VP Joe Biden and the Volt
Currently the federal government is offering a $7500 tax credit to purchasers of electric cars with batteries as large or larger than the Chevy Volt. This tax credit was signed into law last year an can be applied to the first 250,000 electric vehicles each manufacturer sells.
Now both the Senate and House have submitted new proposed bipartisan legislation. The so-called Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act of 2010 seeks up to $11 billion to help spur the adoption of electric cars. The plan has a long-term goal of getting 4 million electric cars on US roads by 2017, and 700,00 within the next few years helping to bring Obama’s pledge to get 1 million by 2015 closer to reality.
The Senate and House versions differ somewhat but both pledge from $250 million to $800 million in grant money to be given to from 5 to 15 municipalities to allow them to deploy a public charging networks. These “deployment communities” would be chosen based on already proven motivation to spur EV adoption through current tax credits, utility company and auto manufacturer relationships.
The selected communities, which would be named in six months, would also use the funds to provide electric car buyers with at least $2000 in additional local subsidies. This would allow buyers in those areas up to $10,000 or more discount off Chevy Volts or Nissan LEAFs. A grant of $10 million for research to make a 500 mile range battery is also included in the Senate version. Furthermore, the legislation would also extend tax credit for EV charging equipment from the current 2011 expiration up to 2017. The funds would be expected to put 700,000 electric cars on the road witin the next several years.
“The Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act will lead to a surge in job creation, help consumers, recharge our economy and greatly enhance our national and environmental security,” said Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). “We import most of the oil we use, much of it from countries that seek to do us harm. The catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is yet another reminder that it’s time for America to start driving toward a clean energy future, and electric vehicles can help power the way.
“From plug-in hybrids to all-electric cars, the auto industry is moving quickly to meet consumer demand for more efficient vehicles that cost less to fuel up,” said Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), a senior member of the House Science and Technology Committee. “Thanks to these innovations, America is making great strides toward reducing emissions and cutting our dependence on expensive foreign oil. But our electric and transportation infrastructure must keep pace with technology. The Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act will accelerate the deployment of electric vehicles and put new energy technologies within reach of more consumers and motorists. It also will help regional communities establish themselves as models for the development and installation of the next generation of transportation infrastructure, including public charging stations. I look forward to working with my colleague, Chairman Markey, to advance this legislation and help put America’s transportation system on the fast track to electrification.”
Highlights of the Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act include:
- The Secretary of Energy will competitively award $800 million to 5 different deployment communities around the country, with the objective of deploying 700,000 electric vehicles in those communities within six years.
- At least $2,000 in additional consumer incentives for the first 100,000 consumers purchasing electric vehicles in these communities would be provided.
- All Americans would continue to be eligible for the electric vehicle tax credit, which reduces the prices of an electric vehicle by up to $7500, and additionally, tax credits of the costs of purchase and installation of electric vehicle charging equipment for individuals (up to $2000) or businesses (up to $50,000 for multiple equipment purchases) would be extended.
- Additional research, development, deployment and manufacturing incentives are provided for technologies that enable the widespread deployment of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure.
“We appreciate Congress’ foresight and interest in electric vehicles,” said GM spokesperson Greg Martin. “With the Chevrolet Volt just months away from the showroom, we believe the timing is right to start working on policies that can accelerate early consumer adoption of advanced electric vehicle technologies.”
The Senate and House have agreed to reconcile the two versions, and since it has broad bipartisan support magnified by the gravity of the Gulf oil disaster, rapid passage of the bill is all but guaranteed.
Source (Detroit News) and (US Congress)
+13
May 28th, 2010 (6:24 am)Better late than never, I guess! But it’s really too little as well as too late to meet the challenge Obama made quite a while ago to have 1 million electric cars on US highways by 2015. And the focus on specific localities is misguided in my view —which is probably why NO members of Congress from Michigan are promoting this bill. Oh well, although it’s a drop in the wrong buckets, at least it should pass easily in the wake of the Deep Horizon catastrophy. And hopefully get the ball rolling for vehicle electrification.
+4
May 28th, 2010 (6:25 am)All good news for EVs!!!!
Go EV!!!!
+7
May 28th, 2010 (6:29 am)Lets see. 700,000 electric vehicles in 6 years. GM is building 10,000 + 50,000 + ??? I hope they plan on ramping up production. I am sure others will if they will not.
+24
May 28th, 2010 (6:30 am)What the heck, it’s not real money is it?
I just have a hard time working up enthusiasm for how the government spends money…
+18
May 28th, 2010 (6:32 am)Wouldn’t it be better to spend it on building a few new nuclear plants?
+1
May 28th, 2010 (6:32 am)There is a flood of BEVs coming and GM is still testing the water.
With all these new public chargers, will 100 miles of range be enough?
+23
May 28th, 2010 (6:35 am)IMO, They have things a little off. They are spending our money at the rate of 250M to 800M to help pay for a select few of our neighbors new electric cars (generation 1). They are only spening 10M to develop a better battery. An alternative idea would be to spend 250M on the battery research now and then we could all afford long range electric cars in the near future. That would benefit more people and not just the lucky few who get our collected monies for their own cars.
+75
May 28th, 2010 (6:36 am)Normally I would thrilled with this.
But we are currently 13 trillion dollars in debt.
Personally, I think this is enough and now we need to start paying it down.
+7
May 28th, 2010 (6:38 am)This is great news, lets hope the Feds tie a few more strings to this money and keep it in the country.
+9
May 28th, 2010 (6:38 am)It is just the incentive we need to take a giant step toward electrification of the automobile. Now if we can just get GM excited about ramping up production so the others won’t be eating their lunch. Come on GM the time to produce is now and make it up in volume. The Volt BEV is next. I’ll take one of each.
Take Care,
TED
+8
May 28th, 2010 (6:42 am)The problem I have with tax credits is, many of the early adopters are upper income gear heads. In most cases they can afford to price of vehicle. Meanwhile the working poor who can only afford the old and poor gas milage junkers are frozen out as the credits will go away before they can take advantage. I would propose the credit increases to a $15,000 voucher and be made available to only families with an income of $35,000 or less. The $95K electrical engineer where I work does not need help. The $10.50/hr cleaning person does.
+15
May 28th, 2010 (6:53 am)The point of the incentive is to make the cars cost competitive for the first generation to make the cars attractive to the $95k electrical engineer. This helps in the adoption of the technology and mass production that eventually brings down the price for $10.50/hr cleaning person. They will be giving credits for the first 500,000 to 1.5 million cars…i don’t think that freezes out the working poor.
+11
May 28th, 2010 (6:54 am)I feel sorry for the rest of America stuck in the pre electric era but my town outside Philly already has a charging infrastructure in place. It’s a suburban town and we keep our cars in what we call a garage. In that garage there is this thing on the wall called an outlet. That outlet provides electricity to whatever we plug into it.
Infrastructure is not going to impede EV adoption outside of cities. The only thing that is going to keep sales low is cost. $7500 in tax cuts was a great first step in getting the cost down. As more people buy EV’s enterprising companies will realize they can make a buck installing chargers in cities and apartment buildings. This is one instance where Suburban and mainstream America should lead the wave and the cities will come online eventually.
11 Billion dollars is only adding just under 1% to our deficit and I’m sure my 1 year old daughter won’t mind paying the Chinese back in 30 years.
+6
May 28th, 2010 (6:59 am)A family with $35,000 income cannot afford $15,000 for a new car let alone the price of the Volt. Maybe a few years later when the economies of scale take over and the batteries get less expensive. Then the struggling low income family might be able to afford it.
Take Care,
TED
+4
May 28th, 2010 (7:03 am)Mixed emotions on this. Glad to see a money surge going to a “good cause”. But as Rashiid pointed out, we are way too far in debt to keep doing things like this too. This is crying over spilled milk here, but I wish when the Stimulus package was being put together, rather than spending on a whole myriad of other things that really gave little to show for, I wish something like this bill would have been implemented into the stimulus package. Make it the impetus to move the electrification of automobiles forward. At any rate, bottom line, I am happy to see anything that promotes EV’s, and this bill will accomplish that to some extent.
+18
May 28th, 2010 (7:09 am)As I recently posted, I believe the government is aware how close we are to fuel shortages and they are beginning to act like they know something they aren’t telling us.
Obama started with allowing drilling in the gulf, but now with recent disaster that is going to slow down.
We are probably 2 years from energy shortages unless the worlds economy falls back into depression. We need to bring on domestic energy solutions and speed up the electrification of the automobile.
Government has to lead, but I hate when they feel the need to micro manage. They’ve already given billions in seed money for research and building plants. At this point I wish all they would do is put money to expand the credits for electric cars. The $7500 per car should be at time of purchase and it would be great to expand this for millions more cars before gradually phasing it out.
As has been demonstrated before this credit pays for itself because for every ICE car sold after 2012, much more than $7500 would be going to purchase foreign oil. The biggest savings eventually will be in moth balling a couple carrier task forces when we don’t have to patrol the persian golf to keep the oil flowing.
+5
May 28th, 2010 (7:13 am)Look at the disaster in the gulf again and tell me this isn’t worth it. How many more disasters will we be on the hook for if we don’t start pushing for a more aggressive push towards electrification. We’ll likely see much more than 11 billion from this disaster alone and current law caps BP’s liability to 75 million.
+3
May 28th, 2010 (7:22 am)Hi Ted:
A lot of people are concerned GM is not dedicated enough to the Volt, or EV’s, etc. and they point to the low numbers of starting volume that they are stating. This is just my gut feeling here, but I really think if there is a flood of people with money in hand to buy these cars…I think GM and everyone else will be MORE than happy to ramp up volume and green light every EV related project they have. More than happy to do that. My evidence for this rationale is the advent of the SUV boom of the 90′s. Remember that? In ’95, the only mainstream SUV choices consisted of the Ford Explorer and Jeep Grand Cherokee. Then, by the end of the decade, EVERY manufacturer had an SUV. A few more years later, even Porsche came out with an SUV, (the Cayenne). My point is, when people come waving money, EV’s will flourish. But it just takes time. Just my 2 cents.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (7:23 am)Get ready for long term poverty ion america when they are finally forced to start paying for this spending spree.
+10
May 28th, 2010 (7:25 am)I see this as a good thing. Ppl complaining about the US spending money on this should realize that this is money being spent on things that stay in our country. It also helps keep money from flowing out of this country in the form of buying foreign oil. So monetarily, this is a win.
Incentives are good motivators for change.
+8
May 28th, 2010 (7:26 am)The rebates dont work because manufactures have no control over private dealerships when it comes to Suggested Retail Price.
We saw this when Toyota dealerships were marking up the Prius with bogus fee and add on which by chance equaled the government rebate.
The government should have a clause in the paperwork that no markups are allowed and the customer should be sent the paperwork 30 days after purchase. Leases should not be allowed under a rebate program since there is no purchase by a real customer. If the government gives the rebate to the dealership is should be after the car is returned.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (7:28 am)I’d be surprised if you can build a whole nuclear plant for $11 billion. To put this in perspective, the federal subsidy to middle-tier land-grand university is around $1 billion per year — and the budget of the same university is many times that. So, $11 billion might be enough money to run an existing large research university for a year.
A little bit of searching suggests that $11 billion might be almost enough to fund the initial construction of a single nuclear power station, if everything went perfectly and happened on schedule and on-budget…. Not likely, IMHO.
P.S. A million dollars is enough to fund 10 white-collar professional employees for a year. Note that these folks aren’t making $100k — they’re probably making close to $60k, and the other $40k is going toward health-care, taxes, and so forth. Oh, and that doesn’t include office space, overhead, office-equipment, or scientific equipment. So, really, a million dollars is enough to fund 5 people doing something interesting for a year.
+15
May 28th, 2010 (7:29 am)I agree, but I don’t see any inconsistency.
To get a true handle on the economic effects of foreign oil, watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFJH0mimzqk
I consider this a must-see for anyone that frequents this forum.
In particular, starting at 2:45:
“Oil is now so valuable that the Saudi oil reserves are worth more than all of the companies traded on the New York Stock Exchange combined. The economic balance of power is shifting away from the U.S., and into the hands of governments that hate us.”
We spend a half-trillion dollars every year on foreign oil. The money in this bill would be invested over many years, so it’s less than 1% of the money we spend on foreign oil.
Every dollar we send out of the country is a big drain on our economy, and therefore a drain on tax revenues. We have to remember that the national debt is a long-term problem. Investing in EREVs/EVs sooner will actually lower the debt long term.
Here’s an analogy. Let’s say you own a house with a big mortgage, and you would really like to pay it off. If you invest in insulating the roof and new windows, it will cost you now, but it save over the long run, so you’ll be able to pay off your mortgage sooner.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (7:29 am)Rebates dont work because manufactures have no control over private dealerships when it comes to Suggested Retail Price.
We saw this when Toyota dealerships back in the day were marking up the Prius with bogus fee’s and add-on”s which by chance equaled the government rebate so the customer did not get the money the dealership did.
The government should have a clause in the paperwork that no markups are allowed and the customer should be sent the paperwork 30 days after purchase this gives the open market a fair chance to compete on price. The dealership should be forbidden from using the rebate as a sales tool to complete the sale.
Leases should not be allowed under a rebate program since there is no purchase by a real customer. If the government gives the rebate to the dealership is should be after the car is returned from lease.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (7:30 am)And/or to go along with that idea, how about a multitude of mini-nuclear reactors like these being proposed….
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html
+5
May 28th, 2010 (7:31 am)How Much
How Far
How Fast (100mph)
Wow our goverment is about to pass legislation for the 2nd time on electric vehicle tax credits and we still don’t have a price…… Our goverment isn’t exactly quick on the up take either.
I’ll tell you what though with additional tax credits of $2500 or more your talking about pushing the price of the Leaf to sub $22k…. A car that requires about $1.50 -$2.00 a day in fuel to drive for the price of a mid sized hyundai, or a compact civic… They keep on and the volume Ghosn was talking about might be accurate.
+9
May 28th, 2010 (7:35 am)Why do people worry about how poor people can afford these cars. In the long wrong electric cars will help ‘poor’ people because ‘poorer’ people tend to buy used cars, and pure BEVs will be better for lower income people because they will have less maintenance costs and cheaper fuel costs.
