35 mph standards in American auto industry

I will step aside from the normal saber rattling of my political party to support the increase in fuels standards of American automobiles stated by President Obama this week. Personal responsibility and preference notwithstanding, (we Americans love our muscle cars), I have long stated that if not a conspiracy, certainly a collusion exists in this country that has long kept fuel economy lagging behind European and Asian markets.

I simply do not agree that in the end we will be driving Yugo size smart cars, tiny clown type vehicles that are the current laughing stock of pop culture. In order to achieve these new standards, an average of 35 mpg, higher in cars, lower in trucks/suv's, there will not need to be complete overhauls to vehicle forms.

Vehicles will need to weigh less accomplished using stronger, lighter polymers for the body and frames. Some accessories will be need to run off rechargeable batteries like air conditioning and radios. This is not a monumental feat. Its a rewiring of the vehicle. Obviously engines will take the brunt of this new standard and unfortunately the only truly effective way to increase fuel economy is less horsepower, ergo smaller motors.

The President picked the right political moment for his new strategy. The auto industry is beholden to congress for it's very life. Like it or not, it's adapt or die. I think they have the means to accomplish the fuel measures by the deadline of 2016. And that brings us to the rest of the plan.

I have not drank all the kool aid put out with this news. I like the fuel standards but think tying this to lowering current carbon emmissions by a third is overstepping. Concerted efforts have been in place for a decade to lower the emmissions of all automobiles and long strides have been made. New cars are dramatically more friendly to the environment in this regard. To dimiss all the work that has been done so far and reset the bar one-thrid from today I think is the one aspect that I think was I think it is incredibly naive to state part of this concept. I think it more appropriate to discuss emission standards based on what has already been accomplished.

The Presidnet stated that his goal is to reduce not only our dependence on foriegn oil but will not allow drilling in our own country. Nor will his administration look to nuclear power as a means to reduce oil and coal for heating. His own party, led by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) has tried to stop wind power stations for no other reason than they are a blight when sailing. So when I hear from the current administration and his colleagues that a stated goal is to reduced dependancy on foriegn oil, excuse me while I disbelieve.


I do not believe this was a good time to push this agenda, nor do I think that the attached propaganda of

Taxed per mile driven

The latest 'lead balloon' (ba-dum-dum) floated by government to recapture lost gasoline taxes is to tax drivers per mile driven. A GPS chip in your car and sync'd to a reciever located all gas stations would record who you are, what you drive, (plus probably 100 other significant details of your life) and how far you have driven since the last fill up.

My first thought honestly wasn't, "How could they!!", but, "Will they repeal all the federal and state taxes on each gallon of gas drivers already pay?" The answer I am almost willing to bet is 'No'.

Now with the increase in fuel efficient vehicles and the changes in drivers patterns, the government is not getting its cheese and needs to find more creative and intrusive ways to tax the masses. This is the slippery slope that government has gotten itself into with taxing consumables like gas and you can lump cigarettes into that. Throughout the 80's and 90's and into the new century, federal and state governments placed such heavy tax burdens on a gallon of gas, that the government actually received more profit on gas than the oil companies themselves.

I am a proponent of user type taxes or more appropriately consumption taxes but only if the past tax structures it is replacing are repelled. In almost every state, if you look, you will find a tax that was created to pay for road construction that would last twenty years only and yet has not been taken off the books. Government is not apt to take taxes off the books and so there is layers and layers of taxes on Americans that simply don't need to be there except that its a revenue stream that the public has become desensitized too.

Perhaps it is Orwellian to have GPS recievers in every car and pay a taxes for drive miles at the pump. Maybe usage taxes are a good way to go. Lets take some taxes away as well.

Parks, energy and stimulus

Anyone who thinks putting money into the National Parks System through the 2009 Stimulus Package and that is going to revitalize the national economy is, quite frankly, high on their patchouli oil. There is certainly localized income generated by gateway cities to National Parks but the billions being put into infrastructure and programs is a waste that will ultimately be harmful through this venue as opposed to a separate vote. But that is not how politics works.

