Ending Subsidies for EV's

So long as they quit subsidizing diesel oil and gasoline powered cars I am good with that. (No company cars, no mileage rate, no tax rebate for tags, no government inspection of gas pumps, no government oil leases,etc.) If you only pick on one car, you are cheating.

If they quit subsidizing roads and bridges, we would find more efficient ways of travel.

Sadly, Republicans make too much money on oil not to cheat.

 

It has been the policy of every president since at least Nixon to reduce oil consumption. Regan and Clinton did things to increase oil consumption, but still paid huge subsidies in programs because of foreign dependance. The author is being quite dishonest here.

+1

It was the bush administration that put the program in place. It is a much less wasteful program than the clinton next generation car, or the bush hydrogen car subsidies. Government often is responsible to pave the way for new technology.

Kelly personally benefited as a dealer from the GM bailout, whose cost dwarfs all plug in subsidies. Kelly is also in favor of keeping all the oil subsidies.

 

Articles like this make me angry. They are so full of lies and deception that they should never be published. And yet people believe them!

The article starts off talking about the danger of electric cars starting fires. Stop right there. Does there happen to be any mention of how many people died last year in gasoline car fires? Or how much property damage was caused? NO. Yet, people are left with the impression that electric cars are more dangerous than gasoline cars, which is totally false. Hurray for journalism! Why tell the truth, when you can profit from lies?

Then it talks about subsidies for electric cars. Does it happen to mention the massive subsidies for other forms of transportation, particularly the one most people use because it's the so-called 'cheapest'? Or that it only looks like the cheapest because it's so massively subsidised? Again, NO. Another win for lies and deception, made all the more insidious by presenting it as 'truth'. Shame on the publisher, shame on the author, and shame on anyone who swallows such BS.

 

Hugh?
If memory serves me - didn't Reagan and Clinton come after Nixon? If every president after Nixon (like Clinton and Regan) had policy to reduce consumsion - then how do they do things to increase consumption.
. . . . . . I mean yea, I agree consumption was increased, but I don't get what's being said. Maybe they were doing what politicians do best? double speak?

That said, I wonder if the OP really buys into the corny idea that EV subsidies are the real bad super evil - even though our trillion dollar budget expands, due to the hundreds of billions of military costs that subsidize control over the middle east. Oh wait ... we don't CALL that subsidizing . . . we call that, "defending freadom"

Yea, we wouldn't want to subsidize ANYTHING that mayh wean us off our fossil fuel crack addiction. oh no. Let the insanity continue.
.

 

another reason i might vote democratic for one of the few times in my life.

 

Both the Volt and Karma have gas engine to run on the subsidized gasoline as well. They both qualify the same $7,500 as Leaf, MiEV, Tesla(s), and other full EVs.

No-plug hybrids don't get any incentives. This isn't fair because no-plug hybrids are the ones saving the majority of gasoline.

 

Not sure who Hugh is.
Reagan rolled back cafe standards in 1986 IIRC. Clinton saw the SUV friendly cafe rules, and promised to raise standards, but did nothing, effectively lowering mpg by encouraging SUV sales. Granted he handed this policy to his vice president, who seemed to get policy wrong, but Clinton was the president so is responsible. Both served under low gasoline prices, but did not pass higher gas taxes. Clinton did have a btu tax, but it got so convoluted with special interests, that it had no chance of passing and was not targeted to oil consumption. They both did come after nixon and said they wanted to reduce consumption, but their policies increased consumption. I should have said it has been the stated policy, but some presidents did legislation that increased consumption.

The writer of that editorial is fully in favor of oil subsidies, and recieved money from oil and gas lobbists to get elected. He is in a fracking district. He also was one of the tea party guys that loudly wanted to default on the debt, which lowered the US credit rating, and cost the country much more than any plug in subsidies. GM did want to take his dealership away, which is why he is now the anti-volt, but pro SUV spokesman.

The ev tax credit is one of the few bipartisan ideas that makes sense and may be effective to reduce the oil addiction. But still this seems to be were some from both ends of the political spectrum want to "cut spending" instead of where there is real spending. In 2011, it will only amount to around 2.5% of the ethanol subsidy, and even a smaller percentage of oil subsidies.

 

I'd rather write myself in than vote for anyone else that's an option at this point.