For all the posturing of Congress, you would think liberals would be aggressively pursuing low fuel alternatives for vehicles that Americans might actually be willing and, more importantly, able to buy. Alas, they never do. Politically, our fearless leaders seem to promote only those alternative fuel automobiles that are priced above the middle class ability to buy and only those that involve government subsidies to left wing campaign contributors to manufacture. In other words, only that which is government backed and impracticable.
A perfect example of this is with Al Gore. As he settles into his new $9 million mansion in California (saving the world apparently pays well), he can do so knowing that he’s doing his part to save the atmosphere again. He is part of an investment group backing a car firm named Fisker Automotive that received a $529 million government loan to produce a hybrid sports car in Finland designed to sell for $83,000. By the time a few friends of the rich and famous parade their new Fisker cars to show how passionate they are about saving the world, the car company will probably have gone bust and Al Gore will probably have moved into a twenty million dollar mansion.
This follows a similar US government loan of $465 million to a car company named Tesla Motors who intends to produce an electric Roadster to sell for $109,000. For the record, though both companies are laden with Hollywood names of big campaign donors to major Democratic candidates, they insist that has nothing to do with the loan approvals. Whatever the case, it appears the government and the super rich are intent on solving the gasoline problem…for the super rich. Presumably one would expect them next to design newer fuel efficient private jets, with taxpayer funding.
Meanwhile, back in mainstream America, support wanes for low speed vehicles that actually are affordable and consume less fuel. In a Wall Street Journal (May 21 -“Group Wants Low Speed Vehicles Controlled”) the IIHS or Insurance Institute for Highway Safety called cheaply priced vehicles nothing more than “souped up golf carts.” A spokesperson explained, “The vehicles are fuel efficient and cheap to own, but they aren’t built to protect people in crashes.” True, but on the other hand they don’t guzzle gas or cost $100,000. I also suspect a golf cart accident at 25 mph is probably less destructive than two electric whiz cars doing 75 on the interstate.
It seems if an idea surfaces that might be practical, affordable, and do-able, the government unleashes an agency like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to regulate the idea beyond possibility, rendering so many safety precautions that a bicycle must sell for ten thousand dollars. That’s how government protects us little people from ourselves. The solutions they find ultimately will produce something no one can buy, but their friends will get rich from making them.
For those of us who think the point of transportation is to get from point A to point B, perhaps “souped up golf carts” might be a reasonable answer, at least for small towns and rural areas with speed limits of 30 mph and below. Perhaps we could design or designate certain streets that interconnect and reserve them for anything that one can sit in and doesn‘t go above 30 mph. It would be nice if folks who are on fixed incomes, folks who are poor, folks who are too fragile to be on superhighways, could use some real alternative transport options to re-engage in life. They could shop, go to church, get to work, to school, and so on.
While we’re at it, perhaps we might open up some more industry options and employment markets creating alternative transportation options right here in America instead of Finland. It really seems so obvious that one can pretty much expect Congress will never think of it.
I don’t mind the beautiful people having their beautiful people options, which really consists of spreading government dollars into their domain. But it would be nice if the cards weren’t so stacked against the 99 percent of Americans who otherwise might have alternatives that could apply to their lives.
About the author
William Burton wrote 26 articles on this blog.
A political junkie with a home spun view of politics, passionately conservative. Published writer (short stories, political essays, poems), and public speaker. Profiled in, "The Ridiculous Race" by Steve Heely.
The War Against Low Cost Alternatives
For all the posturing of Congress, you would think liberals would be aggressively pursuing low fuel alternatives for vehicles that Americans might actually be willing and, more importantly, able to buy. Alas, they never do. Politically, our fearless leaders seem to promote only those alternative fuel automobiles that are priced above the middle class ability to buy and only those that involve government subsidies to left wing campaign contributors to manufacture. In other words, only that which is government backed and impracticable.
A perfect example of this is with Al Gore. As he settles into his new $9 million mansion in California (saving the world apparently pays well), he can do so knowing that he’s doing his part to save the atmosphere again. He is part of an investment group backing a car firm named Fisker Automotive that received a $529 million government loan to produce a hybrid sports car in Finland designed to sell for $83,000. By the time a few friends of the rich and famous parade their new Fisker cars to show how passionate they are about saving the world, the car company will probably have gone bust and Al Gore will probably have moved into a twenty million dollar mansion.
This follows a similar US government loan of $465 million to a car company named Tesla Motors who intends to produce an electric Roadster to sell for $109,000. For the record, though both companies are laden with Hollywood names of big campaign donors to major Democratic candidates, they insist that has nothing to do with the loan approvals. Whatever the case, it appears the government and the super rich are intent on solving the gasoline problem…for the super rich. Presumably one would expect them next to design newer fuel efficient private jets, with taxpayer funding.
Meanwhile, back in mainstream America, support wanes for low speed vehicles that actually are affordable and consume less fuel. In a Wall Street Journal (May 21 -“Group Wants Low Speed Vehicles Controlled”) the IIHS or Insurance Institute for Highway Safety called cheaply priced vehicles nothing more than “souped up golf carts.” A spokesperson explained, “The vehicles are fuel efficient and cheap to own, but they aren’t built to protect people in crashes.” True, but on the other hand they don’t guzzle gas or cost $100,000. I also suspect a golf cart accident at 25 mph is probably less destructive than two electric whiz cars doing 75 on the interstate.
It seems if an idea surfaces that might be practical, affordable, and do-able, the government unleashes an agency like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to regulate the idea beyond possibility, rendering so many safety precautions that a bicycle must sell for ten thousand dollars. That’s how government protects us little people from ourselves. The solutions they find ultimately will produce something no one can buy, but their friends will get rich from making them.
For those of us who think the point of transportation is to get from point A to point B, perhaps “souped up golf carts” might be a reasonable answer, at least for small towns and rural areas with speed limits of 30 mph and below. Perhaps we could design or designate certain streets that interconnect and reserve them for anything that one can sit in and doesn‘t go above 30 mph. It would be nice if folks who are on fixed incomes, folks who are poor, folks who are too fragile to be on superhighways, could use some real alternative transport options to re-engage in life. They could shop, go to church, get to work, to school, and so on.
While we’re at it, perhaps we might open up some more industry options and employment markets creating alternative transportation options right here in America instead of Finland. It really seems so obvious that one can pretty much expect Congress will never think of it.
I don’t mind the beautiful people having their beautiful people options, which really consists of spreading government dollars into their domain
. But it would be nice if the cards weren’t so stacked against the 99 percent of Americans who otherwise might have alternatives that could apply to their lives.
About the author
William Burton wrote 26 articles on this blog.
A political junkie with a home spun view of politics, passionately conservative. Published writer (short stories, political essays, poems), and public speaker. Profiled in, "The Ridiculous Race" by Steve Heely.
Shortlink: