Back in May, presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton refused to endorse a specific change to federally-mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. In a speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the former first lady jumped into the debate with both feet. The Detroit News reports that Ms Clinton gave her support to non-existent legislation that would raise U.S. automakers' CAFE averages to 55 miles per gallon by 2030. Hang on; the toughest standard currently under consideration would hoik the CAFE standard to 35mpg by 2020. How the Hell would Detroit up their fleets' fuel economy average by 2mpg per year for 10 years after that? Why, by using the $20b in low-interest government funds she's promising to help them retool factories. Plus $2b in R&D funding for battery research. And a $10k tax credit for consumers who purchase an as yet non-existent plug-in hybrid. Oh, and the aspiring president said she'd add 100k as yet non-existent plug-in hybrids to the federal government's vehicular fleet by 2015. It'll be worth it, too, because "these tough CAFE standards will save consumers more than $180b per year and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 730 million metric tons." When asked to comment, one auto official replied "it's futile to comment when the candidates are engaged in one-upsmanship."
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Doesn’t she know we’re going to need all that money to subjugate the world’s remaining oil producers?
She reminds me of owners of sports franchises who think problems can be solved simply by throwing money at it.
No comment required. Let the lunacy sink in for a few minutes.
GM had better start reverse engineering the Vino scooter now..
Doesn’t matter, by 2030, the U.S. will be essentially be bankrupt. Beginning January 1, 2008, Medicare will start paying physician 10% less, how many doctors are going to drop out of the program because of that? This is more socialist pandering by Clinton. Lunacy indeed.
@ quasimondo: *cough* Dan Snyder *cough*
That’s all she’s got?!!!
Listen, vote for me and i will give you $30,000 back on any perpetual motion machine you buy. Act now and you get this handy dandy flux capacitor that will not only make your perpetual motion machine 10% more perpetual…it will also capacitat all flux required to go back in time!
Considering our Iraq costs are up in the trillions, I’m not surprised politicians think they can throw around a few billion without any worries.
But c’mon, any legislation speculating on technology 20 years from now is just too much of a guess.
You all know what I think about this, please take time to reflect on it.
Speaking of Hillary, where are this year’s TWAT winners?
I think hell would freeze over if any politician from either side of the fence said anything truly sensible or didn’t make gross exaggerations like this.
Sadly someone somewhere buys this manure (from all of them).
I can feel the love here (nice photo).
Dumbocrazy is for children and slaves.
gakoenig:
Nice.
I tell you, screw CAFE. Just tax gas up to $5 a gallon and raise the tax by $0.25/gal per year for the next 15 years. Mileage will take care of itself.
Oh, and the pic. I went ahead and clicked on it in hopes of a caption that would change my horror into humor but it was not to be. Bad enough you made me look at it. Is this the pose for the new $1.00 Bill, I mean bill?
I’m surprised she could be that specific even when saying something so damn stupid!
carlismo–we are no where near a trillion into Iraq-that number is 1 trillion for 10 years i think the report estimated-hope thats well spent–hillaries plan is stupid–you give the government your money so they can spend it inefficiently -thats socialism ,do you want that?.market forces will work this out–high gas prices have done this in the past.
If the crazy witch is elected the only thing going up is the number of expats.
You’re right, the one trillion was estimated, but we’re at $450 billion or so already. Either way, and even if it’s really a lot less, the point is that our politicians no longer see several billion dollars as a lot of money to be careful with.
And if giving your government billions so they can spend it inefficiently is socialism, then that’s what I’ve been living under my whole life. (Born in ’82, a couple of years after the national debt hit $1 trillion and kept going up and up… mostly during Republican presidencies.)
So I’m used to this “socialism” of yours, and it doesn’t affect whether I think an idea is good or bad. I don’t think this is a good one, but socialism has nothing to do with it. It’s just a too-low-guarantee way of trying to protect national interests.
Read some Bakunin to learn what socialism is really about.
55 mpg? Why not 85?
How car someone make this fair to the industry/people as a whole? I do not see it happening. What ever. I’m good to go either way, just need to lower my expectations.
You go girl!
I happen to think this is achievable. Put cars on a weight-loss diet, throw in some hybrids and plug-ins, add some biofuel and before you know it, bingo!
carlisimo: all i had to do is read the dictionaries definition of socialism to get the idea,and when i did there was a picture of Hillary next to it-as for the deficits in the early 80s that was brought on by the carter administrations piss poor policies and Reagan out spending the Russians on military expenditures to end the cold war and bankrupt the ussr. Clinton managed to cut our military and intelligence services in the 90s to save billions and look what that got us. the Clinton’s built north Korea a nuclear reactor ,boy that was really smart–i just hate to see how badly she can mess up the auto industry.
Don’t set low goals for yourself – chances are you will meet them.
Common – i can find (outside US auto fleet) probably a dousin cars who meet this criteria today. It’s not just a technical challenge – it is also a cultural. why do you have to snail a SUV/Truck/Performance sedan 20 mph to work, when a small fuel efficient vehicle will do?
Anyone?
spiffert:
You don’t, but does that mean that you don’t want any cars available that do not fit Hilary’s few of efficiency? Blanket regulations are politician’s answers to complex problems. Trying to understand the problem and work toward a sustainable, graduated solution is simply too much work for a grand bureacracy.
Blanket taxation, on the other hand, is a swell idea. Flat tax, I am waiting for you..
Okay boys and girls, let’s have civics class.
FACT: The president has no constitutional power to stop the Congress from passing whatever budget it wants except the veto. None, Zero, NADA. Congress can OVERRIDE the veto.
So, it’s not the President, stupid.
Get to know your Congressman, well. He should hear from you monthly. You should hear from him quarterly, in person. If you want to shrink the deficit, that’s what it takes.
The people who want to spend your tax dollars on crap are all over the guy 24/7.
The people who want to spend your tax dollars on crap are all over the guy 24/7.
That’s the problem right there, the system is weighted in the wrong direction.
How come no one has proposed a bill to make government more efficient before pushing it on the rest of us(as in cut out the layers apon layers of useless people, not add more to the problem), lead by example.
why do you have to snail a SUV/Truck/Performance sedan 20 mph to work, when a small fuel efficient vehicle will do? Anyone?
I drive a 400hp Trailblazer SS 10 miles to work everyday because I like fast. I’d rather walk than drive a Prius. However, I built a small energy efficient house in the country designed by a national award winning green builder. I save more energy with the house than I would on the difference in mileage between a fast car and a PC green weeniemobile. I’m also currently looking into adding solar power to my home. So, am I a bad person in the grand scheme of things? Is it alright with you, all things considered, that I have an big powerful gas guzzling SUV and a couple of other fast cars I occasionally take out and beat on or run at the track?
Spiffert:
Because I want to.
maybe she should impose a fart tax since methane gas is a more potent greenhouse gas than co2.im sure she could give tax credits to companies that develop fart friendly food.
Hilary’s severe MPG is unbelievably unrealistic!!
I can not believe that I agree with automakers in the fact that Hilary is trying to one up the competition.
I wanted to pass on the following press release: smnr.us/35mpgby2020. It highlights primarily the auto industry PACs and lobbies are striking down the Energy Bill and not the members of the auto industry — the auto workers and dealers.
Support the Energy Bill: http://www.energybill2007.org