US automakers are whiny bitches.
I don't like SUVs. I'm sorry if you drive one and you like it, but I think they're dangerous to those who drive them, those who don't, and the environment. The auto industry has a long history of whining to the government to protect them instead of making a better product. Gas prices are hurting SUV sales, and that's okay with me. I feel bad for taxi drivers and over-the-road truckers who have to make a living legitimately, but if it's true that $4-a-gallon gas will kill the SUV, sign me up. I'll happily pay.
Once upon a time, the government decided that every automaker's line of cars had to meet at certain average fuel efficiency rating. Cars got sleeker, included fuel injection, and ran smaller engines to meet these needs. They were clever, efficient, economical vehicles that also happened to be safer.
The carmakers discovered that light trucks, like SUVs, are not included in these fuel efficiency requirements. Thus the gas-guzzling behemoth was born. They also found that light trucks don't have to meet the same safety requirements as cars, so they saved some money there while jacking up the prices of these death traps.
A hungry politician, a Democrat to boot, wants to give the poor automakers a break. Gas costs a lot, so let's loosen up the rules we put in place to save the environment and save lives.
The heat is being felt on Capitol Hill. Last month, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) offered a proposal to raise federal fuel-economy standards in cars and trucks by 3 percent a year in exchange for the federal government picking up the costs of retiree health care. Detroit automakers say the costs are a crippling burden in competition with foreign rivals.There are so many things wrong with this statement. Evidently this is the only way that Obama can get a health care proposition passed, by giving up a victory won against big business. We also have another example of Detroit whining about how they can't compete with foreign carmakers. How about making a better product? Anybody look into that possibility?
Labels:
cars,
governments
5 comments:
I have to admit it gives me great pleasure watching hummer drivers filling up and watching their eyes as the dollars rack up. US Automakers are a whiny bunch and their manifest failure to address fuel economy is just a re-run of the quality fiasco of the 80's.
It's sad to see Obama sucking up to them - I had higher hopes for him.
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit.
--Robert Heinlein
Obama sucking up? How about Obama tries to save thousands of jobs where working class people can actually have health care for their themselves and their children, AND tries to find a way to save the pensions of thousands of seniors and those who are about to retire?
Obama ain't sucking up. We're talking about a guy who wants to be Mr. Smith Runs For President, even if he denies it. He's trying to find a balance somewhere in the midst of the insanity of our country.
I don't buy that "let's sell one issue out in order to make headway on another one" view. We've let our lawmakers tack unrelated legislation onto current bills for far too long and called it a "compromise" when it's really more of a hijack.
It's ridiculous, and it should stop. The lawmakers who allow it (either the tackers-on or the tackees-on) should be mercilessly made fun of until people realize how screwed up this is.
And for heaven's sake, if you post a contrary opinion, at least log in or sign your name.
Post a Comment