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.

  • Berryraymond

    Two thousand will not come close to the added cost.  Hell why 55 mpg, why not make it 88mpg.  It is just a number plucked out of the air.  The unseen factor here is the re-invention of shade tree mechanics who will be getting rich fixing old cars, that is until Obama can end that line of employment.  Don’t get rid of that clunker, that may be the only people driving in a few years.

  • http://shawmut.blogspot.com/ Dave O’Connor

    Who’d envision that while still being advertised, the Volt would rate as a clunker. Now, consider those who bought them will be leigible for the next subsidy.

  • Keith in GA

    Here is the dirty little secret of the automotive industry and how they are hog-tied by our government. Volkswagon UK is already selling TODAY, 14 different vehicles that get between 55 and 85 miles per gallon. Yes, you read that right. If you don’t believe me, check out their website: 
    http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/  Oh, and NONE of these are the expensive and ultimately non-viable (economically anyway) hybrids. This is today’s diesel technology. 

    Unfortunately, they are not ALLOWED to sell the same vehicles in the US. Why, you may ask? That is because they put out approximately 10% more pollutants per gallon than a comparable gas-powered car. What is not taken into effect is that they get TWICE the mileage per gallon of a comparable gas (or even hybrid) car, and thus pollute 45% LESS per MILE. Perhaps, you ask yourself, they would be too expensive for our market to import into the US? Wrong again. They are manufactured in the US and then shipped to the UK! They are made here, but we can’t buy them here.

    If VW can do this, all of the manufacturers could do it. So, why don’t they? Who knows, but I have my suspicions. First, that it’s not politically correct to say that you’ll make an ultra-efficient vehicle that runs solely on fossil fuels. We need to force “green manufacturing” don’t we? Second, many if not most Americans when they hear about diesel-powered cars still think of the ones from the ’70’s that spit black smoke and smelled awful. Most of them haven’t really seen the new clean (and powerful) diesel technology that Europeans have been enjoying for years, and thus our manufactures don’t think they’d be readily accepted by the market here. Third, and this is the conspiracy theory version, if magically all of our vehicles tomorrow got twice the mileage they do today, that would mean we’d buy half the gas, and our government would lose half of its gas tax revenues. And our government doesn’t like less money for itself.

    We don’t need hybrids to achieve amazing gains in fuel efficiency. We just need to open the market up to the technology that is already available. I would buy one of these new VW’s today if I could (or a similar car from another manufacturer if they were offered). Wouldn’t you?

  • wally

    Back in 2007, I purchased a Prius to replace my pick up truck that was costing me too much for gas. At that time gas was high in price and I was convinced that it would continue to go up. I recognized that the Prius was higher in cost but I didn’t calculate the true costs and I was ignorant about the state of oil and gas reserves etc. Also, I liked the car and still do. However, when I am faced with another decision to purchase a car, I will do more home work. The purchase of a hybrid is an emotional thing. The sad truth is that such a purchase doesn’t save any money. What  I realized is that when a hybrid is purchased, I really was buying my fuel up front and so the savings are not there. When a hybrid is purchased, the following factors must be calculated: The higher initial cost of the car, the battery life and its replacement costs, the cost of interest that must be paid on the higher cost, the money that could be realized if that higher cost was invested. a better estimate of future gas costs, how many miles will be driven per year and whether it is as safe as another car.  Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice,shame on me.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PPL2AXPXJMWPEJWFN34MPC5RNY terry


  • GlenFS

    Michelle, did they forget to factor in the $12.69.9 gas we will be fueling it with if they implement their energy agenda?  This is my personal projection, but it’s at least as accurate as their $8000 figure.

    Nice to find you on Bernie’s blog site… hope to see more!

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    Here Michell Malkin is willing to dig deep into this back door environmental agenda with future cars but continues to give this Fraud in Chief a free pass on his April 27th, 2011 forged birth certificate.  Do you think this criminal activity is a glimpse into this deceiving Marxist agenda Michell Malkin?  Ya need to dig a little deeper into the rot behind the agenda. 

    Michell, how about a helping hand with an investigation into the fraudulent selective service registration of Barack Hussein Obama?  Is that not more of a serious matter than some gasoline standard that will not ever be implemented due to lack of funds.  A Commander in Chief with a fraudulent Selective Service registration is not worthy of you digging a little deeper? 

    Michell how about calling Susan Daniels and setting up an appointment so that you can get a truthful story about Barack Hussein Obama’s fraudulent SS# (042-68-4425).  After this number was FLAGGED several times the Social Security Admin admitted that they never issued the number to Barack Hussein Obama yet he has been using it for decades.  This is not a story worth digging a little deeper Ms Malkin? 

    • GlenFS

      Chuck, why snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?  Just kick his butt.

  • Bruce A.

    After new cars are too expensive for anyone to buy we can all ride public transportaion or our bikes to work.  Assuming there are any jobs left in the US.

  • HarpSealYeti
  • Wheels55

    If there really will be such a fuel efficient car, you will pay as much more to buy it as you would save on fuel. Be good to your car today, for it will be worth a lot more in 10 years when nobody still wants a Chevy Volt.