But we have over 200 million cars to replace and by the time that happens there will be used BEVs that will be perfect for lower income people to cruise around town, get to work or school, and charge at home (yes even apartments in this country have electricity).
But the first 20 million electric BEV/EREVs will probably not be bought by lower income people and thats only 10% of the cars in this country. However my hope is the people that buy electric cars are the folks like me that often drive 60-80 miles a day and can really displace a lot of imported oil.
I am very optimistic that if today a 16Kwh battery pack costs 10,000, that maybe in 5-7 years a 20Kwh battery pack will weigh half as much and cost under $5,000 and last for over 10 years.
At that point 90% of all new cars could be BEV/EREV’s depending on folks driving needs.
In the meantime we need to do everything we can to get this techology mainstreamed and help reduce demand for Oil. Because the worst thing that can happen is rationing combined with high prices as that combined with our current deficits could just wipe out our economy for a generation.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (7:36 am)In this proposal the winners are the utilities in the cities selected (there will be heavy-duty politics in the selection process) and the auto companies that manufacture the cars that are heavily subsidized so that they can be sold at highly discounted prices in those locations. The losers are the people in other communities who pay for the benefits that those selected receive, particularly as the losers will pay full price for the limited numbers of cars remaining.
Looking at the proposal positively, the program may show what can be done by energizing a few communities. Maybe a self-sustaining critical mass of infrastructure and users can be established.
Looking at it negatively, in the rest of the country most communities are going to be thinking that one should wait for the freebies before moving forward, just as most communities now avoid mass transit unless they are selected for a federal payment. The electric-car program also will give pause to those prospective purchasers who are not in the selected cities, who will ask themselves if they are stupid to be paying full price (or more) when other citizens are getting big discounts.
Programs such as the one proposed have winners and losers. Each of us has to look at the details and see which group we are in. The certain winners in the short term are the utilities and the auto companies who get the money, and perhaps the people in the chosen cities who get the inexpensive electric cars.
+18
May 28th, 2010 (7:43 am)We spend $1.5 billion/day on oil consumption. The $11billion proposed here is only 1 week’s worth of oil consumption.
+6
May 28th, 2010 (7:44 am)I am 110% behind the EV movement and the ultimate goal of getting off foreign oil…. and I absolutely understand there is a ying/yang effect to shifting consumer demand.
That said, there is something fundamentally wrong with the way our government approaches things. Without benefit of absolute details, I read this post with a high degree of skepticism, as any time politicians dole out billions for the benefit of “grant money to be given to from 5 to 15 municipalities to allow them to deploy a public charging networks” I think ‘back room deals’, ‘lobbyists’, ‘special interests’, etc. This is NOT how you begin to shift public opinion. Besides, we haven’t seen any of the current breed of EV’s hit the actual market!!! We are all guessing what actual demand will be … while many of us on this site believe it will be higher than projected, no one really knows.
It is unfair to 99% of the country that would not benefit from this type of highly targeted government spending as we need 100% of the country behind the move to EV’s.
Our government is BLEEDING a giant deficit – sooner or later it will catch up and higher taxes will come. While I am anti-tax, this is the PERFECT opportunity to begin shifting public opinion, sentiment, and natural demand by implementing a national petroleum tax. While gas prices are low, there will be less effect on consumers – but if the tax is implemented as a percentage, then as fuel prices rise, so will the effects of the tax. That will accelerate the math equation in favor of EV’s and naturally add to demand.
I would also be in favor of extending the tax credit for EV purchase beyond the original numbers contemplated – perhaps scaling back the $7,500 to $5,000 but continuing an incentive for consumers to buy. Bottom line: use policy to spur end user behavior and everyone wins – manufacturers will adapt to changing demand. Local municipalities and states will collect their sales and use taxes based on consumption. Utilities and municipalities will invest in the infrastructure IF they are confident that demand will follow.
Good long-term policy = ultimate success.
Go GM. Go VOLT. Bring it ON!!!
+3
May 28th, 2010 (7:44 am)Anything that gets bipartisan support in congress is so rare that its probably a good idea. In the case of promoting EVs it’s definitely a great idea although I agree that spending more money we don’t have is getting increasingly scarey.
May 28th, 2010 (7:44 am)No.
Nuclear is already a mature technology, and without EVs, it has little to do with foreign oil anyway.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (7:46 am)While I completely agree with the 2nd sentence, I don’t see the basis for the first one.
May 28th, 2010 (7:51 am)I agree. It’s another boondoggle (pork spending bill).
-2
May 28th, 2010 (7:59 am)Ahhhh… It sounds like the old Ronald Reagan sppech of trickle down economics. Give the rich tax cuts and the poor will prosper…
+5
May 28th, 2010 (8:00 am)My opinion is charging stations should be private enterprise for profit an evolution of gas stations with all the other junk they sell. They are always complaining that they make NO profit on the gas only on the pop so they should be happy to buy power at .08 and sell it for .15 per KWH if the government really wants to spend $ on it make small business loans not grants this will get things going more than giving it to local governments.
Tom
+22
May 28th, 2010 (8:03 am)This bill will fund through 2017, let’s say six years to be conservative. We consume 378 million gallons a day here in the US, so 827 trillion gallons for the six years. So a 1.3 cent tax on gas over the next six years covers this.
I think we should start taxing oil to pay for electrification. Covers the development and infrastructure expenses and encourages consumer adoption with higher fuel costs.
+3
May 28th, 2010 (8:07 am)In getting the cars on the road we’ll also see a big difference when a strong used car market exists with low maintenance electric cars available. I may be in the market for Nasamans 7 year old Gen I Volt when he lusts after the newest and most exciting technology available.
+12
May 28th, 2010 (8:07 am)A BIPARTISAN BILL????
Who ever heard of such a thing!!
+3
May 28th, 2010 (8:09 am)I very much agree with this which is a big part of my points in post #16. I hate government micro manging and picking winners and losers. They’ve done plenty to help get EREV/BEVs to the bring of production. Lets not pick the winners and losers, lets just put the same subidy for all EREV/BEVs based on KwH they have now, but extend for a few million cars.
A million $7500 credits is 7.5 billion. If they want to add on 11 billion, lets keep it simple and fair. Add on a 1.5 million more $7500 credits at time of purchase. But don’t make it per manufacturer, change the credits to whoever gets the sale first. Give these companies some incentive to get out there and get market share. Let the car companies decide if they want to limit their sales to certain markets or if they want to sell them country wide.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (8:10 am)Where is the ICE tax in all this?
If you want to make electrics and other alternate efficiency vehicles the choice for people’s next car, make a gas-guzzler tax on anything that gets less than 40MPG. Big battery electrics aren’t the only way to go here.
The 95k engineer should be funding electrics with their increased taxes on the SUV purchase. CNG and other US-fuel-sourced vehicles would be exempt.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (8:13 am)Some of the other points have been addressed elsewhere — but the point of a program like this is to shake money loose from peoples pockets. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I own a well-worn Prius that I’m mostly happy with, and suppose that I think a Volt is worth $30k to me, and suppose GM thinks the Volt is worth $40k to them. Without a program like this, I’ll just keep driving my Prius, and not buy anything. With this program, the federal government spends $10k to make me spend $30k — that’s a 300% return on their investment. Of course, the proceeds go to GM, but maybe GM actually pays taxes, and the employees that had to build my car spend their money and get taxed on that, too…. And maybe GM employees use less social services as a result of being more reliably employed, further saving .
It’s far from a perfect system, and it is redistributing the wealth. But it’s also using the money much more effectively than direct spending (just buying me a car and handing me the keys).
The cash for clunkers was a similar idea. The press totally missed it– it wasn’t targeting poor people or any group of people that would get sympathy in the press. It was targeting people like a friend of mine who was making a bit over $100k, and driving a 15-year-old Jeep Cherokee that he was mostly-happy with. A couple of thousand dollars worth of incentives pushed him over the edge and caused him to spend $28k of his own money on a new vehicle — spending $2k to create $30k worth of economic activity.
Of course, this kind shaking-money-loose can only work as long as there is money in people’s personal savings accounts and/or cheap credit to fuel the economic machine — and I personally have access to less of both of those things these days, so I’m skeptical about its sustainability. OTOH, as I said before, $11 billion isn’t that much money (in terms of big government, big business, or big science), so maybe the program is sized exactly right, and maybe it will help ensure that there will be a market of willing enthusiasts ready to buy the products that the car manufacturers bring to the table and, once the cars are on sale, natural market forces can take over.
This stuff gets a lot more complicated once you really think about the way money flows!
+4
May 28th, 2010 (8:13 am)I disagree.
Your assumption is that additional lab research will significantly lower battery prices. But that’s not how things usually work. Mass production is what typically lowers prices. Research just gets you to the point where mass production is a possibility.
Once mass production kicks in (hundreds of thousands per year), then 3-7 years after that, existing battery technologies will drop to 1/4 of current prices. After sales volumes reach critical mass, manufacturing engineers will start getting real financial incentives to significantly reduce costs. Add in some competition, and they’ll figure it out…
And that’s exactly why the government invests in tax credits to encourage the first group of buyers. Once the sales volume ramps up, cost tends to come down by itself.
Bottom line: Government should concentrate on getting the ball rolling. Once it has momentum, others will be eager to keep it moving.
+5
May 28th, 2010 (8:15 am)It’s that whole idea that has us in a deficit mess to begin with. If we had sane tax brackets for the highest income earners we wouldn’t have a 13 trillion dollar deficit. The top 5% or so have taken all benefits of the productivity increases of the past thirty years, the average wages of nearly everyone else have been stagnant after adjusting for inflation. Anybody that is serious about reducing the deficit has to have tax increases on the table as well as spending cuts, it’s time for the folks that have reaped the benefits of Reaganism to pay their fair share. And to that matter for every dollar we cut in the budget outside of defense should include a corresponding cut in the defense budget. It’s asinine that we spend more that the rest of the world COMBINED on our defense budget. If we can’t politically reduce the defense budget then we need to refocus the military industrial complex on providing infrastructure and energy solutions.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (8:16 am)PAY GO.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!
+3
May 28th, 2010 (8:44 am)Jimza Skeptic says:
It’s that whole idea that has us in a deficit mess to begin with. If we had sane tax brackets for the highest income earners we wouldn’t have a 13 trillion dollar deficit.
—————————————————————
False logic: Unfortunately, you would still have the same Congress and President, who would SPEND every extra cent of those higher tax receipts – and still have a 13 trillion dollar deficit.
============================================================
Jimza Skeptic says:
Meanwhile the working poor who can only afford the old and poor gas milage junkers are frozen out as the credits will go away before they can take advantage.I would propose the credit increases to a $15,000 voucher and be made available to only families with an income of $35,000 or less.The $95K electrical engineer where I work does not need help.The $10.50/hr cleaning person does.
———————————————————————–
False logic. Assuming a $42,000 price tag, and a $15,000 credit, that’s still $27,000 and whatever dealer markup the dealer adds on.
Even at $27,000, none of the “working poor who can only afford the old and poor gas milage junkers”, as you say, can afford the Volt. If they “can only afford the old and poor gas milage junkers”, logically, they CANNOT afford the Volt at $27,000, QED. Sounds to me like you’re fishing for a larger gov’t credit for YOURSELF, not the “working poor”.
You may want to get your logic fixed before posting again.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (8:52 am)They still don’t get it in Washington. How can they keep giving away money they (we) don’t have?
There are many many good charities out there. But I can’t give to all of them, I can’t give money I don’t have. But in Washington if it sounds good, Wow lets give it a few billion dollars we don’t have.
I am more interested in what they are goint to do less. That is my question for anyone running for office “What are you going to do less” Please do less for me, and everyone else please!
Taxed
Enough
Allready
+5
May 28th, 2010 (8:52 am)Kindly tell me where U.S.A. Government is getting all this money ? Is this more of Obama Stimulus dollars that so far have only helped failed corporations and government jobs ?
This sounds good on paper but don’t know where the tax-and-spend democrats are getting all these billions of dollars they keep handing out. They are driving this country into financial ruin by spending their grandkids income like drunken sailors. This must stop or one day in the not-so-distant future you will find yourselves waking up and speaking Chinese (or at least Chinglish). This is not funny.
+4
May 28th, 2010 (8:53 am)Not one dime of incentive money should go towards the buying of foreign electric cars. The LEAF will initially be made in Japan, in case you didn’t know.
In this time of high unemployment our government should be helping our own domestic car companies, and our own taxpaying workers. The Japanese government would NEVER subsidize their own people to buy American cars. In fact, they do everything in their power to prevent any importation of our cars.
This is NATIONAL SUICIDE, committed by our own government. They are cutting our throats with our own tax money.
This is TREASON!!
+7
May 28th, 2010 (8:57 am)I would really like to get a VOLT, but I don’t think I can afford any more taxes to help pay for people that I don’t even know to get their VOLT before I can afford one of my own. And, I don’t give a rats about the charging infrastructure of some backwater town that ‘claims’ to be more ‘green’ than me. The VOLT does not NEED a charging infrastructure. If LEAF owners need it, let Nissan pay for it.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (9:05 am)What a joke, we are being taxed at the lowest levels since 1950. http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm
+1
May 28th, 2010 (9:05 am)“$250 million to $800 million in grant money to be given to from 5 to 15 municipalities to allow them to deploy a public charging network”/
Well, GM should do well selling the Volt in the rest of the 99% of the U.S. since it isn’t as tethered to public charging stations as pure electric cars.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (9:08 am)FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
The word of the day is “perception” – the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.
Which scenario would entice a buyer more?
1. Government $7,500 tax credit for early Volt buyers.
2. GM $7,500 discount on first 250,000 Volts sold, no tax credit.
Either way you save $7,500, but scenario 2 sounds more like a markup ploy to me.
Funny how the Feds $7,500 tax credit is perceived to be more honest and valid.
The truth is Government tax credits and incentives have become just another sales tactic.
Why? Because ultimately, through income tax collection, the government benefits from the sale of 1 million cars regardless of manufacturer.
Here is one thing the Government will never do. Exclude an industry like the automotive manufacturers from taxation until 1 million BEVs or EREV’s are on the roads.
