build!

    There is a viable GM/Ford within the dying GM/Ford (of now)...that builds full-size panel vans, Koenig truck chasis, bus/RV frames/axles, airport shuttles, 15-passenger vans, full-size SUVs'.....

    Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/28/2008 @ 10:54pm

26. It is amusing to watch the left pretend to care about the auto industry's financial woes--the same industry they despise within the very core of their being.

    You want to know the real reason the left has always trumpeted public transport over private auto ownership (even before the latest concerns over oil supplies, global warming, etc.)? It all comes down to control. Let's face it, the left is largely comprised of a bunch of control freaks that don't approve of individuals running around pursuing their own agendas--kinda screws with that whole "hive" thing they've got going on where the gov tells you when to shit and what to wipe your ass with.

    People with their own cars can go where they want whenever they want. They don't have to conform to someone else's idea of what their schedule should be, their movements can't be easily tracked and that just pisses a lot of you right the hell off.

    So now you have the opportunity to tax people out of those nasty old cars and into the glorious arms of public transport. All under the guise of "saving the industry", or environment, or whatever bullshit you can come up with.

    It's ok, you don't have to apologize for your predilictions but please spare us all the crocodile tears.

    Posted by vertigoskippy at 11/29/2008 @ 03:07am

27. People with their own cars can go where they want whenever they want.They don't have to conform to someone else's idea of what their schedule should be, their movements can't be easily tracked and that just pisses a lot of you right the hell off.Posted by vertigoskippy at 11/29/2008 @ 03:07am

    What about free choice? What if I'd like to choose between riding the bus or driving into town? Even Bill Gates has been known to circle city blocks looking for a vacant parking meter rather than patronize a parking garage costing several dollars an hour. Is there something in your peanut butter making you dizzy?

    Posted by Sorelish at 11/29/2008 @ 12:55pm

28. >>>If the government wants them to be both, they have to create the market conditions for that to happen. <<<

    There is no doubt that government can play a tremendous catalyst role in ushering in green vehicles. Loan guarantee programs and other financing assistance for automakers who build green is one of many government actions that are necessary. Building out a national electric grid and charging stations is another area where government could assist industry.

    The thought that people "won't buy" electric cars is total nonsense. The average consumer doesn't give a hoot about what is under the hood of their vehicle as long as it looks nice, accelerates fast enough for them to pass a car, get on the highway at highway speed, is reliable, and is not too burdensome to "fill-up" (re-charge, in the case of electric vehicles). If automakers follow this formula, they can sell as many of these vehicles that they can make.

    The Volt concept by GM is ill conceived, in that the electric portion of the hybrid motor only goes 40 miles, when current technology can get you 200-300 miles a charge as Tesla and others have proven. If GM redesigned this vehicle so that the electric motor went 200-300 miles and the gas motor 100 miles for emergencies if caught between charges, they have a WINNER!!!

    By limiting the electric motor to 40 miles, GM has made a conscious decision to target only those small number of "environmental consumers" and those wanting a second car for use around town. This limited market is considerably smaller than the mass market, but I think that is the point of the Volt design - build a car that it doesn't cannibalize existing gas motor car sales which can be used as "evidence" that there is not a large enough market for electric vehicles.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/29/2008 @ 1:36pm

29. Food for thought for the Left......who worship the Europeans who have always taxed gasoline heavily AND have excellent public transport in all major cities....

    Why don't they lead in the development of hybrids or electric cars?

    Why don't they have CAFE for their domestic auto industry to further improve `efficiency'?

    Why did they move their own small-car manufacturing to New Europe even though their auto unions are as tough as our UAW?

    Do you think the Euro auto makers are rooting for Ford/GM? Do you think any of them would buy Ford/GM after Benz's experience with Chrysler?

    Does anyone (outside the Loony Left) have any confidence in the FEds, or Michigan, to resuscitate the Big Two?

    Does anyone have a problem w/my predicting double digit UNemployment will hit MI first, and quite soon and fully self-inflicted?

    Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/29/2008 @ 2:07pm

30. Derrr, it's the UAW, derrrrr!

    Derrrrrrr, leftists and their not desiring an unregulated free market, derrrrrr!

