The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 7 of 12)

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."

p>Thanks for publishing Mr. Bandow's timely and important article! br> -- Kevin Amaro /p> p> 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? br> -- Lucy Hall /p> p> WORKERS AND WRITERS br> Re: Jay D. Homnick's Are Republicans Getting it Right?

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