NPNS!
+2
May 28th, 2010 (9:09 am)There’s no bigger electric car advocate than me. I’ve been driving a MINI-E like Lyle for the past year and it’s convinced me I can live fine with a 100 mile BEV and I plan on owning EV’s from now on. That being said, I too am so sick of this spend now and worry about it later attitude that our government employs. We need a fiscal policy that doesn’t continue to increase our debt exponentially. Stop the madness!
May 28th, 2010 (9:17 am)Mass production of these batteries will lower the cost as you say but this does not address the issue that the current batteries are too heavy and lack the capacity to power the majority of americas cars.
No one wants to carry around a 3000 Lb battery pack to get a 400 mile range no matter how cheap the battery is.
There is clearly room for more battery research. I work with funding of research all the time. Right now it is about $250K per year for a good researcher and his typical overhead. If there is a significant lab involved this price goes way up. The 10 million for battery reserach that the Govt has allocated with this bill is not really very significant. That was my point of the earlier message.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (9:22 am)Its not the taxes that are the main problem it is the spending. And that is not below 1950s levels and it is also not a joke…
+2
May 28th, 2010 (9:26 am)Tell me what you would cut.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (9:26 am)Tell me what you would cut. And be specific.
May 28th, 2010 (9:34 am)Gee, I wonder where the government gets all that money ?
+2
May 28th, 2010 (9:37 am)#58
Cut ALL government spending by 10% no need to be specific. Just do it !
+1
May 28th, 2010 (9:39 am)A lucky 6 communities: 11 billion, minus a pittance for research.
25,369 to go.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
25,375 places were counted in the 2000 US Census.
U.S. Census: Census 2000 Gazetteer Files
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/places2k.html
U.S. Census: Census 2000 Gazetteer Files: compressed version of Places
http://www.census.gov/tiger/tms/gazetteer/places2k.zip
The breakdown goes something like this:
city 10,016
comunidad 147
municipality 1
town 4,431
urbana 78
village 3,770
——————
total 18,443
Source: Google Answers.
… so maybe it’s a more optimistic 18,437 to go.
This is not the best way to proceed. The pipe breaks, the knee jerks …
+2
May 28th, 2010 (9:42 am)How about a gas guzzler tax of $7500 if your new car doesn’t get 40mpg? How about higher taxes (not just 32cents) on imported crude?
Volt and LEAF are not the only way to reduce gasoline consumption. Gas-electric hybrids (strong hybrids) can be done now. The problem is price. Make the older technology more expensive and the newer technology starts looking real good. If a hybrid and standard model are the same effective initial cost, then, the ongoing expenses will cause me to look twice.
Why do you think that Europe has so many diesels? It’s totally because of tax incentives/disincentives.
The whole problem is the initial cost of the vehicle and that gasoline is too cheap. A multi-pronged concerted effort is needed. Not these ineffective haphazard programs.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (9:43 am)The move toward electric cars just got easier. PLUS GM has a huge incentive to ramp up production 24/7 to make the VOLT. The market is wide open for this car to shine in its 1st generation. Well thought out tax strategies can bring dividends to many areas.
Build – Build – Build 24/7.
Your competitors are working hard to catchup
–
#49 Michigan Guy may have a point..
“In this time of high unemployment our government should be helping our own domestic car companies, and our own taxpaying workers.”
Maybe the better approach is to have tax breaks for cars built in the US only. … or … Give a much bigger tax break for cars built by US manufacturers and a smaller one for electric cars built anywhere else. In one or both cases a win for everyone. People get to work, taxes bring back revenue to governments to hire workers for other projects – etc.
We are ready to buy when GM is ready to build …. the VOLT
+7
May 28th, 2010 (9:47 am)I agree. Put a 25cent/gallon tax on fuel and use the $ green tech R&D/infrastructure/whatever.
This is more of a punishment than an incentive, but it is a sin tax we really need to truely represent the cost of gasoline.
+4
May 28th, 2010 (9:50 am)On the other hand, the market on its own will never allow the electric car (or EREV à la Volt) to become a major player anytime soon. Batteries will remain expensive until production is up and production will never be up if the car cost too much money.
It seems to me government involvement is required in such a situation.
May 28th, 2010 (10:02 am)RB;
My oft repeat opinion that we have 2 years left before oil shortages (unless mideast war brings it sooner) is based on assumption that world energy demand will at least stay flat if not increase combined with the decreasing outputs from existing oil fields that are not being replaced. There simply is not enough investment to bring new fields online. There are plenty of sources for this. Main problem is oil prices are too low now to spur the needed development, and the current Gulf disaster will not hurry up development in the gulf or the arctic.
Thats why I put my $99 to reserve a Leaf so I don’t get shut out. Hopefully GM will do the same and allow folks a place in line. The next oil shortage that hits, lets just say in 2012, lets see at most we’ll have 200,000 electric vehicles for sale in 2012 and demand could easily be in the millions if the next oil spike brings gas north of $5 at the pump.
+3
May 28th, 2010 (10:06 am)The problem with subsidies is that they require the government to pick winning and losing technologies. This always turns out badly since it’s hard to pick winning technologies, especially when the mind is clouded by campaign contributions and political connections.
It’s easier to tax what you don’t like. Don’t like people smoking? Tax it. Don’t like people drinking? Tax it. There is this thing called supply and demand. If you decide that something is detrimental, taxing it raises the price, and at the higher price there is less demand. More important, people will shift to substitutes. The market not government picks the winning and losing technologies — and this is the type of thing that the market does very well.
Once you recognize that depending on foreign oil provided by a dominant supplier that has neither our economic nor political interest at heart is about the worst thing we could allow ourselves to do, the path becomes clear. The problem is that like just about every solution — except for the bad ones which invariably enjoy bi-partisan support — ends up in a quagmire of political bickering. This despite the fact that every parent has told their children that sometimes you have to do things you don’t like — such as studying math facts or eating your spinach — in order to benefit yourself in the longer run.
Since it’s easier to hand out goodies than to tax — which is why the deficit looking forward is so formidable — “spend and borrow” is politically more salable to the weak-minded than “tax and spend”, the latter at least being fiscally responsible — you get the type of program outlined here rather than something that would actually work.
As a FYI, this program is such small potatoes that it won’t register even as a rounding error for the deficit. If you look at the budget deficit projections, Medicare is about 75% of the problem, Social Security another 15%, and Defense maybe another 5%. Also as a FYI, the current deficit is of very little concern because in large part it’s temporary. We’ve just suffered through the worst recession since the Great Depression so tax revenues are down. This isn’t a big deal since this will reverse itself as the economy recovers. But the looming deficit for Medicare is not temporary and it gets worse as you move forward in time. Ugly. Very ugly.
May 28th, 2010 (10:08 am)????
The Leaf will be cost competitive with a comparable ICE car by 2013 (once they reach their larger volumes and battery costs are down) without the government subsidty.
When I do the math, the projected battery costs from 2013 and beyond, with Gas North of $3, and BEV/EREVs finally in productions to achieve economies of scale, you don’t even need subsidies and these cars will sell.
We are not there yet but we are getting very close.
May 28th, 2010 (10:21 am)I think we need to invest in the greatest return on investment. We need to get to ZERO OIL imports the fastest we can. We need to be focused on what the goal is. The goal shouldn’t be to maximize MPG, but to get to ZERO Oil imports. This keeps money in our economy which is more important then anything, because our economy is bleeding to death in debt. We need to invest and keep our money here creating jobs and creating a tax base to pay off our debt.
Building new energy and cars is a better investment then buying foreign oil. Also once we get to ZERO oil we SHOULD immediately mothball 2 Navy Carrier taskgroups (down from 11) and stop patrolling the worlds oil shipping lanes. This is more money we could use to cut taxes or reduce our debt.
Thats why I’m really not interested in subsidizing technolgies that reduce gas, because that means using gas. I’m okay with EREVs but these should really be for folks that drive 40 miles per day or less or can charge at work.
I’m okay with making all passenger cars bev/erevs, because thats the easiest way to do it based on where technology will be in 5 years. I used to think highways could have a hot rail or overhead line that cars could link up to, then all cars could be BEVs with like 25 miles AER, but they could recharge when hopping on the highway, and their batteries would get them about town untl they could charge up overnight. But with where I think battery development will be in 20 years, it isn’t worth a massive rebuilding of our highways and building new power plants when cheap batteries will allow everyone to charge up overnight with extra utility capacity. It really is a perfect way to go.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (10:22 am)Good one — unfortunately it only takes 1 Republican to make it Bipartisan.
Yea, across-the-board cuts!
Cut the number of districts by 1/2
Get rid of the penny and nickel, 1$ and 5$ coins.
Do we need 50 states? Why 2 Dakotas? Merge and consolidate counties/states.
Merge and consolidate prison system.
Sell off parks and national land.
May 28th, 2010 (10:24 am)Hi all,
I believe that the $7500 tax credit is more then enough to spur the adoption of electric vehicles in this country. This goverment is spending way too much money and its time that it stops. When are WE THE PEOPLE going to say STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY AND OUR FUTURE.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (10:25 am)What than prevents GM from keeping the price of volts high? Especially, if they are the only one’s getting incentives. As of right now, the nissan leaf is threatening the price of the volt. If the price of the volt is too high, people will buy the leaf. This is probably one of the reasons GM is trying to keep the volt prices low. I.e., I’m sure GM would love to charge a premium if the nissan leaf didn’t exist.
If we subsidize ONLY domestic manufactures, it will only give them incentives to be more complacent. We need to foster competition. Competition is good for EV. If a domestic car manufacture knows that the government will be giving their cars incentives, what motives them to innovate (for instance, find better battery technology, more efficiencies, etc.).
The situation could exist that as Japanese, European, etc. manufactures scramble to find ways to make their electric cars better, and cheaper JUST to be competitive; we have domestic companies sitting back sucking on the teats of the American tax payer because they know they their cars will be cheaper, not because of technology but because of this “kick back”…
+1
May 28th, 2010 (10:27 am)But government spending is up.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (10:32 am)I think the government is taking a cue from the typical Joe Q Public who lives his life the same way. Buy stuff on credit card, and stick your head in the sand when it comes to paying it off in a timely manner.
+5
May 28th, 2010 (10:34 am)This mindless “I’m taxed too much” goes to the heart of why the deficits are such a problem. Everyone wants the benefits but like spoiled children they aren’t adult enough to be willing to pay for them. And to a great extent entertainment political programs sell a Kool Aid narrative that the problem is in Washington, diverting attention from the fact that the real source of the problem is in our collective mirrors.
AFAIK “Spend and Borrow” is an effective pandering technique but it is not an effective deficit reduction plan. IOW you can’t have government benefits that amount to 26% of GDP, only pay taxes that amount to 19% of GDP, and NOT have a deficit. Just sayin.
If you think this isn’t true, just think about it. Everyone is screaming and yelling about the deficit. As a factual matter, to reduce the deficit you have to either cut Medicare, Social Security, and Defense by 50%, or you have to raise taxes. Since you obviously spend a lot of time in front of the TV set, why don’t you tell me which commentators are arguing forcefully for any of these alternatives. I’m all ears.
+7
May 28th, 2010 (10:39 am)#8
Maybe we could stop a few wars and save a few bucks that way. Niobody seems too worried about spending billions on weapons systems we don’t need as jobs programs for aerospace workers. At least this would achieve something positive. I’ll trade this for the F-35. How’s that?
+2
May 28th, 2010 (10:39 am)#8
Maybe we could stop a few wars and save a few bucks that way. Nobody seems too worried about spending billions on weapons systems we don’t need as jobs programs for aerospace workers. At least this would achieve something positive. I’ll trade this for the F-35. How’s that?
+1
May 28th, 2010 (10:42 am)Agreed. Today’s definition of insanity: Politicians vote to SPEND money simply to grab headlines and buy votes.
We need policy makers that that have a long-term outlook and answer the fundamental question: What can the government do today that will aid the U.S. in reducing foreign oil dependence over the next decade.
The answer is NOT giving billions to a select few communities which would essentially create a 2-tiered society as those lucky communities would become the primary markets for manufacturers to sell their new EV’s into; they would also become the primary markets where the government would spend their $7,500 tax credit; and then those lucky local municipalities would collect extra sales and use tax revenue from the increased consumer spending. If a LOCAL MUNICIPALITY OR STATE wants to ‘go green’ and come up with local tax incentives, all the power to them.
BUT, our national government, created for the people by the people, must adapt policy that is fair to ALL. Our free market economy is based off supply and demand. History will show that if demand is present, supply will be created.
I’ll repeat my post at #30 – it is time for the government to implement a petroleum tax – I suggest 10% – at $2.50 per gallon, that’s 25 cents and starts the trend. As fuel prices rise, to $3.00-$4.00 per gallon, the tax revenue rises to 30 to 40 cents per gallon. Not only does this revenue fund national green initiatives (such as an individual tax credit on purchases of EV’s; low or no-interest loans to utilities and municipalities that wish to invest in green energy; low or no-interest loans to private investors who wish to invest in charging stations, etc), the tax will accelerate a consumer shift to EV’s, BEV’s, EREV’s, etc as the math quickly begins to make sense.
As production of these vehicles increases to keep up with demand, and advances in technology continue to evolve, the natural market prices will continue to drop as competition takes hold. By that time, all the nay-sayers who say vehicles like VOLT are too expensive, will be in the rearview mirror as the marketplace will determine the true winners.
Politicians, listen up: its time to make long-term policy that makes sense. Get your faces out of the glare of the news cameras and do what’s right for the country.
Go GM. Go VOLT. Bring it On!!!
+4
May 28th, 2010 (10:46 am)Thank you for an much needed injection of realism. In the end I believe we need to raise taxes and cut spending. There are so many infrastructure project we need to be undertaking related to transportation and energy that I think the federal government has a strong role to play, but it does need to be paid for that is going to mean taxes. And making the necessary cuts by just touching medicare and defense won’t be enough. We need to bring back the highest tax brackets for those making more than 1 million a year, we need a tax on financial transactions (to minimize risk and increase revenues). And we need to cut spending in Medicare and Defense.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (10:46 am)#16
Amen. +1
+2
May 28th, 2010 (10:56 am)I am a conservative voter, and so I sure did not vote for President Obama. But his action toward fostering EV’s is awesome, both from an environmental view and from a national security view.