    LOL, Happy, have you even heard of the word "accountability" or did you just miss that day in school? At least you have no trouble showing your penchant for broad sweeping generalizations about "the left". You've gone even further off the deep end since 11/04.

    Your prediction? Ya, you're pretty good at predicting...

    Just look at how right you were about who would win the pres. race! I seem to remember you making a few guarantees about that as well!

    You and frankgrits should get together and have a prediction party!

    Here's MY prediction: 85% of your predictions will be 90% inaccurate!

    LOL

    Posted by TexasFlood at 11/29/2008 @ 2:48pm

31. That goddam UAW cowing all those poor downtrodden American automotive executives!

    Won't somebody PLEASE think of GMs CEOs?! It takes a village! LOL

    Posted by TexasFlood at 11/29/2008 @ 2:49pm

32. All the Democrat bigshot politicians (Obama included) run to help the banks with unlimited trillions of dollars, but they haggle over $25 billion for the U.S. auto industry. Even after the UAW worked to get Obama elected. That's gratitude. Kinda shows who the Demos really represent.

    Posted by philbq at 11/29/2008 @ 11:41pm

33. The Volt concept by GM is ill conceived, in that the electric portion of the hybrid motor only goes 40 miles, when current technology can get you 200-300 miles a charge as Tesla and others have proven. Posted by Metteyya at 11/29/2008 @ 1:36pm

    Is it true that this car couldn't even get up a hill in a recent test? It's not funny, but it's pretty strange that the EV1 - the one they 'killed' in 'WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR' was getting 150 miles a charge, and an older gentleman near the end of the movie had made great headway on a battery that he estimated would get near 300 miles a charge. They're going backwards in order to keep a firm grip on the 'parts and replacement' industry. Check out the movie. It's great. Good post, M.

    My point is really that they HAVE the car that we really need, and they still won't produce it. But after many thousand miles all the test cars needed was wiper blades and tire rotation. Now THAT was a problem!

    Posted by ficheye at 11/30/2008 @ 06:28am

34. Where's Detroit Plans for Detroit?

    Does Detroit have the leadership to evaluate its own problems, or does it expect big daddy to do it for them? Why were these so-called leaders elected?

    It's time for cities to make their own plans and to sale them to the public - and then to implement them!!

    Posted by pacrat at 11/30/2008 @ 09:08am

35. Posted by JakobFabian at 11/28/2008 @ 09:52am – in part:

    Smaller cars are, by Newton's law of inertia (all other factors being equal), more maneuverable and therefore better able to AVOID crashes than the behemoths .……we can conclude that small cars are in this respect safer than bigger ones.

    By this line of reasoning, motorcycles are safer than SUVs. How about this, red cars are more easily seen than other colored cars, so red cars are safer. How about red motorcycles?

    Inertia is proportional to mass, what you did not allude to was momentum (mass x velocity) and seeing as how very few collisions occur when both participants are at rest, in the case of a collision (all other factors being equal) the big car wins.

    Posted by Incoming at 11/30/2008 @ 11:33am

36. ...very few collisions occur when both participants are at rest, in the case of a collision (all other factors being equal) the big car wins.

    Posted by Incoming at 11/30/2008 @ 11:33am

    Careful w/your science-based Newtonian BS! The Left believes in a higher order...their Religion of Holier than Thou!

    As you say, I buy into your "(all other factors being equal) the big car wins"....and since my and my family's lives are Holier than anybody else.....I will never buy a small, feather-weight & ?exotic? car; besides, I don't want to afford them nor have the middle class subsidize my purchase!

    Gave my oldest son, as a HS Senior, a F-150....way back when.... He never lost in any of his youthful collisions...:~)

    Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/30/2008 @ 12:56pm

37. Ummmm...Wasn't it just 4 months ago The Nation was bitchin' about how high gas prices were and how it was making likfe harder on the low and middle income workers...and now they're talking about raising gas taxes to...ummmm...make life harder on the low and middle income workers? Makes sense only in La La Nationland.

