The American Spectator

Reader Mail

'Tis the Season to Be Jolly

12.5.07 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 5)

3: How about tax credits (and tax moratoriums) on alternative-based vehicles? Not the tax incentives for hybrids. Let's face it, hybrids aren't living up to their hype.

The simple fact is that if we looked at Exxon-Mobile and the other big oil companies and said "fewer taxes if you can give us hydrogen" and did the same with the Big Three, we would have hydrogen cars on the roads within five years. If we were able to look at consumers and say "cheaper across the board," we would see major turnovers between oil and hydrogen.

Do you really think Exxon-Mobile is the business of selling oil? Or are they in business to make money? Personally, I'm willing to bet they want to make money more than they want to push oil.

Rather than forcing us, the American people, to shoulder all the costs of "conserving energy," maybe they should find ways to encourage development. In the end, we still pay for it. But at least now we get more for our money, and not less.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't hold my breath for something like this to happen. I've come to the inescapable conclusion that the government is in the business of giving us less for our money.
-- Charles Campbell
Austin, Texas

While I fundamentally agree with the free-market emphasis of Mr. Bandow's 12/4 article "Killing Drivers, Increasing Costs," and with most of his specific CAFE criticisms as well, there are two weak points in his argument:

1) First point on accuracy: Raising MPG from 20 to 30 has the effect of lowing gas prices from $3 to $2, not to $1.50 (as stated in the article). Raising efficiency by 50% lowers cost by 1/3, not 1/2; it is a reciprocal relationship. It's just math. You'd have to DOUBLE efficiency (100% increase) to HALVE cost (50% cut).

Doesn't change the argument much, but why leave a weakness for opponents to exploit? (Can't you just see a lefty blogger crowing about "...Mr. Bandow's wildly inaccurate article...", as if the entire article were replete with error?)

2) Second point on a blind spot: Perhaps raising miles driven IS ITSELF A SOCIAL GOOD. More people getting to more places of their choosing -- what's not to like? (Whereas the article decries the increased fuel consumption and congestion resulting from the increased miles driven flowing from "forced" higher efficiency, ignoring the possible positive aspect.) I'm not saying this is NEARLY enough to overcome objections to CAFE, only that it leaves the article vulnerable to a charge of not being "fair and balanced."

Thanks for publishing Mr. Bandow's timely and important article!
-- Kevin Amaro

Ummmm...might want to check the math. Wouldn't going from 20 to 40 mpg, not 20 to 30 mpg, be the equivalent of reducing the cost of fuel from $3.00 to $1.50?
-- Lucy Hall

WORKERS AND WRITERS
Re: Jay D. Homnick's Are Republicans Getting it Right?:

The key term Mr. Homnick is missing is neutrality. The Republican Party is neutral respective to this union action. This is as it should be, let the market decide. The Democratic Party on the other hand is fully supporting the writers' union action without regard to the market place.

Which position is the better, support one part of the economy against another? Or let the market decide?
-- Wade Smith
Fredericksburg, Virginia

In his description of any union as "intrinsically a capitalist entity," Mr. Homnick leaves out one important detail -- in America, the unions are generally monopolies. The WGA is a classic example -- their arrangements with studios and such require that all scripts be purchased from WGA members. This means that anyone who wishes to write screenplays for movies or TV MUST be a WGA member.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Transportation, Trade, Business, Abortion, Movies, Constitution, Law, Founding Fathers, Israel, Energy, Alaska, Oil, Unions