I love our national parks and I love the state parks surrounding my house, especially Lost Dutchman State Park. However, the amount of bureaucracy and all the hands that hold the money before the Park Service or even the Forestry Service get to implement necessary plans is too great. Only fractions will actually be used by the boots on the ground to improve trails, facilities and workers areas. If the money could go straight to the services themselves, there would not need to be as much spent or nearly as many fingers needed to touch it.

$1.7 billion is dedicated to the National Parks and Forestry Service. The issue touched on by radio conservatives is the amount of money being placed in Washington DC for projects around the Mall area. which is really pennies of this whole package. I don't begrudge those accusations that the money is excessive for sodding the area. What spent in government is not excessive to some extent?

People who take even a moment to notice our parks system know that there is a severe backlog of maintenance issues that need to be funded and completed and for that I am happy that money will come into these areas. of need. Bridges, trails, signage, roads, all have been in disrepair for years. Usage in parks are up but the infrastructure has not met demand. Every park that needs them has bear proof this and that, but not enough restrooms. Not enough proper housing for staff that often live far away from comfort.

For too long the parks have relied on volunteers and park time workers to band aid issues that need professional help. Any movement to improve systems in parks and forestry with dedicated construction companies and knowledgeable architects is a good thing.

The earmarks for pet projects like condoms and locating global warming habitats is frustrating to wade through. What has truly amazed me is how little this package covers renewable energy. Our new president has promised 5 million 'green sector' jobs yet with this package there is barely a mention green projects that the government can control like say renewable energy sources.

$18.5 billion is dedicated to the Department of Energy but the way in which that money is to be distributed is impossibly unclear as opposed to how say money for the Parks Service is being used. In all 1,588 pages there is not one mention of the word, 'nuclear' and solar and wind capacities are coached into vague paragraphs only describing the need for infrastructure.

My two cents on this whole thing. Make it simple. Our economy is based on the income of the common family and the purchases they make. The largest being a home mortgage for their primary residence. Every family owning a home in America on January 1, 2009 gets their entire mortgage paid for and they keep the title to the house. Second homes and rentals do not qualify, primary residences only. The amount of money being passed in this bill, almost one trillion dollars would easily do that.

The the average family can take that money and reinvest in our economy through starting a business, having a savings (which is an investment in the future), invest in the market, pay off debt which allows other businesses to profit and grow, buy a new car. The possibilities are endless and much better than what this stimulus package is trying to achieve.

Media remorse, yeah right

During the holiday season of 2008, it was almost impossible to not hear the clarion call of the media, "Buy, buy, buy! Our economy is in shambles. Stores will close, jobless rates will go up. These are the best prices ever on flat screen televisions, game consoles and electronic devices of all kinds."

Today, the first day of the first business week of 2009, the clarion bell has become an annoying alarm. The media is now reporting, "Beware buyer. Do you know how much power your new flat screen will draw? Do you know how many watts your game console uses when it's being played? Your purchases have accelerated Global Warming, (excuse me, 'Global Climate Change')."

This is ridiculous. The average Joe and Jane stretched their spending budget to afford a luxury item they could not normally afford for their family; not only because prices were finally dropped to a level within their means but because the media kept saying the economy was a mess and their spending was needed to stop a total collapse.

For your efforts, today you get to be lectured to that your contribution are going to harm the environment. The energy you use to power your new electronics may cause a need to force manufactures to comply with carbon neutral standards. What you did, in the end, was a bad thing.

Shame on you. Now could you adjust the screen settings on your 60" flat screen, my character in Gears of War is looking a bit small.

Travel tax?

The state of Oregon has floated a trail balloon regarding a mileage tax. You see the recent gas price issues and the 3 card monte game that is hybrid vehicles (you get better mileage but it takes 13 years to recoup the investment) has lowered the taxable income expectations of states like Oregon.

