I'm flabbergasted. Presidential hopeful John McCain (or someone on his staff) pens an opinion piece for The Detroit News and the paper doesn't make ANY mention of the Arizona senator's bespoke opus on their on-line home page OR the Autos section. In fact, I would have missed McCain's rant entirely if not for an article in… The Detroit Free Press. WTF is that all about? Anyway, John is holding fast to his "no federal bail out for losers" position. Per se. "With a transition to alternative-fuel vehicles, we can rejuvenate the auto industry, drive cheaply and cleanly and be more secure. I will bring customers to the showroom with up to $5,000 in tax credits to encourage the purchase of these cleaner cars." Did he say American cars? No? Shit! Chill Motown; McCain's left himself some mighty fine wiggle room. "I will continue to meet with the leaders and workers of the Big 3 automakers. If the industry should need federal assistance, I will consider any reasonable proposal they develop that moves the industry to a more stable and prosperous future." So I guess that means McCain still considers it unreasonable to suggest that a federal bailout is reasonable. Or the other way around.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
“If the industry should need federal assistance, I will consider any reasonable proposal they develop that moves the industry to a more stable and prosperous future.”
In other words: “I want your vote, so I’m not really saying anything is off the table…. at least until after I get elected.”
Political campaigning is BS that makes your average automaker’s PR dept look like the amateurs they really are. Politics is all about pandering, period. Say anything while saying nothing, all for the purpose of the mere goal of getting elected.
Whenever any conversation turns political I remember this quote from a man whose time, livelihood, and in fact entire life were ruined by politics (though I imagine most Americans have no idea who he was):
“Politics is the seedbed of social enmity, evil suspicions, shameless lies, morbid ambitions, and disrespect for the individual. Name anything bad in man, and it is precisely in the soil of political struggle that it grows with abundance.”
–Maxim Gorky, April 20, 1917
Nothing has changed in 91 years.
–chuck
Actually, the best federal assistance would be to deregulate some areas of the industry… CAFE, roof crush strength, side impact, airbags everywhere, pedestrian protection etc. etc. The auto industry is the favored whipping boy from environmentalists to consumer advocates so it’s kind of a one stop shop for congress to kick around come election time. I love how our cars all have to hit 35 mpg’s by 2020 but nobody is demanding more intelligent infrastructure from the government. When I have to stop at a red light on a main road and there is no cross traffic, that wastes both my time and gas. Multiply that by 200,000,000 a few times a day, and we’re talking real numbers.
What about daily congestion? How much fuel does that waste everyday? Why can’t the government offer tax breaks to companies with 4 day work weeks, or telecommuting options or even staggered start times. My point is, this could all be considered federal “assistance” that would greatly improve our energy cost/independance etc. I hope this is what McCain is referring to, though I doubt it.
“Actually, the best federal assistance would be to deregulate some areas of the industry… CAFE, roof crush strength, side impact, airbags everywhere, pedestrian protection etc. etc.”
Are you saying that we need more dead and injured drivers, passengers and pedestrians in order to revive Detroit?
As to the op-ed appearing in the editorial section … isn’t that normal? In all the paper’s I’ve ever read that is where guest editorials of this sort have always been found.
Chuck: that quote was beautiful. Brings tears to my eyes.
Gleetroit: I agree with everything you have to say. Except for the part about relaxing the safety standards.
I hate these political races! First I think, well this candidate really knows his shit, and then they come out and say something stupid!
Robert Farago for president! Who’s with me?
“With a transition to alternative-fuel vehicles, we can rejuvenate the auto industry, drive cheaply and cleanly and be more secure. I will bring customers to the showroom with up to $5,000 in tax credits to encourage the purchase of these cleaner cars.”
So it a tax break on FlexFuel vehicles, then?
Wow, a kowtow to both the Big Three and the Corn lobby.
Unequal protection of the law; unequal benefit from the law. No subsidies, please!
I have yet to hear a good explanation on how subsidies are not unconstitutional.
I don’t support corporate welfare, but the Constitution says Congress has the power to allocate money. Where does it say subsidies are not permitted?
Gleetroit: intelligent infrastructure actually exists, but it’s your local department of transportation’s responsibility to procure and deploy it. This could be helped along by research grants from the feds, of course.
