The Right Opinion
Obama's Sneaky, Deadly, Costly Car Tax
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.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

18 Comments
cookie in IN
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 8:44 AM
What was not mentioned is the loss in revenue in gas taxes. CAFE standards will not save the consumer any money, the government will just raise gas taxes to offset revenue loss.
Rod in USA
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 12:40 PM
So true - both state and federal tax rates
mark in massachusetts
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 8:53 AM
That's great news for the Dems because their power base takes public transportation.They can't afford cars,especially ones so expensive.They're the ones on the MBTA buses and subway here in Taxachusetts who whine about a .25 cent increase while my taxes (which subsidize their ride) go up way more than that.They'll be safe in the multi-ton rail cars while we scoot about in cars made by GMC (General Mao Corp.)
wjm in Colorado
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 10:10 AM
More Marxist Statist Tyranny, mandating milage standards, and what will stop them from mandating what cars are available for purchase from Governnment Motors, maybe something resembling a Yugo? All freedom is at stake in this election.
Richard Ryan in Lamar,Missouri
Thursday, August 30, 2012 at 5:49 PM
wjm, at least a GM version of a Yugo probably wouldn`t run off with someone like one of Okiller`s Government Motors pieces of crap did with a woman in the Kansas City area a few days ago. It reached speeds of 120 miles per hour and nothing she could do wold stop the thing. Police got all around her and escorted her till the thing finally came to a halt of it`s own volition. GM says they can`t find anything wrong with the vehicle. Really? It`s a miracle she wasn`t killed. I will never buy one of their pieces of crap.
Abu Nudnik in Toronto
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM
While I agree that this top-down control will not work, people kill people with bad driving habits. Your logic leads inexorably to people buying tanks to protect themselves.
There are still major inefficiencies in auto design at a basic level. Besides the big energy suck in the gear system, cars could have many pieces mass produced out of corrugated materials that are designed to absorb shock that are safer than steel while being lighter.
@Mac: The "black" was unnecessary and gives the enemy ammo. There are a lot of overcompensating racists who say "some of my favorite presidents are black" and smile at themselves in the mirror. There are enough of them to reinstall this Marxist so why help them?
MAH in Wisconsin
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM
Your argument regarding auto design may have merit-somewhere. However, in this country we still drive what we like. This is the freedom we're fighting to protect. As far as the 'black' comment, sometimes a conservative body can get so sick of the nastiness of the left-I mean they are downright vicious, mean, threatening, and crude in their posts, that it feels good to just let loose on a slammer. This forum is pretty civil and refreshing. Go elsewhere and its crucifixtion. Barry is to blame for a lot of the release of moral restraint in this country.
Howard Last in Wyoming
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 12:05 PM
Don't forget the govmint mandated bombs in the front seat, AKA air bags. The nanny state itself says they are dangerous to small people, under 5'-4", that would be a sizable portion of the female population. And you should sit at least 10" from the steering wheel. How is a small person supposed to do that? I wonder how many people have told big brother to go to hell and disconnected the air bags? And then there is the cost of the bombs themselves, $1,500 and more. Multiply that by the number of vehicles sold every year. There is an interesting statistic, that for every billion dollars of government regulation 300 people die because they have less money available for better food and health care. Also consider bumpers, at least that is what they call them today. They are made of plastic and sheet metal and crumple with a slight hit. I learned to drive on my grandfathers 37 Dodge. The bumpers where steel and mounted to the car by a leaf spring. If you hit another vehicle or an obstacle you bounced off with little or no damage in low speed impacts. Today you are looking at a minimum bill of $5,000 or even a totally wrecked vehicle.
Don't forget the other idea of the nanny state, red light cameras. They cause rear end collisions because the lead driver slams on his brakes to avoid a ticket. Could it be the govmint is using it as a revenue source? No, politicians would not do that!
Liz in Maine
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 12:21 PM
I have some problems with the way 'the powers that be' think about this situation.
When the price of gas goes up we, as a nation, drive less and therefore use less gas. When the newer vehicles gets 55 miles per gallon, as a nation, we will use more gas because a gallon will get us further down the road because it will be worth the price per mile.