This money is well spent and to throw it into the same category as the slush fund spending (TARP, Stimulus etc) is wrong headed, not to mention short sighted. President Bush did some great things in my opinion, Supreme Court appoints, effective war on Terror, no child left behind but he failed to foster electric cars, and diverted funding to hydrogen, and so it appears to me that he was the pawn of those with a vested interest in burning oil.
This seems to suggest the fear that the rapid charging station infrastructure will remain vaporware for many years may not be well founded.
+7
May 28th, 2010 (10:58 am)How would that get us off foreign oil sooner? The automobile is the biggest consumer of petroleum. Better we encourage the use of electric vehicles now than wait many years for the nuclear plants to be built and brought online.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (10:58 am)From what I understand, the tax credit applies equally to everyone.
For example, say you make $100,000/year, and you normally pay $20,000 in income tax. The $7500 tax credit is applied as if you already paid that amount of tax, so you would only pay $12,500 in income tax that year.
As another example, let’s say you’re not working at all, so you normally don’t pay taxes at all, but you have enough savings to pay for a Volt outright. In that case, the $7500 tax credit is applied as if you already paid that amount of tax, so you would get a $7500 tax credit.
So either way, you get $7500, and that’s enough to make a difference for most new car buyers.
May 28th, 2010 (11:11 am)But what if the foreign countries subsidize their auto companies, and their research, and wont allow US cars on their soil?
Domestic car companies will continue to drive down the costs of their cars, if not only to increase their profits. If they get into a pricing war w/foreign competition, then they have that room to lower their price (or if they just want to increase sales to generate revenue).
+5
May 28th, 2010 (11:11 am)Great post, Lyle. Thanks. Nothing like BP’s ‘Pearl Harbor’ moment to get our government to act.
Clear to me that a comprehensive energy policy should move its way up to near the top of the priority list for Obama. It’s finally time for a frank discussion. Realistically, though, the Gulf disaster may not be enough momentum–may need an even bigger disaster, such as >=$5/gallon gas during the run up to the next presidential race.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (11:12 am)#17
Amen. +1
+2
May 28th, 2010 (11:15 am)#20
Amen. +1
+2
May 28th, 2010 (11:20 am)Amen. +1
+18
May 28th, 2010 (11:20 am)I just want to get this out now because I don’t have inet @ home….
Thanks to all who have served in any branch of our US military and remember….
It is the
VETERAN,
not the preacher,
who has given us freedom of religion.
It is
the VETERAN,
not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.
It is
the VETERAN,
not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.
It is
the VETERAN,
not the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to assemble.
It is
the VETERAN,
not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is
the VETERAN,
not the politician,
Who has given us the right to vote.
/I salute all of you who serve and who have already served.
+4
May 28th, 2010 (11:26 am)Rashiid, you nailed it! I was feeling negative (not good), and not as constructive as desired. Surprizingly I got two greenies. But when I saw your comment – - you turned it in the right direction. Time to try to start digging out of the big hole that we are in.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (11:27 am)#43
Amen. +1 That’s exactly what happened with the Prius.
+3
May 28th, 2010 (11:29 am)I’m with you, Capt.
May 28th, 2010 (11:33 am)#44
Amen brother, preach on! +1
+2
May 28th, 2010 (11:35 am)The US should fight for fair trade. Its a bad idea to restrict fair trade. If foreign companies are being subsidized, then domestic companies should be subsidize. However, the best thing to do is to avoid a “trade war/subsidy war” and let the private industry compete on their own merits.
Domestic companies will not automatically drive down prices. Companies will tend to maximize profits… Sometimes this means keeping prices higher or even increasing prices. Its “demand optimization”. With fair competition prices usually goes down.. without fair competition, prices usually stagnant or even go up.
Look at the volt. With the introduction of the cheaper nissan leaf, many experts are saying that the volts pricing is being pressured to be lower than what is expected.
-3
May 28th, 2010 (11:36 am)I just love paying taxes to subsidize the purchase of electric cars, especially when the efffect will be, for all practical purposes, completely undetectable in terms of either emissions or oil usage reduction. I know some fat windbag in Congress or the skinny brainless guy in the WH will
speak in terms of millions of pounds of emission reduction (which will be totally fraudulent)
to sell this yet-another-giveway that will bankrupt the country and have no measureable effect – like the trillions that have already been thrown away trying to resuscitate the economy. Let’s see now. That 11 billion will subsidize 1 and a half million EVs. We have over 250 million cars in this country, so the effect on oil will be a reduction of less than 1 half of one percent of the oil we use for transporation , which is only about half of the oil we use overall. So that means a reduction of less than one quarter of one percent in our oil usage. Emission reduction is probably even less, since emissions are generated in producing the electricity that fuels the EVs. The fervent hope, of course, is that all that battery production will drive down battery prices. Unfortunately, EVs without a much better batttery than we have today are useless for all but a few – those that can afford to keep a car that can’t travel and those with a place to plug the thing in for long periods of time. I want an electric car as much as the next guy, but I’m not going to get one until they are functiuonal as capable as an ICE powered vehicle. Nor will most of those out there, especially in these trying economic times. Once again, the Feds are fooling themselves into believing that they control everything, including technical innovation. Apparently Fed officials have a very short memory. Where is the booming economy that they promised when they emptied the Treasury and then signed up for a decade of trillion dollar deficits? Any business run with the same ineptitude would have gone Chapter 11 long ago. I always remember Churchill’s remark that a democracy is the best fiorm of government because the people get exactly what they want and deserve. But what if the people are as brainless as the current generation? You know, the Dumb Generation.
-5
May 28th, 2010 (11:40 am)#46
I could say the same for you.
-4
May 28th, 2010 (11:40 am)#46
I could say the same for you. -1
May 28th, 2010 (11:47 am)Not arguing with you – my concern is (and I am a fairly positive person) that when (not if) we get public acceptance of EV’s then we hit another brick wall – not enough electricity. Plus we probably should be migrating a significant portion of fossile fuel generating capacity to clean nuclear generation. The thing with this infrastructure stuff — it surely looks like big brother picking winners and losers. And when I suggest building nuclear plants, I don’t mean with public money, but using public money to overhaul the regulatory process would be a good thing. As we see in the Gulf, sometimes we need more oversight. Sometimes we just need better overseers. The nuclear industry seemingly would benefit much by the use of newer technology. I am specifically heartened by the folks here who have posted links related to Thorium reactors that consume more waste than they give off.
May 28th, 2010 (11:55 am)Well, then why are my house taxes spiralling up. And this is in spite of a state wide law that was passed about 20 years ago (modelled after a California law) that put a cap on housing property taxes. Maybe you would like to volunteer to pay my taxes?
+1
May 28th, 2010 (11:56 am)“…and since it has broad bipartisan support magnified by the gravity of the Gulf oil disaster, rapid passage of the bill is all but guaranteed.”
Congratulations to Congressman Markey from the great Bay State for his work on this bill. We suggest in the reconcile process that both Houses include language providing business tax credits for employee leasing, loan guarantee and employee loaner vehicle programs. Adding tax credits to vehicle expenses for employees provides incentives for business to help employees buy or lease EVs. This benefits employees, employers and adds a new layer of buyers to the EV market.
Dependent on the language, charger install and purchase should be made sales tax free and eligable for tax credits. In many cases the approximate $500 cost of installing a 220V 100A line to the garage is all the charging equipment needed. This should apply to single and multiple family dwellings.
+3
May 28th, 2010 (11:58 am)OT, but here’s the best photo I’ve seen of the Leaf battery pack. (For more info on it, including how recharging speed affects battery life, google “Nissan Leaf battery pack”):
+6
May 28th, 2010 (12:04 pm)Well, if I was running the show shortly after 9-11, things definitely would have been different.
The Iraq war never would have happened, and Afghanistan would have been 5000° and cloudy.
But that would have saved too many American lives and too much money, so bad idea I guess.
Seriously however, if I had access to the federal budget details, and I thought it would make a difference, I could easily point out items to cut and/or downsize. Those items would be anything I didn’t agree with.
Social Security would stay intact and wouldn’t be robbed anymore to pay for other stuff.
If there isn’t any money for other stuff, then don’t do it. Borrowing from the Chinese is a really bad idea. We should never be indebted to anyone, but it is worse when we are indebted to a communist government.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (12:08 pm)That’s a local issue, take it up with your local politicians. And the likely reason for the increase is that the downturn in the economy has killed your local economies tax receipts and they needed to make up the shortfall elsewhere. I don’t know the specifics of where you live so cannot comment on if that was justified or if it should have been accomplished with spending cuts rather than tax increases.
May 28th, 2010 (12:08 pm)/off topic: Since this holiday is the official kick-off of summer and various fun get togethers, is it not appropriate to raise the possibility of a modest gathering of Volt-oholics? I’m partial to something in the Detroit area, but am willing to travel to join in some festivities. Aught to be able to get some support from various GM and maybe even public officials. If it is attached to some other, natural Volt activity (like turning the Hamtramck plant on for making saleable Volts) so much the better.
+8
May 28th, 2010 (12:10 pm)Captain Jack #89
While we hold great respect for your sentiment and those who serve our national defense – remember that all those people you name DO IN FACT help keep us free. It is the veteran’s defense of their actions, (press, organizers, clergy, etc) that keep our Constitution in force. No single group does all the work to keep a nation intact. It is the combined efforts of disparate people dedicated to the idea of freedom – that keeps us free. We are, have been, and must continue as One Nation.
+3
May 28th, 2010 (12:11 pm)Eleven to fifteen municipalities,get the goodies. What are the home district cities s of the Democrat leadership and Appropriations comittee reps. What an amazing co-incidence… they all match!!!
+1
May 28th, 2010 (12:11 pm)I believe they tried that and only GM was ready with a response domestically. And what would happen if a call during a time of war, against the likes of Bin Laden, Chavez and Ahmadinejad was sounded for help domestically, and only GM and Nisan showed up with the big guns and Tesla sent a few experienced scouts?
Your response would be to tell Nissan thanks for your dedication worldwide, nice try in putting all of your capacities in play and investing $5 billion. But we’ll sick with Bin Laden, Chavez and Ahmadinejad and you can drop dead while you’re at it.
Just because Japan does stupid stuff that wracks their domestic markets for ten straight years with intractable problems doesn’t mean we have to join them.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (12:14 pm)Right. That’s why they call them Fool Sells. They end up being really good at maintaining the status quo. Classic red herring.
As I’ve said before, that really depends on what you consider fast.
Many people assume fast charging stations will scale up to be like gas stations are now, where you can refill 300 miles of range in 10 minutes. Since that takes around a half-million watts, I still feel that’s inherently dangerous.
Fast charging stations that allow you to refill 100 miles of range in 30 minutes would probably be safe, but then I’m not sure the mainstream public will give up their gas engines for that.
And that leads me to why I’m so passionate about this subject. Many people seem to assume EREVs will be a short-lived stepping stone to a world of BEVs and fast charging stations. Consequently, many consumers and manufacturers may simply wait until this happens, rather than investing in an interim EREV solution. Then if there are problems and it doesn’t pan out, the promise of BEVs and fast charging stations could easily help maintain the status quo.
Sound familiar? This could be another red herring! Fool me once…
To be clear, I have nothing against people who want to drive a pure BEV using our existing infrastructure. They are brave souls, so I’ll admire them.
What specifically bothers me is the rampant assumption that future battery technology and new fast charging stations will quickly replace the ICE, so people will just wait for that instead of using EREV technology thats viable today. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
+10
May 28th, 2010 (12:19 pm)under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
/agree with you.
+3
May 28th, 2010 (12:22 pm)+1
May 28th, 2010 (12:26 pm)Paul, after reading your comments, are you sure you are a not a tax and spend democrat?
May 28th, 2010 (12:28 pm)I remember when the change to non CFC air conditioning refrigerant was mandated and Dupont contacted Clinton administration officials to say that they were in a position to changeover their plants one year early to the new stuff, they were told not to do that because there was a federal tax on every pound of old stuff sold. It will be interesting to see how committed this administration is to really reducing oil usage.
+4
May 28th, 2010 (12:28 pm)Excellent point.
When the Prius first came out, government tax credits brought down the effective price. By the time the Prius tax credits phased out, the Prius was being mass produced, so the price stayed about the same without the tax credit.
The same will happen with EREVs.
+7
May 28th, 2010 (12:32 pm)We can’t afford to cut our defense budget until we solve the problem that our economy’s survival is dependent on foreign oil.
Job #1 is eliminate importing foreign oil.
Job #2 is eliminate anything else that puts our survivability in the hands of our enemies.
Job #3 cut the defense budget and balance our budget.
Job #1 (and this hasn’t changed for 37 years, its just that now we have only a few years left before our economy collapses under the weight of all the debt) is to invest in new energy and new cars. Replace giving our money to our enemies and invest it in a new energy/transportation economy. Then balance our budget and cut government spending and lower taxes and lets get back to America being America.
-3
May 28th, 2010 (12:34 pm)You are an ass
Luis
+2
May 28th, 2010 (12:34 pm)In my Army unit there was a photographer, a grocery store clerk, a lawyer and a student organizer. And a guy we called preach. A couple soldiers went on to become doctors and politicians later. The career you choose as a citizen is what you do, not who you are. And of course millions of artists, bankers, statesmen, engineers and writers never came back to perfect their trade of choice, after meeting adversities and conflicts.
We can all contribute as citizens, it’s not based on a job description. Thanks CaptJack and OneNation for the chance to say this.
+6
May 28th, 2010 (12:39 pm)Until GM starts at least making 60,000 a year, while they are making 11,000 or whatever the first year, doesn’t really matter what they charge. There is way more demand than supply.
What GM charges in December of 2010 doesn’t really matter. What will they charge in 2012? 2013? 2014? 2015? And how many will they produce.
I have my place in line for a Leaf, but I sure wish GM would give me the chance to skip to a different line.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (12:40 pm)Throw whatever label you would like at me, I believe government has a role to play in our society and that some times tax increases are necessary.