Have you also considered that it won’t always behave the way you expect it to? If your town has intelligent traffic lights, you may get stopped when no cars are coming in the other direction if the controller determines that stopping you at that moment will smooth out traffic flow down the road.
Although I’m not in favor of doing away with safety standards completely, I do think the government medeling in the matter is not as effective as everyone thinks. The market and the media are standing by ready to shame and sue the pants off anybody who would produce a vehicle of sub-par safety (i.e. the Pinto, Ford Explorer etc.). Even NGO’s like the IIHS are accepted as being better at collecting and analyzing real world crash data than their government counterparts.
One thing the government could do to help with the safety issues, again, is review and beef up state and local driver training programs (make it tougher to get a license like in Germany). They could encourage pedestrians to look both ways instead of mandating expensive and complex pedestrian protection systems in the front ends of vehicles (already in Europe but probably coming here soon). My point is, there is already a lot that can be accomplished that is already within the realm of government responsibility. It seems lazy to just ignore it and make the auto industry do all the heavy lifting.
faster_than_rabbit says
Have you also considered that it won’t always behave the way you expect it to? If your town has intelligent traffic lights, you may get stopped when no cars are coming in the other direction if the controller determines that stopping you at that moment will smooth out traffic flow down the road.
I have considered these algorithms and it makes sense at peak traffic hours, but I know we don’t have signals that are as intelligent as they could be when I have to stop at 2 am on an 8 lane divided road, for a red light at a Michigan left with nobody there. (I’ve actually been a bit obsessed with this whole traffic light thing becuase I’m fighting a red light ticket at the moment).
Gleetroit :
I have considered these algorithms and it makes sense at peak traffic hours, but I know we don’t have signals that are as intelligent as they could be when I have to stop at 2 am on an 8 lane divided road, for a red light at a Michigan left with nobody there. (I’ve actually been a bit obsessed with this whole traffic light thing becuase I’m fighting a red light ticket at the moment).
You are right on. Overwrought mathematics really ARE NOT NECESSARY at 2 am.
It might be understandable if traffic algorithms seemed to work correctly at other times (like rush hour), but they never do. I constantly see three directions stopped at a red when the green side has no traffic, and at all hours of the day. Or a 30-second green left-arrow for two cars, while 30 or 40 cars wait in two or three other directions!
It’s a mess, in every city that I’ve been to! “Smoothing out traffic down the road” is just another nebulous way for the government bureaucrats to escape accountability. After all, who’s gonna check on that?
@Gleetroit:
I think what you are looking for is what they have in that most technologically advanced nation: the Czech Republic. They’re system (same as the rest of Yirrup, I believe) works much like our system during daylight hours. At night it becomes a little more efficient and has the functionality I think you crave.
Say you are approaching the stoplight and there is no cross-traffic. That is, no cross-traffic has passed under the light for two light-cycles. If you then flash your high beams at the traffic light, it will change the light from red to green in seconds.
In practice, the system works wonderfully. I agree that used widely we’d save a lot of gas here in the US of A where we have more traffic lights than miles of roads (it seems).
@McCain: Just which way does this guy feel about anything? No matter what I hear on Monday, by Wednesday of the same week I hear him saying the opposite. Every week! Doesn’t make any sense.
That’s not to say I’m eager to try to spend my daughter’s inheritance with every cash-strapped solution Obama wants to try, however.
Which leads to my quandry: is our system of finding leaders for our country broken? Or is it that only rich people willing to pander to fools (us) are electable?
here’s the thing about mccain: there’s gotta be a better way.
here’s one – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fZHou18Cdk&feature=related
[please forgive me if i have sinned. and delete this comment.]
Wonder if that tax creedit would apply to vehicles which carry alt.energy tech but never use it like the E-85 loophole.
Wow – look – a better more green car…
Yeah, it would be if the owner ever ran it on E-85.
(No, not arguing for more E-85, just saying if the credit is given, then it needs to be put to use. Otherwise it is just more gov’t money flying out the window…)
Why not give me a $5K tax credit to put up solar panels at my house and then another $5K off of a pure EV vehicle?
There is some real tangible change and not some more of the age old political shell games our politicians play in this country.