Also, do the 'powers that be' realize that we have increased our usage of oil not only because we demand more gas but because we have developed other products that have oil in them? Sure there are more cars on the road but we have been raising the MPG standard for decades.... What I am talking about is the fact that it takes a pint of oil to make one disposable diaper (or so the 'carbon foot print articles' tell me)... Where are the standards to change that? (Sorry, I am not trying to give them ideas....)
The 'powers that be' really need to be shown the forest... because they can't see anything but the trees in front of them (if that).
Our family will continue to drive the 1998 vehicle that we have been driving... (the one that doesn't have a GPS attached to it and gets about 25 MPG....) at least until the 'powers that be' outlaw parts for American cars that don't live up to the standards that the 'powers that be' have put in place.
We all know that this is really just a backdoor method to getting us out of our personal vehicles and back onto public transportation... But in Maine... where we actually discribe distance by time (it will take 30 minutes to drive there....) public transportation would cost far greater for our spread out population than it does to run each individual car.
Howard Last in Wyoming
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Liz, a 30 minute drive here will not even get us out of the county. And that is doing 80 mph.
Liz in Maine
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 2:54 PM
I have always thought I would do well in Wyoming... but I keep remembering the words of some one quoted in National Geo.... 'they are nothing but Wyoming wanna be's.... life is hard here and most don't have the will to stay through winter' (or something like that..).
Howard Last in Wyoming
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 3:28 PM
Liz - people say that to keep the RIF RAF and the liberals (aren't they the same) out. We relocated to Wyoming in 05 from the Peoples Republik of NYS. We are retired and find it great. Yes it is cold during the winter with snow and we have wind. But my idea of fun is walking on water when I fish. You have to dress for the weather. We have a hot tub and I like it when it is -20 or so. There is one bad thing. In the afternoons we have to sit in the hot tub and watch the sun set over the mountains. It is a tough job but someone has to do it.
Rod in USA
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Totally concur with the premise of the article. However, Michelle needs to avoid citing government stats and discrediting them and then using government data and relying on it as fact.
The basic premise of the Obamao admin and the green tree huggers is that they can drive innovation by imposing a standard thru legislation. That's crazy. I liked MM's comment about Solyndra: So we can dictate to the auto industry and leave it up to them to finance it (except the govt sort of did finance GM and Chrysler), but we dole out millions to cronies in a failed business model with a dubious at best business case analysis just because it fits our belief system (green is good)?
Stupid.
Tod-the tool guy in BROOKLYN, N.Y.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 6:03 PM
Michelle, I learned how to drive with my Uncle's John Deere tractor, during hay season (June). Then a cousin Upstate, let me drive his 8 cylinder Chevy Chevelle "74, for my Syracuse N.Y. road test.,'78 I was 17y.o., back then. Gasoline was about 75 cents per gallon. Engines still had points-inside the distributors, and fuel mileage was 12 mpg,if I remember correctly. I took a gal to the drive-in theater for less than 5 bucks! Much later---Took my young son Benjamin and lovely wife up to Acadia National Park, Liz, back in 2000-Gorgeous Place on God's Green Earth! POTUS 44: out the door& NO MORE!!!
M Rick Timms, MD in Georgia
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 6:57 PM
The government will be fixed. We either do it at the polls this time in November with a new president and Conservative congress -- or -- the Obama regime will drive us to economic collapse and the country will see anarchy and a new nation formed on the old Constitution with a few critical changes.. such as voting rights for tax payers only. This will obviously be the more difficult path, but we will have a better governmnet one way or the other when all the fighting and misery is over. Stop Obama in November!
rponfick in Lafayette, Co
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 7:09 PM
Too many Fox News viewers here. My friends that watch too much Fox are a little unbalanced.
Ron G. in Oakland, Ca.
Sunday, September 2, 2012 at 1:09 PM
I am not a racist, I dislike Biden too.
rusureuwant2know in Iowa
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:49 PM
There's only so much energy you can get out of a gallon of gas. But then, Obummer is totally out of touch with reality.