But if you want to talk about fiscal discipline I’ll put up any Democratic administration as being more fiscally responsible than any Republican administration going back to Eisenhower, he was last Republican to hold any legitimacy to mantel of fiscal responsibility. Just look at the growth of the deficit under Dem admins and Republican admins over that period of time, the Republicans fare far worse.
This is almost entirely due to Reagan and Bush the younger, they cut taxes and increased spending, the worst combination of all.
Like I have said in my comments I believe we both need to cut spending and raise taxes, it’s the only viable way for us to actually reduce the deficit.
I am very much open to debate on how we accomplish this.
May 28th, 2010 (12:41 pm)I mentioned this possibility as well.
GM knows the first two years of Volt production will sell out immediately. Given the intense pressure to show profitability before new GM’s IPO, they may be padding up the Volt’s price near term.
If this is true, it’s bad news, not only for us but for EREVs in general. Unlike consumer electronics, most car buyers assume prices don’t change dramatically, so if they see a high initial price, they’re liable to just write off the whole EREV concept, and that will lower long-term demand.
That’s why most car makers sell brand new models at a slight loss, and why they don’t make many in the first year.
May 28th, 2010 (12:48 pm)IMHO, I don’t think it’s just EREV. Anything that has has a bigazz batt pack will get padded.
But that’s just me.
The leaf on the otherhand has already released it’s price so if they pad now, they’re just screwing themselves.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (12:48 pm)I’m not labeling you, just asking a question. Apparently I hit a nerve.
I’m not going to sit here and debate you. It is a complete waste of time because it accomplishes nothing and this isn’t a political site. Have a nice holiday weekend.
Thank you to all Vets and current members of our armed forces.
+3
May 28th, 2010 (12:48 pm)Like I said if we can’t reduce our defense budget then the defense budget needs to be geared heavily towards energy and transportation infrastructure projects so we have a chance of meeting those goals.
Also this is also not without precedent, the interstate highway system was originally funded in part by the department of defense.
Energy security is national security.
May 28th, 2010 (12:49 pm)Since I already have a 220v plug in my garage, can anybody tell me if I even need a charging station, or can I just plut it in to my 220v outlet and then plug the car into that?
Don’t understand why $2,000 is needed since I already have 220v dryet outlet (which is actually used for a heater but would like to be able to plug car right into that?
+1
May 28th, 2010 (12:51 pm)Sorry for being touchy, I just don’t like the “tax and spend” label. I’ve followed this site for a long time and respect your views on many things.
I disagree about debate being pointless, but your point about this not being a political site is well taken. I often stay away from the political threads, but with the situation in the Gulf I have felt compelled to speak this time.
You have a lovely weekend as well, and I also want to extend my thanks to those who have served and continue to serve.
May 28th, 2010 (12:53 pm)I completely agree and I also think some of the defense money could and should be used to get us off of oil.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (12:59 pm)Not sure if you’re serious here, but the whole idea of labels upsets me a little.
I consider myself fiscal conservative, but I supported TARP and the auto bailout.
As an analogy, if you live in the desert, you have to conserve water. But if you’re house is burning down, then water conservation isn’t your highest priority at the moment.
At this point, I feel we are on our way out of the recession, so now is the time to start cutting back on government spending. And I think there are some signs of that on both sides of the isle. Hopefully they can do something meaningful on this front.
Note that the biggest issue with the national debt is that it never gets payed back. Think about it: Whenever there’s a budget surplus, Republicans want to cut taxes, and Democrats want to spend it. The last thing anyone wants to do is pay back the debt…
+8
May 28th, 2010 (1:00 pm)Well lets see. After cutting off Nancy Pelosi’s jet upgrades and the 200 Million they spent this year to study whether alcohol affects condom use among college kids, I would start with some real items.
0. Item 0, realize that we cannot fix the middle east and get the h— out now. Setup a good tin-hat dictator and hope for the best.
1. Freeze in Govt wages and a 10 day unpaid furlough for all feds. The private sector has suffered, a little time off for the feds would be good. They can spread their leave over the year.
2. I would work hard to get out from our (almost 1000 counting the secret ones) foreign bases overseas. Korea does not want us, the war is over, lets leave. Japan does not want us, the war is over, lets leave. Why are we in germany. Why are we trying to bribe the Polish govt to take a missile base. IF they don’t want to pay us for it, they can build their own defences. Etc. etc.
3. Retirement age needs to rise. Its as simple as that.
4. Premium health care program needs to go. Only the basics need to be given. Everything else needs to be worked for.
5. 99 months of unemployment insurance is insane. I personally know people who won’t take a job because they are getting checks.
6. Federal disaster relief programs need to go. If you build you house on a beach subject to hurricane, get your own insurance. Same with living under a lake.
7. No more checks for nothing. If you receive govt aid and you are able, you would be cleaning streets or picking up trash somewhere.
8. I would read the constitution and realize that the health and welfare of the citizens is left specifically to the states and I would kill the federal department level positions that deal with these things (health and human services, education, etc… For instance, the dept of education could be cut to a group of five people who study education and post strategies online for the states. The current feds in education are simply a bunch of bureaucrats who have never instructed anyone. There are plenty of smart people on state and county boards who can figure out how to educate children. The current system is nothing to brag about.
9. Dept of homeland security needs to go. We made it through the cold war with the FBI and CIA. I think they can handle some guys in caves.
10. The list could go on for quite some time.
Anyone can take other peoples credit cards and spend more than they make while claiming to be helping them. This is the easy way out and requires no leadership skills at all. It shows cowardice. Cutting budgets and saving other peoples money takes leadership, integrity, and courage. Our leaders appear to completely lack these traits.
Arguments can be made against any cut. The bottom line, however, is that you cannot continue to spend more money than you make. It simply does not add up.
May 28th, 2010 (1:05 pm)The beauty of charging at night is we could replace 80% of the cars in the country and we wouldn’t have to build any new power plants. The existing power plants would be going 24 hours a day instead of having their peak production during the day and pretty much shutting down at night.
The problem is these existing plants would have to burn a lot more coal, so as Lyle says these electric cars initially would be Coal burning vehicles. But at least in the short run that saves our economy as i’d rather have a west virginia coal burning vehicle than a Saudi Oil Burning vehicle. Save our economy first.
We can take 20 years to make our electric generation clean. I plan to put in wind turbines on my property. Lake Erie has a plan to put in 20MW of Turbines by 2012 and something like a GW of Wind power by 2020. We can build more nuclear plants. I’m all for clean energy that has no fuel cost. Thats the least we can do for the next generation that will be paying the defecits being run up by the current generation.
BTW, the lake erie project (link below), i think they are missing several opportunities. Lake Erie has a ton of wind (except in the summer doldrums) and they are planning these turbines to be 300 feet above the lake and anchored in the bedrock 120 feet below (average water depth 60 feet, and another 60 feet to get to bedrock). I’m no engineer, but wouldn’t it be cheaper to instead of trying to anchor in the bedrock to just anchor these turbines to each other? Picture a Table with 4 legs. What is cheaper, 4 legs standing on the bottom, or indivdual posts driven into the bedrock?
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/03/wind_turbines_to_be_built_in_lake_erie_by_2012_group_says.html
+2
May 28th, 2010 (1:06 pm)I agree with some of your items and disagree with others but appreciate the candid and detailed response.
The only thing I would add is that due to the political realities of some of our spending (SS, Medicare, Defense), much of the budget is going to be off limits for political reasons on both sides of the isle, given that reality I think targeted tax increases are going to be necessary if we are going to deal with the deficit.
+6
May 28th, 2010 (1:12 pm)That is why I note that it takes no leadership at all to continue the spending and I think our leaders are cowards. These guys apparently put their own popularity and re-election ahead of doing the right thing and that is shameful. In DC, however, there is no shame anymore.
As far as taxes go, I have been a longtime supporter of a gas tax. Kill the Cafe standards and let the auto giants build what they want. But, make some money on all of this oil use while shifting demand away from big cars by choice.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (1:14 pm)Wait just a minute! Back up the truck there Don.
I just got a bi-weekly raise of $245.83 and my net is $181.78. $64.05 may not be a lot of tax to some people, but it’s a big deal to me.
That’s $1,665.30 a year I could be spending (or saving) that the government is just going to blow! Let me pay down my mortgage instead of doing studies on smokin’ weed!
We have a huge deficit because of DEFICIT SPENDING not from taxing the poor people too little!
+4
May 28th, 2010 (1:19 pm)Codes require that the 220v car charger be hard-wired into the wall. In other words, there’s only a plug on the car end. The other end of the wire goes straight into the wall box. To pass code, you need a licensed electrician to install it, like installing a new breaker box. It’s not the same as running a dryer outlet, at least from a code point of view. I suspect this has to do with the possibility of the car being wet.
That’s why I won’t be using 220v charging. Who needs it? Why should I spend $2000 to save 2-3 gallons per year, and put more stress on the grid in the process? The regular 110v outlet will work just fine for the vast majority of EREV users, which is yet another advantage over BEVs.
May 28th, 2010 (1:23 pm)Thats a good list. I’m sure we could make a list of hundreds of things to cut. Unfortunately our government is only good at adding things the feds want to pay for not cutting things.
And we are responsible because we won’t elect people that will take away entitlements and protect our borders.
Unfortunately the only thing people agree to is growing our economy, increasing our tax base and trying to balance the budget. So thats the only pratical tact to take because growing our economy does appeal to the majority. Taking away entitlements and subsidies doesn’t get much support. Thats why I’m for diverting money used for importing oil and using it to create jobs building EREV/BEVs Wind Farms Nuclear plants etc.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (1:23 pm)#105
Well said. +1
+1
May 28th, 2010 (1:31 pm)“The selected communities, which would be named in six months”
Make that five months, and it would be five days before the election…
To me, the pinpointing of just a few favored communities seems very wrong. Other than that, not too bad by the standards of government programs.
May 28th, 2010 (1:31 pm)Depends on if the wiring meets code or not. Older dryer circuits were only 30 amps with 3-wire cable. Code for electric cars is 50 to 70amps and 4-wire heavier cable. The box may be too low on the wall for the electric car cord as well.
If your wiring meets code for 50amps and all the other code, then, it’s just a matter of changing out the outlet for a hard-wired connector.
You can’t just use a plug-plug 240v extension cord because it’s illegal and very dangerous.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (1:35 pm)#124
Well I think that you have spoken eloquently, and I thank you for it. +1
+1
May 28th, 2010 (1:36 pm)That’s not a choice, that’s a ham-fisted government tactic to force me to do what Washington wants. OK I agree we should at least have a floor on gasoline, but how can I tell everyone the tax I want is for their own good, and say the taxes they let their reps put over on the rest of us, only for what I see as pork, will kill us?
My idea of pork will be another guys job funding. My idea of a route to get us off of oil from dictators, kings and madmen will be another guys version of an economy busting Washington based tax grab. What separates a viable investment of taxes from a Washington shakedown?
+1
May 28th, 2010 (1:39 pm)Lower taxes! More services! Balanced budget! Better math education!
That’s my platform. Washington, here I come.
-1
May 28th, 2010 (1:39 pm)Excellent post. We need our elected reps to have the guts to make these sensible changes, though. I’d vote for you in a heartbeat.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (1:39 pm)#126
If anyone can remember back that long, when Bill Clinton left office the budget was nominally in surplus, and we were actually talking about paying down the debt.
May 28th, 2010 (1:39 pm)Thanks Loboc, I’ll check the amps and the wire.
May 28th, 2010 (1:42 pm)#115
Thank you! +1
+1
May 28th, 2010 (1:45 pm)You have my vote should you ever run for the Senate!
May 28th, 2010 (1:46 pm)The on-board charger won’t recognize a dryer connection as a viable 220v connection and will not draw 220v in that case. You will only get a high powered (level 2) charge if the on-board charger handshakes with connector, that as Loboc said, must be hard wired to meet electrical codes
+4
May 28th, 2010 (1:47 pm)#127
Well I have to agree with about 99% of that. +1
May 28th, 2010 (1:51 pm)Thanks to you (as well as Loboc ) for answering I’ll see if my 220v is 50+ amp and 4 wire (the house hasn’t closed yet and we haven’t obviously even moved in yet). This 220v connection looks like a standard dryer hookup but it wasn’t used for that, but for plugging in an overhead electric heater for the garage. I agree with you, unless the government is paying for it I’d just go with the 100v charging. Isn’t that about 1.1 KWH per hour of charging at 10 amp 110v? Even for a Leaf, average of 12 hours of charging each night is all that is needed for 70 or so miles of driving?
May 28th, 2010 (1:56 pm)We essentially did that in Saudi Arabia, and tried to in Iran. Neither turned out well. Just breeds anamosity towards the U.S.
Agreed. In this economy, there’s enough pain to go around.
I wouldn’t feel safe closing all foreign military bases. And whatever you hear from locals, many of the governments want the protection a U.S. base implies. So when you take away the political spin, it’s often a win-win.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Generally agree, but there may be special cases. In general, maintaining unemployment benefits should get progressivly harder over time.
Generally agree. Many local problems are declared a federal disaster just so that a Washington politician can get more votes. There has to be some kind of accountability.
I like this idea. It worked in the depression. People usually feel better when they’re doing something useful. Just make sure the work isn’t too degrading.
Generally agree. There is a role for the federal government, but not as much as they have now.
No opinion. There may be some redundancy between the various organizations that a central department could eliminate, but I’ll leave that for them to figure out.
10. what about farm subsidies? Are we still writing huge checks to million dollar corporations here? I say we limit farm subsidies to smaller farmers.
11. what about all the pork in the defense budget? For example, secretary Gates says they can’t use the C17s they have, but congress still wants more.
Anyone want to add more?
May 28th, 2010 (1:58 pm)I would just add to that: when our troops come home, they will be housed in our new military bases that will only be built on our southern AND northern borders.
May 28th, 2010 (2:03 pm)If you haven’t checked to see if electricity rates vary by time of day or night, rate changes in some areas can save folks money on charging, by picking the right hours to charge.
