Mark Twain, Will Rogers, H. L. Menken.
“I think they should just make a separate category for “work trucks”. Make it so you can buy a pickup penalty-free so long as it has manual-everything, vinyl seats, rubber floor, only AMFM, no cruise control, etc.”
It sounds simple, but in practice I think it will be very hard to do this. How does the Government know it is a work truck? And what is the definition of a work truck? There’s a guy in my neighborhood that owns a electrical supply company. Should he get the tax waived on his new Suburban that he replaces every couple of years? He certainly doesn’t use it to truck parts around. And manual everything is not a good idea. Work trucks that carry heavy loads on the bed and in trailers should have an automatic transmission. You’re just asking for clutch trouble using a manual transmission for heavy duty hauling. If there is a good way to make this work without too many scams, then great.
Remembered what happened when gas went pass $4/gal last year? Chrysler promised to match $3/gal for new truck buyers. Then it borrowed money with the promise that it would pay us back. How is it fair for someone like me, who doesn’t own a truck, to sponsor new truck buyers?
Higher gas prices could work in remote area. People would slowly transition to smaller cars for their long highway trips. But in populated areas, I envision people breaking into cars, siphoning gas off of each other. We don’t need more poverty driven crimes. I don’t want people hurting for gas money looking over my shoulder as I pull money from the ATM.
I really wish that we can pay $8/gal for gas and get free health care and other benefits in return. It is sad that things don’t work this way in this country.
Mark Twain and Will Rogers may have been pundits, but they were also known for being intelligent creative thinkers (unlike Beck, Palin, and Limbaugh). Twain wrote fiction and Rogers acted in movies. If they had only been pundits, would today’s average Joe know who they were? I doubt it.
Who was H. L. Menken?
EDIT: I just looked up H. L. Menken on Wikipedia. He proves my point.
If I had to guess, I would bet Dean wasn’t the first. I would assume that phrase was popular in the 1960s, and possibly in the Presidential elections in 1932, 1936, and 1940.
Well, by “manual everything” I meant like hand crank windows, manual locks or manual seats not necessarilly transmission. That’s also why I wouldn’t make a restriction on engine size in this category, since that’s obviously a feature some people actually do need in a truck.
My point was that the problem (in my mind anyways) is similar to what happened when they passed the first CAFE standards in the early-90’s where the carmakers started making upscale luxury SUV’s instead of cars because the SUV’s were exempt at that time. Now that SUV’s are subject to the CAFE standards, the carmakers are doing the same thing with full-size trucks. I think by having a category of trucks without creature comforts might be a way of discouraging purchasers of vanity trucks while not penalizing those who really need them.
I would disagree on this point. We who qualify for our seniors citizen discounts talk about this often. We don’t belive there will be “death panels” that decide when it’s no longer appropriate to keep people alive.
What we do believe is that in order for the program to be “revenue neutral” serious rationing will need to happen. The CBO agrees with us. And we believe that the rationing decisions will be made by a federal government beaurocracy headed by a “czar” whose mandate will be to cut costs, a czar answerable only to the executive branch. Too many medical decisions will be made by this beaurocracy.
“End of life counseling” was also a part of the original proposal. We suspect that this counseling will be oriented more toward getting chronically ill elderly to accept their own passing rather than to help them access expensive medical treatments.
We don’t believe there will be “death panels”. But we fear that medical decisions will ultomately be made by the feds rather than the doctors. And their goal will be to cut costs.
Personally, I believe we desperately need a national healthcare system. But I don’t like the model proposed.
There’s probably some gains to be made in commercial truck particulate emissions, but not so much in terms of reducing their Co2 emissions (which are roughly a function of their fuel consumption). Since trucks exist for no other purpose than making money and may burn hundreds of gallons of fuel a day, there is already a huge incentive for trucks to be as efficient as possible. And for as much cargo as a full-loaded semi can haul, the 2-3 MPG they can get is pretty stupendous.
Suppose a ‘work truck’ have a manual with an indestructible twin disc ceramic clutch that chatters every time it goes. It would have manual windows, locks, and mirrors. No cruise and no radio allowed. That would make it painfully clear to those who will confuse it with a luxury toy.
In theory, the government can specify what a work truck has and doesn’t have and allow manufacturers to register an eligible truck’s VIN with DOT. That truck may be sold without guzzler tax. However, people who wants the truck bad enough will pick them up and redo the exterior and interior on their own dime.
The only way I can see the guzzler applied to trucks is to apply the tax to all trucks. Business owners who need the truck will have to spread the cost to all their customers.
Carbon clouds, common in trucks, normal in trucks whose engines have not yet warmed up, are a sign of too rich a mix. They’re also a sign of high CO emissions. And high levels of HC. Trucks also put out large quantities of NOx.
I’m still wondering about the more recent claim that CO2 is undesirable. Complete combustion puts out CO2. Until someone figures out how to get the combustion process to release the carbon seperately from the oxygen, CO2 is the preferred byproduct. If someone does, triatomic oxygen (ozone) will probably be the result…then we’ll be back to square one.