    Posted by usc1 at 11/30/2008 @ 5:27pm

38. freiheti: "Let consumers' freedom determine true demand. What you propose will only lead to tyranny." Great line. We must take advantage of the low oil prices and try to keep them low to get the economy back up. This buys us time to transform transportation to electric. We have made a start but much needs to be done, especially in battery technology, but also a huge increase in generating capacity to provide enough electricity for said cars. Hello nuclear. There is really no alternative and it will take a couple of decades at least plus the Political will to do it. Someone lamented why we export huge amounts of coal. Uh, let me guess...Someone Wants to Buy it, maybe? Could it be China, the love god for the left? the country that can do no wrong? been hearing that for decades.

    Posted by pyeatte at 12/01/2008 @ 01:42am

39. I don't know why Jane thinks Government is the best entity to come up with a plan. "Government" has been as aware of the need to change our dependency on fossil fuels for years as much as anyone else, and done nothing. Perhaps there are a few inconvenient truths Jane needs to learn:

    The Government actually makes more money in taxes per gallon of gas than the oil companies do, by a few cents per gallon.

    The powers that be would never allow new alternatives to take the place of fuel at anything resembling a speedy pace, and then only when the handwriting was on the wall: Any quick change against a business that is so globally encompassing would throw us into a world wide depression.

    The use of oil is a double edged sword. We complain about being "on the Arab dole" for oil. My contention is that our Gov. WANTS to be on the Arab Dole: They WANT oil to continue to be the issue, because since we represent a market to them, it give us a reason to stay involved in Middle East geopolitics, and our gov wants to stay involved in those politics. If we didn't need their oil, there really wouldn't be any justification for being there. Our people would know it, and the Arabs would know it.

    Lastly Jane, most people don't really care about the green thing: They just want cars that cost them less.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/01/2008 @ 07:54am

40. Good point by chip thornton..and others..now take it a step further,,,what would happen if there was no reason to be in the middle east because a cheap alternative to fossil fuels was found? what would happen to all the countries that depend on the oil revenue? starve? collapse? More importantly is the utopian idea that the government manipulating the market with higher taxes or other methods will produce positive outcomes. CLUE: PRESENT HOUSING MARKET COLLAPSE DUE TO GOVERNMENT MANIPULATION!!!!!! If it takes a double load of bricks to get a point through, mandate that those same people, the crooks and the innocent ones, be allowed to get loans from the institutions that survived the present mess and that they must buy vehicles from the big 3. And mandate that the big 3 must produce "green" vehicles for them. in 5 years you would see the total wreakage of the remaining banks and the big 3. OH, and lets tax the hell out of gas too so we can make virtually everything too expensive to make and sell. but what would that matter as everyone's discretionary income would be gone paying the energy bills and buying food. Inexpensive ENERGY is the reason we became an industrial power house helping feed the world and it is the reason we enjoy the standard of living we do today. If you don't think so, have your power disconnected, get rid of your vehicle, grow your own food and raise your own meat. When you are able to survive that AND then start producing something of marketable value, then you will probably understand why we shouldn't let the government "fix" our cost of energy. Jane Hamsher doesn't have a clue about economics or cultures or anything else it would seem. That must be why she looks to government morons as being intellectual genuises who can save the day.

    Posted by infinitewisdom4u at 12/01/2008 @ 08:44am

41. but until the government adopts policy that creates demand for them,

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/27/2008 @ 1:53pm

    That's what Ms. Hamsher is proposing. Setting the federal gas tax at ($4.00 - cost) so that consumers pay $4.00 per gallon is a policy that will create demand for fuel efficient cars. No, there are limits. At 50 mpg, a car will burn 2000 gallons over the 100,000 lifetime. At $2 per gallon cost, this is a $4,000 tax over the car's usful lifetime (say 7 years).

    Robert Samuelson recommended this approach. I think I would support it if it were coupled with a tax break for the rich. (You know, "rich" meaning anyone with a job.)

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 09:34am

42. Although I support the environment and the arts, I am very sad that in my state (Minnesota), there is a movement to amend the constitution to provide a sales tax -- a modest one -- to pay for the environment and the arts. This should be a PROGRESSIVE tax, my conscience warns, and hopes that the constitution, if amended to add this regressive tax, may be amended yet again to undo this wrong.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 11/28/2008 @ 10:19am

    Two points:

    MN's sales tax is more progressive than onther states' sales taxes because it exempts food, clothing (like diapers), and other essentials, which lightens the burden on the poor.