May 28th, 2010 (2:14 pm)well i was going to look into a smart meter etc, but now the plan is to convert fuel oil to all electric home and put in net meter with wind turbine next year.
will go for between 2.7 and 4kw turbine, that should cover me except during the summer doldrums, which is time for going on vacation anyway
May 28th, 2010 (2:14 pm)Pretty close. I think Volt’s 110v can go either 8amps or 12amps depending on if it’s a dedicated circuit or not.
If you drive around 40 miles or less, an overnight charge would be enough for either Volt or Leaf @ 110v.
There are charging losses that need to be counted. If you’re pulling 12amps @ 110v, you aren’t getting all that juice into the batteries. It’s probably 90% or more efficient though.
Once these things get into people’s hands, we will know better from all the thousands of posts on the forums!
+2
May 28th, 2010 (2:19 pm)I wish I could give you a vote +1 a million times, but alas, there is a limit of one vote.
May 28th, 2010 (2:29 pm)Just curious. What models are you looking at for this install?
I read up a little on wind turbines and there is a better case (in my sunny area) for PV solar than wind. The turbines are pretty small for residential making the cost pretty high for what little you get back.
Last time I checked both residential wind and solar are running about 20c/KWh over a 10-year pay-back and my local electric is half that. Factor in storm damage and such and it could be even less return.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (2:43 pm)Way up there, Amul received 61 positive votes for his statement about America being 13 trillion dollars in debt.
Fair enough.
What is the breakdown of that, however, so we don’t freeze ourselves into inaction to not promote electrification as quickly as possible, as wisely as possible?
Somewhere between that post and this, are other comments regarding national debt.
National debt was reduced to a National surplus at one point in the past.
Total debt being 13 trillion, we send .8 trillion out of the country every year for crude.
National debt relates to decreasing national prosperity. National prosperity can be somewhat re-invigorated if as many people as is possible get off of gasoline, and starting with the highest required annual mileage drivers might be a practical start, for a grass-roots economic revival.
The sooner that crude cash flow is curbed with electrification, then the faster that petroleum money can pay off the public’s unsecured personal debt at those higher interest rates, as well as free up cash flow into all economies.
We need to think deeply about the important facts here, not just vote for stupendous bottom line superlative figures.
The 11 billion isn’t nearly enough after all. Getting the high petroleum consumption costs down itself is about 5 percent of the total solution to our solvency. I think there would definitely be a compounding effect of that to re-invigorate all the local economies all throughout the country, because those that are required to spend the most on gas, will save the most, then can divert those savings for local economic growth.
We can not apply the budgetary concepts of our household budgeting here in one sense because the concepts are really pretty huge. But it isn’t hard to figure that if you can get to work and back for 85% less money (and more and more people have to work farther and farther away), then that money is yours, not some foreign companies’.
Holoman Jenkins calls the Volt a “Welfare Wagon”.
At the same time, many posters are clamoring (me too) for higher production rates.
The most secure way to make that profitability happen (for the entire country, even at Holoman Jenkins’ Wall Street BTW) is with not only more incentives to kick off the process, but, firmly lock in the economics of doing a fast ramp up because the money is essentially warranted to be there, and no decision maker’s job is at risk.
Make it 61 billion. The ROI will be as quick as GM’s early pay-back of the unsecured part of the loans.
May 28th, 2010 (2:44 pm)Counting mine, you’re “+61″ as of this writing. I think you may have set a record, man!
May 28th, 2010 (2:49 pm)Look at the disaster over in Europe and tell me SPEND SPEND SPEND is worth it.
May 28th, 2010 (2:57 pm)The last Democratic Prez had us a Budgetary Surplus, Amul.
The last Republican Prez has us swimming in this current red ink, Amul.
Tax and Spend Democrat does not fit with your complaint historically about the Deficit reality, Amul.
-1
May 28th, 2010 (2:58 pm)What a load of bull shit that is only looking at income tax how about 15% in SS and Medicaid? and all the other taxes. The way they come to this BS resault is by counting everyone even those who are paying nonthing or getting money back. (wellfare)
Did the country start in 1950. No so why are you useing that date? The income tax was 0 for our first 134 years how about we compare to that?
May 28th, 2010 (3:01 pm)As I said but you did not quote “Please do less for me and everyone else please”
May 28th, 2010 (3:04 pm)I have.
But then again, I read a LOT of fiction*.
* = EDIT/DISCLAIMER: This post was strictly for humor purposes. I don’t actually have any time to do any recreational reading.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (3:11 pm)Let me clarify:
debt = the amount of money we owe
deficit = the amount of money we go deeper into debt every year
surplus = the amount of money we have extra at the end of the year, to pay down the debt
The U.S. has been in debt for a long time:
May 28th, 2010 (3:19 pm)Thats not true. I am from Lithuania. We neighbors of Poland. Polish government has been offended by Obama refusing deploy new antimissile basis because Russians opposed to that. Agreement was made with Bush government. Obama just canceled all agreement without consulting with Polish or Check governments just talking with big guy Putin. The worst consequence of that policy was political disaster in Ukraine. Obama makes excuses, that this is helping Iranian policy. I think that Russians are playing again. So Obama “saved” on that item already enough. Canceling nuclear umbrella for south Korea could cause disaster as well.
May 28th, 2010 (3:19 pm)I am planning on fall 2011 online date so haven’t looked at too many turbines yet. In Ohio sun not so good, but because of summer doldrums might add that on later. But for now planning on fall 2011, after summer slow down in wind and shorter wait for $1000 per kw federal tax credit. Also have to convert house to electric first from Fuel oil. Also don’t have my electric car yet. But thats the plan. Get a net meter and become self sufficient for most part.
For picking the turbine I’ll be largely concerned with warranties track record and maintenance projected costs, as I’m undertaking this to save money more than save the planet.
Have some trees to take down to cut down on turbulence and things to get ready for 2011 launch date
+2
May 28th, 2010 (3:20 pm)I’ll keep my guns, freedom and money, you keep the change. I seen that on a bumper sticker and love How about you DonC?
May 28th, 2010 (3:25 pm)Problem is too many on the direct government payroll. Fat jobs with Fat befits that surpass the private sector,
Government jobs only take from the private sector.
School teachers included.
Don’t need to get rid of them just cut their pay. Don’t get rid of government just control it.
If government pending is so great as some would have us believe lets all get on the govenment wagon.
Just keep printing money.
May 28th, 2010 (3:25 pm)Medicare.. the elderly need to be less demanding..
/ducks real quick
May 28th, 2010 (3:26 pm)I think its worth to use 80:20 rule for spending the money, give subsidy to mass produced EREVs which can reduce 80% of gas consumption.
There is no point in giving more money for big range EVs ( ex: 100 mile or a 200 mile ) – same money for range after x miles ( i think 40 miles is a sweet spot or may be max 60 miles).
Another feature which will be good to get subsidy may be smart grid technology support and connected car technologies.
There is a point on giving more money for features like “quick charge support” but no compromise should be done on safety ( i remember reading – quick charge of li-ion batteries can result in fiber growth inside batteries which can cause fire ). The companies which say quick charge support should prove its a long term safe quick recharge.
Spending money on Quick charge infrastructure : Quick change infrastructure is nice so may be another nice idea is to spend money on standards based quick charge infrastructure.
There is no point for giving subsidy for a luxury EV – because the idea is to get mass adapted to EVs not rich save more money on their new gadget purchase (ex: tesla or Fisker etc) . Rich is able to afford it. No money for luxury.
May 28th, 2010 (3:30 pm)Regarding Clinton, thank god the scoundrel had a republican congress to rein him in..
+1
May 28th, 2010 (3:34 pm)There are not many ways to reduce any deficit.
“Paying it down” has an extremely complex set of co-variables.
Prosperity is the fastest way, because earnings are far higher.
Prosperity can’t happen as easily in a nontechnical society nowadays, especially when other societies are advancing far ahead of ours.
Not having tens of millions of us paying our hard earned cash out of the country is another.
This is not kitchen table economics.
It is very short sighted to not go all the way like Japan had in promoting this one particular budget-beneficial and prosperity-inducing industry.
Most average wage employees are not the ones who will function to pay down the debt,
unless if they have electric cars. Then at least that gasoline amount of money each saves will have a collective vast amount more staying in the country, and fund the economic engine to spur at least one more great economic advancement at the grass roots level to kill the debt.
That prosperity and lower cost of living for America is so important to me, that I would wait myself for others to have a Volt.
You have to do something to help start the ball rolling for the prosperity needed to nullify the national debt. That’s the only way to do it, like what happened a dozen years ago. History needs to repeat itself.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (3:40 pm)Keep reading the graph. It’s based on Gross National Product, of which we are less and less technically competitive to produce.
Unless we get smarter, we get poorer. We are not competitive if we are not competent.
Prosperity means we get our buts smarter PDQ. Either in how we earn our money or how we control it leaving the country. If it is kept circulating inside the country, there is more prosperity inside the country.
May 28th, 2010 (3:45 pm)I really agree with you completely Unni!!
Getting very basic Volts out and in many numbers is important. The people who spend money at the grass roots are the ones who will ultimately nullify the deficit. You are so right about who does not spend money more than they have to.
Cutting gasoline out of the family budget is one of the last things we as Americans can do to make room for saving money in savings accounts as well.
May 28th, 2010 (3:50 pm)I was saying companies will strive to get costs down, not prices. Yes, competition, or too much supply, or need for revenue, will drive prices down. I was addressing the concern where you were saying nothing would be done to drive the technologies and costs down w/all the incentives and lack of foreign competition. I think companies will always strive to get costs down, with or without those 2 things.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (3:52 pm)We all say that, but there happens to be 305 million conflicting opinions. Most families, can’t agree on an acceptable budget, deception and misdirection aside, how will an entire nation agree except during a galvanizing event like a crisis. Even then many just go along with it so that they won’t look bad.
May 28th, 2010 (3:56 pm)LOL!
+3
May 28th, 2010 (4:05 pm)I also think that electrification of the fleet is of utmost importance. I just don’t like the way that the government is going about it.
/caution rant
Electrification of the fleet (if 100% compliant) will only reduce crude usage by 40%. Delivery, construction and other areas of gasoline usage need to go to alternatives other than electricity due to the power density issues with lithium batteries.
Even if 100% of gasoline is eliminated, that’s only 51% of a barrel of crude. The rest is jet fuel, heating oil, diesel, etc. These are way more difficult to convert to non-crude-oil alternatives. But, it’s gotta be done.
Eventually (like 50 years or more from now), crude-oil-based products will price themselves out of the market. We can’t wait that long. We will be bankrupt from buying a more and more expensive staple.
Between 1973 and 1979 crude went from $20 to $100 (inflation adjusted). That’s 5x. If gasoline went from $3 to $15/gallon in 6 years, boy howdy, would people use way less then! Did we learn anything from that? Nope.
Well, make it happen before we go bankrupt! Incrementally increase the taxes on crude and it will happen in 10 years not 50. New taxes will decrease the deficit, not increase it like boondoggle knee-jerk hand-outs will. We need to declare war on crude oil. Crude is enemy number one!
Efficiency will become the new fad thing to do. People will build electric cars in their garages. They will grow vegetables (eliminating delivery and pickup at groceries). They will start to sew and patch things again (eliminating some clothes from China). They will buy 1,200sqft houses instead of 4,000sqft McMansions. They will vote again. They will figure out ways to work from home. The Internet will become ubiquitous. We will become frugal. We must become frugal. We can’t possibly continue with the 1973 ways.
It’s time to buck-up and face our debt and addiction to oil!
/rant off
+1
May 28th, 2010 (4:12 pm)Dave G,
Look at the chart a line it up with these events. WWII, Cold War, Cold war plus Vietnam War, SDI and end of cold war, war on terror. What would the deficits look like without these events?
+1
May 28th, 2010 (4:24 pm)#158
You got that right! +1
How about “Spend and don’t tax Republican”? You tell me which is worse?
I consider Rashiid to be a friend, and I agree with about 99% of his comments, but we spend thousands of times this much on a lot stupider stuff IMHO.
May 28th, 2010 (4:50 pm)Thanks for the Leaf Battery pic, nasaman.
That thing looks huge!! It also looks costly to replace. But maybe they made it that way to be able to replace only parts of the cells at a time. I sure wouldn’t want to guess how much it will cost to replace it, but isn’t the MTBF (mean time before failure) supposed to be longer than 3 to 5 years? And, is that reasonable in your opinion (as you have been affiliated with the Space Program and batteries for space usage)?
+4
May 28th, 2010 (4:58 pm)The Japanese government and the CEO’s of the Japanese car companies are no doubt LAUGHING their heads off at the utter foolishness of our American government subsidizing the Japanese car industry and bolstering the Japanese economy using OUR OWN TAXPAYERS MONEY, or worse – BORROWED MONEY!
They would never do such a foolhardy thing and stab their own people in the back.
No government monies should be used to promote FOREIGN car puchases such as the Nissan LEAF, when our own car industry and many of our own fellow citizens are hurting badly and need to be employed.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (5:03 pm)I liked everything you said, and, not at all a rant, but reality.
I like the idea of a 1200 square foot home, I plan to sell my current one in a few years and
build a completely energy neutral home partly underground for the thermal stabilization characteristics. Solar of course, and hopefully, with a northern view on a hillside.
Having the Volt would be the other part of the plan, recharged with energy (credit) from a
solar array feeding the grid during the day, then getting it back very late at night.
May 28th, 2010 (5:14 pm)There are all kinds of ways our futures are being usurped by foreign owned companies.
Revitalizing all the closed auto factories ought to be examined for the exclusive opportunities of only domestic automotive OEM’s for decent paying jobs. These job revitalization efforts ought to be prearranged to immediately “kick in” as electrification proves in high demand. But I have a very strong feeling that those extensive considerations are already precisely what’s happening even now.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (5:17 pm)WWII’s affect is obvious. That was a real all-out war.
The Cold War lasted from 1947 through 1988. For most of the Cold War, the debt decreased, including during the Vietnam war. Only during the Regan years of the Cold War did the debt increase.
Compared with the WWII and the Cold War, the other things on your list are relatively minor.
I consider myself an independent voter. I’ve split almost every ballot I’ve cast between parties. What I’ve observed over the past 30 years is this: When Republicans are in power, they spend about the same as when Democrats are in power. Since Republicans combine spending with tax cuts, the result is obvious.