Their mileage tax program would put a GPS system in every citizens car and then at the end of the year if a resident didn't drive far enough to cover the states expectations on how much gas they should have bought that year, because Oregon has a large tax on a gallon of gas, then they send you a bill.

We are all forced to choke down on the bit of hybrid vehicles and I admit my own instance that vehicles today should be able to run at 40mpg, hybrid or not, however I can not abide by my sense of conservaton or ability to 'save money' with a gas effiecent vehicle no penalizes me in the state of Oregon.

What if my car breaks down and I decide to take the city transit system instead of fixing it? Or if I decide to ride my bike to work twice a week instead of driving? In both cases, am I not becoming a better steward of my energy expediture? Lowering my energy footprint? Hasn't the point of "driving less" been drilled into my consciousness this year?

The politicians promise that these GPS units wouldn't be used as a locator device so that the government would know where you were at in any given moment but can you really believe that? Heck no. How often have we seen this slippery slope of already captured information being used for alternative purposes?

Let the farce begin with light rail in Phoenix

The light rail system in Phoenix is going to officially open for business this week. A few days prior to this city altering event citizens are allowed to ride the rails for free. This started three days ago to much fanfare and praise from local news channels. One live remote showed a long line with waits, they reported, of two or three hours.

This morning it was reported that 150,000 people rode for free during the first two days of free use. In a city of five million people that equals 1.5% of the population each day. Now what comes to mind is this; the city estimated a usage level of between one and five percent of the population on a regular basis. That being the case, why is there a wait longer than twenty minutes, if a train arrives at each terminal every ten minutes? Who is going to wait more than that when its 110 degrees outside and the stations provide little shade and no air conditioning in the summer?

No one. And this is when its free.

Some other useful knowledge that has come to light is that the tickets are purchased on a 'honor system'. Tickets are bought at a kiosk, there is no turn still to board and no ticket taker at the door. An employee will randomly verify tickets when they are on the train. You are also not allowed to lay down. You are also not allowed to eat on the train. No picking up a cup of coffee and bagel at the Starbucks and eating breakfast on the way into work. The trains will stop running at 11pm seven days week. So if you were expecting to use the train to get to and from the bars on the weekend, tough luck, unless you want to leave before the band shows up.

So if I get this right, you won't be stopped if you ride without a ticket, there is no accountability there, but if your laying down hungover at 10:30 pm, then your getting the boot sight seen? I suppose with the political clout the light rail commission has exuded, they will ask that private businesses close their bars at 10pm instead of the trains running later. They are already asking tax payers to cover the $9 difference in ticket price and operating cost and the system is brand new.I can just pay my state taxes in gum removers and graffiti covering paint now?

Power Hour

I have a five year old son who thinks that when the sun goes down early, it must be Christmas. So in the middle of October, yes almost a month ago, he and I strung about 500 Christmas lights up on the house. I stood my ground on putting up more strands or the yard displays and tree arrangements. We will do that this weekend.

He was so excited to stand on the ladder and wrap strands around nails. He stayed by me the entire time, pointing, holding, giving directions. He promised me we would do this together every year. Every night he comes home to see his 'pretty lights' glowing.

I on the other hand worried my neighbors would think I was an idiot for putting up Christmas lights before Columbus Day. However in defense, how often is it that our children get so excited to do something with their parents. I know that maybe as soon as next year, that stringing lights will be my solitary job once again.

Christmas lights don't take up a tremendous amount of power but be smart about their usage. Turn your lights on within about 15 minutes before your family usually drives up to the house at night. If your kids are in the house before it gets dark then I'd suggest just turning them on before you get home, so you can see your handy work. Unless your having a competition with your neighbors I see no reason to keep them on past 10pm or midnight. Right now my outdoor lights are on for one hour for when the family gets home and then a few sightings as my boy runs from downstairs to upstairs.

Timers are a blessing for this task. Get a timer for the outdoor lights and one for the indoor lights and Christmas tree. There is no reason to increase your power bill with useless light comumption when no one will appreciate it.