    Secondoly I have never agreed with any comment here more storngly than I agree with this. Taxes to support liberal boondoggles like "arts" and "environment" should be "progressive" taxes; that is assessed on Progressives with a pro-rata share because Progressives are the only ones who care about this crap.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 09:45am

43. Although I support the environment and the arts, I am very sad that in my state (Minnesota), there is a movement to amend the constitution to provide a sales tax -- a modest one -- to pay for the environment and the arts. This should be a PROGRESSIVE tax, my conscience warns, and hopes that the constitution, if amended to add this regressive tax, may be amended yet again to undo this wrong.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 11/28/2008 @ 10:19am

    Two points:

    MN's sales tax is more progressive than onther states' sales taxes because it exempts food, clothing (like diapers), and other essentials, which lightens the burden on the poor.

    Secondoly I have never agreed with any comment here more storngly than I agree with this. Taxes to support liberal boondoggles like "arts" and "environment" should be "progressive" taxes; that is assessed on Progressives with a pro-rata share because Progressives are the only ones who care about this crap.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 09:46am

44. Sorry for the double post. It was a funny joke, but not worth of a repeat.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 09:47am

45. Its a tough choice, you know, between high gas taxes that encourage conservation, but victimize the poor people who can barely afford to run their cars, and low gas taxes that encourage people to use cars that pollute more and victimize the environment.

    Its a tough choice, you know, between letting the big three crash and burn to punish their bad management, and government subsidies to save the jobs of all those workers.

    Its a tough choice, you know, between big cars that protect the passengers and small cars that protect the environment.

    Its a tough choice, you know, between a Toyota made in Alabama and a Ford made in Mexico.

    Posted by Mistral at 12/01/2008 @ 10:01am

46. How come there's no picture of Jane. I wanna see if she's a nice looking as Jessica was.

    Even without a smile, she was one hot lookin feminist! :)

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/01/2008 @ 10:36am

47. HKPM

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/01/2008 @ 1:18pm

48. I live in one of the most highly taxed states, top three, yet wall st. has hoarded all their earnings while upstate areas of NY state live as a third world country....median income around 30K...this is not even a year-end bonus for a lower end trader...

    "In Massachusetts, which is facing a $1.3 billion deficit, officials expect to take in an additional $150 million from new tax-enforcement initiatives, including $60 million as a result of the work of nearly 90 new state workers focusing on compliance and collection."

    this is very wonderful, yet most will get on average around $100 from indiv taxpayers...

    somehow one of ninety people can always find some "error"....

    but is it worth hiring ninety enforcers to crack down on lower and middle class for pennies, basically and then turn around and give my hard-earned money away to their corporate cronies...who hide more money each year than I will make in my lifetime???

    apparently it is...now fix the fu)&)P roads....for a CHANGE...

    it is like "bailout out" gm with my money which has debt of $50 billion and pays $3 billion each year on the interest on its' debt, yet our $25 billion will "save" GM????

    you don't have to be a mathematician to realize it doesn't add up...

    something fishy is going on....and it has to STOP NOW!!!!

    look at thailand....for "real" democracy...

    we are all a bunch of apathetic whiners...otherwise dubya would have gotten the boot a long time ago...

    we are not even a superpower except for our antiquated military...this alone doesn't equal "world power"....let's not delude ourselves...it only means we are bullies....

    usually the "wimps" turn out to be bill gates and the bullies end up flipping burgers....

    Posted by jrs112 at 12/01/2008 @ 3:18pm

49. if there werent' gas guzzling SUVS there wouldn't need to be "extra" safety precaustions...and we could get more fuel efficient cars like Europe...only in america has very negative connotations in other places....we are very backwards....

    we don't charge suvs for wear and tear, we don't make them pay for extra pollution costs, etc...extra insurance costs...all the accidents I have read in my local paper ALL OF THEM involve collisions either between suvs or where a smaller car or motorcyclist fatality is a result of collision with SUV...

    then what happens?? the SUV is MAYBE ticketed for failure to yield...OOPS!!!