As for Obama, I think it’s too soon to tell. Most of Obama’s debt increases were forced on him by the near economic disaster he inherited, and that shows on the graph. Don’t forget that the $700 TARP deal was done under Bush, and all the major economists agreed on the stimulus package, including conservatives. Obama has appointed a bipartisan commission to curb earmarks and pork, and he’s aligned with John McCain on this issue. Perhaps I’m naive, but now that the worst of the recession is behind us, I do hold some hope that Obama will be able to reign in spending and lower the deficit. We will see.
May 28th, 2010 (5:25 pm)I urge anyone who is contemplating buying a Nissan LEAF, which will be made in Japan, to wait for the Chevrolet Volt instead.
Besides being a far superior electric vehicle (with its on-board range-extending generator) the Volt is made in America, by American taxpaying workers.
Please don’t send any more of our dollars overseas, when many of our own people are hurting badly and need employment.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (5:28 pm)I agree with with you in that this seems like an overly convaluted way to try to achieve the stated goal of 4 million EVs by 2017. While I think the timing is wrong and the $7500 is sufficient for now as EV incentive for the consumer. I do think incentives for charging are OK but the cart is befor the horse here. Level 3 standards should be in place first and there should only be incentives for workplace charging when grid charging control is in place to avoid stressing the grid at peak load times. For now, if they feel they must do something (I’ld rather they save the $11B), they should do as Tom W recommends and extend the $7500 credit to more vehicles and find a way to make it immediate upon purchase. IN ADDITION, they should drop the allotment per maufacturer.
Make it a $7500 immediate credit for the first X EVs bought, period. This would get all manufacturer’s off their duffs so they could get their share of the fed candy. No more freebies for the laggards.
May 28th, 2010 (5:40 pm)It’s still $11B no matter how you slice it. If they were clear paths to achieve the goal of 4M vehicals ASAP, I would be all for it, but the measures cited don’t make sense to me (at least not $11B worth of it). It seems more like good money after bad, rather than smart investing to diminish oil consumption.
May 28th, 2010 (5:47 pm)The Battery Cells are made by LG, Korea, and is said to be 35%-50% or more of the cost of the Volt.
The Internal Combustion Engine will be made in Austria till some time (last I heard).
God knows what else will be outsourced. So Buy a Volt and support jobs in Austria and Korea and whtever other parts are outsourced to other countries.
At the same time help support the Unions that helped drive them into the ground in the first place.
May 28th, 2010 (5:50 pm)Someone I know has decided to buy a Leaf instead of a Volt. I think that is a mistake, but, I also believe that more facts will come out about why it is a mistake for his particular driving needs. There are just too many technical and financial unknowns about Leaf, and I don’t want him and his wife to get burned in any way for what I think their driving needs are.
While there are not expected to be as many Volts coming out at first compared to Leaf, I am so technically confident about GM’s process, that I am reminded of the fable of the tortoise and the hare.
After the Volt drive in March, I am 100% sure of GM’s total commitment to an electrification changeover as fast and as widely applied as is possible. The technical possibilities really are astounding for numerous *GM-authorized* product option manufacturer employment opportunities, since you have an energy dense battery providing literally hundreds of new product idea potentials. (But not nearly as many for a BEV whatsoever).
This is why Voltec will remake America if governmental officials of all kinds back it. I wish every single one of them could know what I know about all this. Although with thread topics like this, I am increasingly impressed that all of them are on board with Voltec.
We just must persevere for not too much longer.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (6:00 pm)That’s all only for the first year.
Getting the working models out to prime the market and educate us as to stunning feasibility was critical. The changeover to American manufacture is in quicktime. It is all being done as expeditiously as is possible to set up for American jobs. I think the options market for Voltec is going to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual American payroll, as GM will necessarily have to prescreen and technically authorize all additions and options to be compliant technically to the Voltec systems. These are where American jobs will be created just as quickly. This is where the start of the revitalization of the country will begin.
May 28th, 2010 (6:20 pm)Or follow your lead and be sure the UAE and Suadi Arabia have plenty of cash to bail out Citi after the next wave of oil price shocks.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (6:33 pm)#187
Not true. When they were planning to use the 1.0L turbo 3 cyl engine, which is currently made in Austria, they were planning to source them from there to start with. The 1.4 that they have ended up using will be built in the same U.S. plant as the engines for the Cruze.
May 28th, 2010 (6:36 pm)Your plan is much better, IMO.
May 28th, 2010 (6:40 pm)With all due respect sir, my direction of getting the bloddy hell off of oil products from them as fast as and as soon as possible does not benefit the United Arab Emirates. If GM produced a full 100% EV today, I would be perfectly fine with promoting them. But the truth to the Volt product is, it is designed to continue dependence on their foreign oil products. All other EV’s (Tesla, LEAF, Mitsu iMiEV….) operate on *no* oil products from the sand lands thus accelerating said energy independence.
Range Anxiety = Dependent on foreign oil
May 28th, 2010 (7:35 pm)As a former military veteran, who watched so many serve the Oil Highways of the desert, I absolutely support this measure. Every dime spent creating a fuel line here instead of over to those nations who hate everything about our way of life is a plus.
Every dollar helping this move will be paid back in no less than ten.
(reduced need for oil, reduced need for military, reduced need to pay terrorists to drive our cars)
CHEVY VOLT: American-made, American-FUELED.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (7:51 pm)Wow, talk about coincidence:
House passes ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/28/gays.in.the.military/index.html?hpt=T2
“Threatening to derail the plan, however, is House members’ insistence on spending almost $500 million on a fighter engine that neither the White House nor the Pentagon wants…
A White House spokesman warned before the House vote on Friday that President Barack Obama would veto the bill if funding for the engine isn’t removed. Gates has blasted the proposed funding for the extra F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine, calling it a “waste of money” that doesn’t meet the fighter’s performance needs.”
Maybe we’ll see if Obama is really serious about eliminating pork sooner than later…
+1
May 28th, 2010 (8:21 pm)This is one instance where I applaud the government effort. Unless there’s a great effort toward electrification, we may not succeed. Free enterprise will not be enough against the oil cartel. Those who think that peak-oil will push oil prices upward may be badly mistaken. OPEC (especially the Saudies) still has the power to sink oil prices if they perceive the threat from electrification. They can again sink the crude prices as they did several times in the past by temporarily flooding the market with crude. No doubt Russia, Iran, Venezuela etcwould go along. Who killed the electric car? OPEC and the can do it again. After all that bad money spent the last two years. This is one well spent money for national security.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (8:30 pm)If they follow through with this part of the bill, they should select the areas based on population density and polution. Straight, non-political metrics to select the areas that would realize the greatest benefits.
May 28th, 2010 (8:30 pm)Well said. I with you on this!
-1
May 28th, 2010 (8:36 pm)The Federal Government is printing more dollars to spend on programs. This is not a game of play money. This is a further dilution of real tax payer dollars in the U.S. Treasury. These diluted dollars will be returned to the people who originally had their real dollars taxed from their pay checks. So this program is a tax cut for all who buy EV. It’s a tax burden for those who buy gasoline cars.
What will this incentive system do? It will cause people to buy fairly expensive electric vehicles. Which will be taxed. And will place real (worked for) dollars back into the U.S. Treasury.
The losers are the people who buy gasoline cars. And, of course, the oil companies who don’t yet own battery manufacturers. Why didn’t Exxon just step in and buy GM before the failure/bail out/and restructuring?
If the $11 billion proposition makes it’s way though Congress. Then GM really needs to reconsider manufacturing an EREV crossover and the beautiful Voltec Converj. Conditions are rapidly changing.
=D-Volt
Here we go again…
May 28th, 2010 (8:38 pm)I think the whole point of this sentiment is that of all those groups, very few can match the sacrifice of veterans. Of course, the hardship and sacrifice varies greatly depending on the individual stories of each veteran. but it’s true of them as a group.
The whole point is that the respect being accorded to veterans in recent years is just beginning to pay off the “respect deficit” that began about 50 years ago. Senatorial candidate Blumenthal of Connecticut has been “riffing” on this theme as of late, speechifying about “when I was in Vietnam I remember we were spit on and insulted” or something, only to be chagrined at his own lack of complete honesty regarding his personal history. So when I speak of a “respect deficit” I’m not pulling something out of thin air. It was real and palpable for many veterans, and utterly unjust and undeserved.
Anyways, either you’re showing a callous ignorance of this “respect deficit” that’s being paid up, or a disingenuous resentment of it. Either way it’s not pretty.
Gobs of +1s to Cap’n Jack @ 89
+1
May 28th, 2010 (8:40 pm)Also, I said this before, but I truly believe that the end of “easy oil” will be a blessing in disguise. While Oil will not just shutoff, the price will increase as supplies dwindle. Oil will still be available, and I believe the amount of oil is nearly limitless, but extracting it becomes more difficult and expensive. This will drive (no pun intended) us away from using oil for anything other than more critical chemical industries. Transportation will be more reliant on electricity, generated from a combination of renewable, biofuels, coal, natural gas, etc.
The real goal in life should be to make life better for the next generation. The lack of cheap fuel will actually cause people to become more reliant on others. Growing crops as a community to reduce the amount of energy to plant, harvest, and transport. Automation should make factory work less manpower dependent, and people will be able to spend more time at home. Telecommuting should become a common job, that many will hold. The communications infrastructure is make this easier and more effective every day.
I look forward to the move from an oil-based society to a more back to earth and community eccentric society.
/brain shutdown for holiday….
May 28th, 2010 (8:44 pm)Ok, typo…
I AM with you on this.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (8:52 pm)Hey Grumpster, First the first comment you start with was not made by me… Check your facts… Or at least put away the hippy lettuce for a moment. Second, the tax credit is for all qualifying electrics, not just the Volt. The leaf price with a $15,000 credit would definately make it possible for the working poor. Third, if you anal ize it, the credits will be used up by the people getting the cars in the select (California & other) locations. Hardly fair for us Wisconsin/Minnesota people. Fourth, The concern about the early adopters needing a push with the hand-out will be minimal at best. The first two years of cars will be snapped up with or without credits by the rich eco groupies, gear heads and finally a significant number of the SUV crowd will want to be seen in GREEN. Maybe a few of you guys on this site won’t be able to make the jump, but there are plenty of other right behind. After the first wave get bought, the cost will go down. In regards to comments made by others about raising the gas tax, again it hurts the working poor. The guy that could only buy a used car that gets 20-25 mpg. This is a little different than a sin tax versus alcohol and cigs. In todays society it is difficult to get around without a car. And by the way, I ride my bike 7 miles to work every day (April-November).
May 28th, 2010 (9:02 pm)The total U.S. national debt is hard to grasp. Figures in the $trillions go over most people heads.
But what really brings it home is this figure:
$118,060.
That’s your portion of the national debt.
If you take the national debt and divide it by the number of taxpayers, that’s the figure you get.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
+1
May 28th, 2010 (9:02 pm)The best thing OUR government could do for the EV is stop funding the competition and support FAIR TRADE. OUR companies should be allowed access to our competitors markets… this is NOT the case now. While we give $7500 to Japanese companies .. THEY will put a HUGE TARIFF on every CHEVROLET VOLT we try to sell in JAPAN. Give American companies a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD and we will not have to borrow money from our GLOBAL COMPETITORS to “stimulate” them.
The only stimulation American companies need is a level playing field.
May 28th, 2010 (9:12 pm)That is a scary thing to look at!
Also, that $118,060 is for each taxpayer, so if you have a wife and any kids working/paying taxes, that number jumps to an even higher number. So, a married working couple is up to $236,000+…
+2
May 28th, 2010 (9:25 pm)I agree with your math on what a rich or poor person will get. My point is that there should not be a credit at all in this situation. The reason being, that at this time even with $7500 credit, the cost of the car is going to be too high for low income. All of these cars are going to be snapped up early by people that either can afford without credit, or by people that just want cool technology and will be willing to pay for it. Once the cost goes down, then maybe look at helping low income people with tax credits. Bottom line is that like always, the rich people seem to come out ahead.
+2
May 28th, 2010 (9:52 pm)David G 183
I have seen this chart before. It is amazing how people are complaining about Obama’s spending and suddenly concern about the deficit.
As an example, I see my credit card debt as the deficit and my paycheck as taxes and of course my bills as government programs.
When I make a good salary and my income is high, I pay my bills and pay off my credit cards.
If I lose my job and/or my income decreases, I start using the credit cards to get me through the storm, until my income comes back.
Looks like some believe in decreasing their income (taxes) and run up the credit cards (deficit).
Obama inherited a huge deficit and a bad economy– unfortunately he had to spend money to keep the economy going. He is going to have to raise taxes at some point.
People want the government to decrease spending.. Can you imagine what all those private companies would do when they start losing government contracts for building bridges, roads, or whatever? Even the welfare bunnies and people on medicare contribute to the economy and welfare is not the HUGE burden people think. What about when government starts cutting research grants at the universities and schools and cut student loans? I have a friend who is a professor and they are having trouble accepting graduate students. One of the reasons is because there is not enough money to give graduate students research money so they can obtain their degrees. Note – not all degrees require research.
If government cut spending by 1/2 (that leaves enough for medicare and military and maybe a few other things), people would be in an uproar when services are cut. Can you imagine if the governemnt said ‘Hey BP’s oil disaster is the responsibility of BP and the government is NOT getting involved.’ I don’t think people realize how much the government does for them.
It is time people face the fact. If you want government to monitor our food supply, provide defense, support research, make BP pay for their destruction and many of the other services…. it is going to cost, so it is either low taxes and high deficit OR high taxes and low deficit.
The answer to our dependency on FOREIGN OIL is not DRILL BABY DRILL… it is move to other technologies so we are not dependent on one type of fuel AND decrease our demand for oil. The best strategy for a financial portfollio is to diversify .. the same for our transportation …
+1
May 28th, 2010 (10:33 pm)+72 and rising! One of the most accoladed posters on this site, and he gets the highest positive + rating for a post I can remember on gm-volt.com with THAT post?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! can you feel the irony?!!!!!!