The problem with the incentive argument is that every moment they’re off-line getting serviced the money is outgoing. Only when they’re on the road is the money incoming. Cross country truckers try to keep their rigs running right, because on the highways the better efficiency can save money, and a broken down cross country truck can cost a bundle in late delvery fees and late delivery impact on their business. But local trucks, like dumptrucks, especially when owned by small companies, run them until they start to falter. But I believe that even cross country trucks can be designed to produce fewer emissions.
I don’t blame the truckers. They’re just making a living. I blame the EPA for knuckling under to the lobbyists and exempting trucks when the automotive requirements were added to the Clean Air Act. Manufacturers should have had reductions in emissions mandated for new vehicles, and trucks should have been burdened with the same emissions testing requirements as cars (to different levels, of course).
“EDIT: I just looked up H. L. Menken on Wikipedia. He proves my point.”
He was one of the best known newspaper editorial writers of his day. Maybe it’s just his job, and not how he expressed his opinions. Have you heard of Ambrose Bierce? He’s another writer who had astonishing wit. You ought to read them sometime. You can find the Devil’s Dictionary (Bierce) at the public library. Limbaugh is pretty good at his craft. But Ambrose Bierce was an artist. Examples:
“An egotist is a person of low taste - more interested in himself than in me.”
“Backbite. To speak of a man as you find him when he can’t find you.”
“Bore, n. A person who talks when you wish him to listen.”
“Brain: an apparatus with which we think we think.”
“Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.”
“But the conservatives are far far superior at spinning then the liberals.”
Oh, I dunno… Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are skilled at the same kind of propagandizing. I can take any of them for a few minutes, but it eventually gets to be just so much silly whining. The saddest thing is that they are all so popular. Too many people just want to hear their own thoughts echoed and those that they disagree with demeaned.
“Really we could say its not a pickup thats the problem just any vehicle that gets worse than 22.5 combined mpg,that appears to be the line that puts you int “guzzler” country.”
If the law were in effect in 2011, then any car or truck getting less than 27.3 MPG would pay a fee and any car or truck that gets better than 27.3 MPG gets a rebate. Ford Fusion, Kia Forte, Chevy Malibu, Honda Accord, Toyota Camry - all with 4 cylinder engines would pay the guzzler fee. Everyone is talking about trucks, but this is far bigger. I still think that the idea isn’t to get the money out of you, but to encourage the manufacturers to provide alternatives that are more attractive to buy. Even with the moderately-priced cars I mentioned, $1000 more won’t stop you from buying it if you really want it. But you might decide on a different car in the category if it gets better mileage and saves you $1000 in fees when you buy it.
Back a couple of generations–OK, the mid '70’s–the romance with pickup trucks instead of cars began. The people I know who bought them were trying to avoid the new emissions rules that applied to passenger cars, but not trucks. They were students living in small apartments!
I agree with Docnick that the fee should not apply to businesses that need trucks or vans. However, most of them seem to be moving to the most fuel-efficient vehicles they can get!
I thought there should be a tax deduction for a small businesses also, but then I reconsidered. It looks like this bill will lower the price of diesel trucks, making them more affordable, almost comparable to gasoline engines. This might not be a bad thing.
Tax generally always bad,when treasury is being looted-Wake up America!-
“I blame the EPA …”
MB, that is impossible. No government agency makes policy; they just execute whatever laws are in existence. Congress is to blame, not the EPA. And we are to blame, too, because we elected the folks that made the rules. I’m constantly surprised that so many thoughtful people make this mistake.
I think that most of us are looking at the small picture: how much it adds to my next new car purchase. I don’t believe that the fees are so much aimed at our habits as how the manufacturers build their cars and trucks. A thousand or two for the cars and trucks that have average mileage is really less than 10% of the purchase price. It’s not enough to keep us from buying, but might alter our decision. If you bought a diesel that is worth of a $1000 rebate instead of a similar vehicle that rates a $1000 fee, you are ahead $2000. This would make diesels much more affordable; hybrids, too. If a $40,000 Volt rates an $8000 rebate as the summary states, then it is instantly a $32,000 car. Think in terms of how you can use the system. It might turn out to be a good thing.
I think its a bit like when people claim the Supreme Court is making laws when what they are doing is interpeting what Congress is presenting . Same thing with the EPA Congress makes the law then the EPA throws their interpetation on what Congress ment.
The end result is a agency making law,you can call it interpeting if you want.
Agree; almost no one performs an accurate “life cycle costing” when purchasing a vehicle. The initial purchase price is nearly alway the most important.
My local Saturn dealer now has fully loaded Astras on sale for little more than a stripped Hyundai Accent. They’ll sell well, since few people will realize that many Saturn dealers are going to disappear and the manufacturer of the car, Opel, may not be interested in supplying parts for North American specced cars.