    Posted by jrs112 at 12/01/2008 @ 3:21pm

50. "Taxes to support liberal boondoggles like "arts" and "environment" should be "progressive" taxes; that is assessed on Progressives with a pro-rata share because Progressives are the only ones who care about this crap."

    yes, environment is crap...conservatives don't breathe any more of my "liberal" air....you don't care about it.....only granola-munching hippies care about the environment..what an ignorant statement!!!!

    Posted by jrs112 at 12/01/2008 @ 3:23pm

51. yes, environment is crap...conservatives don't breathe any more of my "liberal" air....you don't care about it.....only granola-munching hippies care about the environment..what an ignorant statement!!!!

    Posted by jrs112 at 12/01/2008 @ 3:23pm

    Lighten up. It was a joke. *********************************************************** Sorry for the double post. It was a funny joke, but not worth of a repeat.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 09:47am

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/02/2008 @ 09:16am

52. I'm surprised to see some people still talking about the "inferior quality" of cars built in the U.S. It was fashionable to say that 20 years ago, but recent (within the last three weeks) studies show that many U.S. models have not only caught, but surpassed many imports. Do some research on the Web and check it out yourself. In addition, Ford leads all makers in current rankings for safety. GM has more autos that get 30 mpg or more than any other make. And Ford is about to release its Fusion hybrid, which is expected to get 6 mpg more than the Camry hybrid. Consider all of these things along with the fact that many American models cost less than their foreign counterparts, and I think there are good reasons to "buy local."

    Posted by JFKennedy at 12/02/2008 @ 9:50pm

53. Ms. Hamsher is absolutely right in stating that our government should be forcing the issue by setting policy calculated to convert the auto industry to a "green" mindset. It's called "good government". She is also right on with her observation that the industry will never get it right, unless compelled to do so.

    Where Ms. Hamsher's article falls short is its failure to acknowledge that our government will adopt such policies when, and only when, the people force them to do so. If we are simply counting on or hoping for the collective wisdom and good intentions of our political leaders to make it happen, the industry will be touting the Hummer and like vehicles for a long time to come.

    Yes, we may see minor concessions from the industry, those "sacrifices" necessary to land federal handouts, but nothing of real consequence, as far as fuel efficiency, pollution and global warming are concerned.

    Until and unless the people, in numbers reaching critical mass, demand significantly more fuel efficient and less polluting vehicles, the industry will continue to offer the same old products and the concepts that got them and us where we are now.

    Complain to your elected officials, loudly and often. Demand that they do the right thing, or risk having to look for a real job.Make a statement - a green statement - when you acquire your next vehicle. Bottom line, it's up to you and me.

    Posted by Austintatious at 12/03/2008 @ 11:07am

54. I couldn't agree more, without increasing taxes on transportation fuels all the CAFE standards in the world won't begin to address the problems. Increased fuel taxes will affect not only future vehicles but also the vehicles people already own, encouraging people to drive slower, smarter, and less.

    The revenues generated by higher fuel taxes can be used to repair our current road infrastructure and build new greener mass transit, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and create new jobs in the process. A demand side solution will not only give the auto companies, both those in my hometown of Detroit, but everyone else who wants to sell here (it's interesting that BMW and Mercedes no longer offer 4 cyls in any of their US models) an incentive to build greener cars. A demand side incentive to drive less can also help to put an end to the sprawl that's been destroying our countryside and farmlands and depopulating many of this country's core cities and inner ring suburbs.

    I would go farther than just raising transport fuel taxes, I would also lower speed limits both on interstates and in urban areas; it's time to come up with nationally standardized speed limits based on road types, slower speeds in urban and residential areas would make for an environment which is safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Higher automotive registration fees, based on a ratio of a vehicle's power and torque output to a metric based on the vehicle's weight and combined passenger and cargo volume would help to insure that people who have a legitimate need for larger cars and trucks for their family or business wouldn't be unduly penalized. A system of tax rebates would also take some of the sting of increased taxes and fees off those who need to do a lot of driving.

    Posted by Edoardo_C at 12/03/2008 @ 7:58pm