I’m going against the grain, here — because the irony is staggering! Look at all the + votes for people nagging about our national debt! The only problem is as long as I’ve been on this site ( 3 yrs. ) they’re mostly the same people who have lauded the current administration and GM over and over and over! I would have to ascertain many of the highest-profile regular posters ( esp. East Coasters ) on this site work for GM!
You can’t have it both ways. GM isn’t just going to make lots of Volts. If you think so, you’re crazy. GM is moved like they always have been, by government mandates and a good solid shove to do what is right. Doing what is right is expensive. Incentivizing consumers and a nice taxpayer-funded infrastructure shot in the arm is really our only way towards electrification. As I’ve stated many times here, as a Conservative/Independent – the gasoline tax hasn’t had a significant raise for well over a decade – yet it is such an ideal solution to pay down the debt and insure a definate consumer-driven push to electrify transportation. Price of gas goes up — EVs appear, simple as that. If the U.S. government slackens it’s regs on manufacturers to meet targets as they did in California in the 90,s and are doing today in the Obama administration – EVs are doomed. Plain and simple.
Naturally NOBODY is going to propose a significant gasoline tax increase because, as I’ve said here, mucho times — that would be political suicide for anyone running for office. It’s how our system works. Their opponent can point a judgemental finger and say “THIS – this is the man/woman who voted for you poor poor working people to pay higher costs at the pump!”…..Bam.
So let’s review – government steps up large incentives to EV buyers – uses taxpayer money to get EV charging infrastructure out and rolling, and gm-volters revolt! HUH?!!!!…. WHAT?!!!!! Democrats are infamous for raising taxes, you voted them in, and now you’re astounded they’ve figured out a way to tax you more to build a new EV world and you seem suprised. SHOCKED even. lol. Other government funded and endorsed programs suck much more money from your pockets, some like Medicaire and Social Security are set for bandruptcy BUT THE MAJORITY OF YOU WANTED GOVERNMENT, SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE! Oh the Irony goes on and on.
As a conservative, I stand behind this mostly bi-partisan move. There is no other way to usher in change that will do us good. There is going to be a bit of shared pain getting where we need to be electric-transport-wise. Next thing you know, well-known Volt daily posters will start saying the answer to get off our oil addiction is to set up vans along our freeways to give away free gas pumps ( ala free needles to addicts ) L
L. I say there are a multitude of ways ( I won’t go into since this is a car website and not a political page ) this administration can begin to trim the fat and lower the deficit – increase production and employment with incentives, not tax penalties on people and businesses that are successful. But hey, that’s another day and another website…..
You should be THRILLED! You should be out on the front yard doing cartwheels for God’s sakes!!!!! This is WHAT WE WANT ( unless, like Rashiid, you work for GM – he must – come on… ). Once again this site sounds like selfish brats who don’t want to suffer or put up any sacrifice, but what the hell, just build my Volt anyhow! It’s funny when someone says it’s gonna cost us all a few bucks to electrify, we all shout +73s to someone who shouts foul over the deficit, changing colors right in front of our very eyes!!!!
Mention one word against Obama or the Dems in here is a SUREFIRE recipe for negative red votes. Believe me, I get ‘em all the time L
L. But today, on a day gm-volters should be dancing – they start sounding like Republicans bemoaning the NATIONAL DEBT.!!!! DID YOU JUST NOTICE TODAY THE RAMPANT, OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING?!!!!! L 
L
I say, if the government is spending our grandchildren and great grandchildren into a debtor society ( which they are ) – why not AT LEAST spend some of that tax money insuring those grandchildren live in a clean, safer, less war-torn world that revolves around clean energy and not the bloody mess as we have today!
Be happy! This is the best EV , EREV news we’ve gotten in years!
PLUG IN. TURN ON.
RECHARGE! James
+1
May 28th, 2010 (10:59 pm)While I appreciate the sentiment, I have to take issue with your assessment of which vehicle is superior. Since the Leaf has 2-3x the electric range of the Volt, the determination of which vehicle depends entirely on my driving pattern. Suppose my job is 35 miles away, and I already have a family vehicle? Leaf winds hands down, regardless of where its made. It’s the right tool for the job.
Suppose I’m single and work is 20 miles away? Volt is a total win — maintaining multiple vehicles in this situation provides no benefit. The greater versatility of the Volt means that it can be my only car.
I do like the idea of buying American, but I haven’t had many chances to do it — because its only going to tip the balance if the American car company is making a vehicle that matches my needs.
May 28th, 2010 (10:59 pm)It is always fun to read comments from deficit hawks who care more about some defunct ideology (by frauds like Milton Friedman) than real people. Atleast they should study what has been happening in Japan for the last couple of decades …
“Simple Keynesianism for Monetarists: A Primer”
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/04/delong-simple-keynesianism-for-monetarists-a-primer.html
May 28th, 2010 (11:21 pm)Not really. Most households have only 1 taxpayer (i.e. the first name on the tax return).
Or to look at it another way, the national debt per citizen is $42,060. Citizens include children. So the average taxpayer includes 2.8 citizens.
May 29th, 2010 (3:28 am)Why do you keep repeating this lie?
+1
May 29th, 2010 (3:36 am)Ssssh James, you’re giving away too many secrets about the people on this site….
GO EV!!!
May 29th, 2010 (6:43 am)DaveG,
Your correct. I missed that.
Thanks!
+2
May 29th, 2010 (6:52 am)How much do you think the poor person will be paying in gas 5 years from now if we don’t kick start electrics?
A person earning $100K is probably paying $20-25K/yr in income taxe. A person earning $10.50/hr is probably paying $0-3K in income tax. How is this coming out ahead? BTW, I don’t think most people would consider household income of $100K/yr for a family of 3 as rich.
Your logic seems to be if the poor can’t have it then nobody should. That is as flawed a logic deduction as trickle down economics. Having EVs gain traction in the marketplace is not about getting a few EVs in the hands of the “rich”. It is about:
-reducing our dependence on foreign oil
-keeping $350B-$1T of capitol in this country rather than much of going to contries that wish us harm or offer little to the international community
-reducing polution and CO2 emissions
-reducing noise pollution
-transitioning to a much more efficient and ultimately reliable, simpler motive power source
-etc., etc.
All of this is GOOD for EVERYONE. Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.
Financially prudent poor people, truly poor, do not generally buy new cars of any type. They buy used vehicles. The fewer new EVs bought and the higher their price, the longer until and the less available and the more expensive EVs will be in the aftermarket.
+1
May 29th, 2010 (6:58 am)James,
Very passionate post.
Not sure why you would think Rashid works at GM? If he was a GM worker, who was trying to help the GM cause, he would have wanted the Govt assistance for electrification.
Anyway, I see your points, and while I am very much on the conservative side of taxation, the one caveat on this is the incentives to get off oil. This has such large ramifications to our economic and national security, that I am leaning towards the idea of a gas tax being a good idea. This is something I would never have said a couple years ago, but this website has educated me on this aspect, and I feel I am a more informed person because of it (another Kudos to Lyle and all he does to keep this site interesting and sans-BS).
Enjoy the beautiful weekend, and lets remember what this weekend truly represents.
May 29th, 2010 (6:59 am)I think you should say “could be a blessing in disguise…”. It really depends on how it is handled. The end of “easy oil” could also very well be “the mother of all curses”.
+1
May 29th, 2010 (7:13 am)Absolutely NOT!
You do not need to increase or cut taxes to get out of a deficit. You make good decisions with the money you have. Money spent to help business’ expand and grow, is like fertilizing your garden, and the bounty will come. Spending money on some pet research project is a waste.
When business grows, so do the taxes the govt collects. The govt is not increasing taxes, but are reaping the benefits of what they sowed.
So, the answer for the govt’ is not in taxation, but in better management of the money it has.
Please do not think that we can tax our way out of a deficit!
+2
May 29th, 2010 (7:18 am)It was true that TV media blamed the Vietnam veterans themselves for the war. Media was greatly to blame for the hostile climate in the early 1970′s against veterans. Most of America bought into media slanders against us veterans, hook, line, and sinker.
When I was in the USAF counterintel, (1972), I was honored to be able to serve as an analyst for transcription of the POW debriefing tapes. Each officer and many enlisted were debriefed for 100 hours approximately each, (if they had remaining mental faculties to do so).
These debriefings were very heartbreaking to hear from each POW personally, how human beings can assault, torture, and degrade other human beings when they are POW’s with no control in their lives except to receive beatings, starvation, constant sickness and disease,
mental torture, and all manner of minute to minute suffering that no human being ought endure. This is why I abhor what Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld allowed, not just a little bit.
(I don’t think the President at that time would have allowed anything like this if he was to have been aware of any of it, for I believe him to be a very decent person very disloyally misled by those [former] [arrogant and conceited friends], though.) (And, the torture *climate* was also drumbeated by people like Rush Limbaugh, though he will nastily deny it. That 80 million-dollar-a-year slanderer cares only about his own fat lard conceited butt, and no one else at all really.)
Most of the other analysts I worked with had to frequently place down the transcription headsets (where we typed what the POW’s said, in relentless search to track where whomever was constantly moved around to other POW camps, so all could be accounted for to come home). Several analysts repeatedly all throughout the months-long project said “I can’t take this”.
“We’ve got to thoroughly listen for everything and get it down on paper for tracking”, I’d respond.
And, we’d continue to listen to all the descriptions of the torture, freezing cold cells with the POW’s without blankets, and, in one case, the POW’s decision to place an open net (excuse for a blanket), either underneath him on the cold concrete floor and freeze the top part of his body, or on top of himself and freeze the contact surfaces of the floor.
I also heard (and transcribed) some of Senator McCain’s highly-persevered sets of descriptions, on one of the graveyard shifts I worked). We relentlessly worked 24 hours a day to account for as many POW’s as possible, in case any were still MIA, as all were moved around so much, some might still have been held. (I received the Air Force Commendation Medal for “relentless drive” in the project accomplishment along with many many other analysts.)
The American media, on the other hand, relentlessly fed the country all manner of hostile sound bites against us veterans, and blamed us veterans for the very war itself. This was the point in my life where I realized that TV can cause extremely adverse poisoning of the countries’ mood. This internet has a very healing function to it in that completely-wrong TV/Radio news managers/commentators who decide to run this sort of damaging poison on their stations, this internet can correct that, sooner or later. (We must be patient for the right timing of “later”.)
In addition, this internet can also allow for the correction of other things we need to update in our lives and change in our lives, like the things I’ve posted in the last month. This is one of the very few sites where anyone can completely and fully/thoroughly state their cases for the prevention of “sound bite” inaccuracy, or an audience mis-perceiving of the writers message and meanings.
FOX news has proven to be the most dishonest in it’s managerial directives all down through the decades, even against me directly (about 5 years ago) as they darkened out one scene about me (during a PSA-type auto help-story I had been shooting for their viewers), but, they used my easily-recognized voice (which my customers recognized), took a comment about a PCM-resident code library having as many as “200 codes”, entirely and dishonestly out of context, to suggest to viewers that that is what I was representing to one customer in particular as all active problems. What abject deliberate liars! (This was motivated by my constant critique against the railroading of everything during the last previous presidency.)
Their owner is a completely dishonest, backstabbing, and thoroughly deplorable and greedy person in my opinion.
(They were contacted by my attorney, and I accepted their extremely nervous recorded apology which they left on my home phone answering machine a week later).
Time to put up that brand new American flag I bought.
May 29th, 2010 (7:20 am)If you say it enough times, it will become fact…
+2
May 29th, 2010 (7:26 am)Koz said:
“Financially prudent poor people, truly poor, do not generally buy new cars of any type. They buy used vehicles.”
All the more reason to get more new EVs out there ASAP. The sooner financially prudent poor people, and I might add, financially prudent rich people, will have some used EVs to purchase.
+1
May 29th, 2010 (7:27 am)Dan,
You have lived a very interesting life.
Have a happy Memorial weekend and thanks for your services.
+1
May 29th, 2010 (7:34 am)Thank you JEC,
I’ve been completely blessed with the opportunities to be always able to serve the best I know and can learn how, which is finally what America is all about.
+2
May 29th, 2010 (7:59 am)Thanks JEC for the support. And you’re right. I am very very passionate about getting our nation off of the teet of foreign oil. Just look at what it’s doing to us all. Not one aspect of being dependent upon other nations for oil is positive. What seems obvious to all is that it is becoming so much more dangerous as time goes on – even if someone were to discount “peak oil”, we have to look at O.P.E.C. nations and what they represent to our safety and sanctity. Hugo Chavez wants us dead, Saudi Arabia loves our money but hates our freedoms of religion, press, speech, markets, equality of sexes, human rights….etc, etc, etc. Now just look at that pipe nearly a half mile underwater in the Gulf just spewing that “black gold” we all need so much by the tens of millions of gallons pretty much finishing off that ugly ugly picture we find ourselves in with our dependence – and you have the perfect environment to push an electrically transported, domestically-sourced, bio-fueled USA into reality. Oil addiction is getting uglier by the minute ( literally ).
How appropriate many like to discuss the possibility of a gasoline tax. Sure, even us anti tax-and-spend zealots have to admit, as one poster today so aptly stated, “water conservation should be of top priority unless one’s home is burning, at which point, our drastic need outweighs our conscience to do what-in the long term- is right.
Automobile Magazine interviewed the current Asst. Secretary of Transportation Polly Trottenberg this month. In that interview she stated,”…There is not an appetite (in Washington today) to raise the gas tax…”. OF COURSE THAT WON’T HAPPEN, we can say we think it’s the answer, but it won’t happen due to voter backlash. Politicians mainly do populist things to retain their job – plain and simple. God only knows there is an Abraham Lincoln out there breathing air in these United States – but in today’s world he wouldn’t make it past the primary – because he likely would realize a SIGNIFICANT gas tax would solve many of our current lingering problems. Truly you and I may have slowly come to this realization, but the vast majority of people only see such a tax as a government penalty on their freedom to burn crude. So the The federal levy of 18.4 cents hasn’t gone up since 1993 and its buying power has been eroded by 67 percent inflation in construction costs since then, leaving the federal Highway Trust Fund insolvent.
In Europe, gas taxes are more like $3 – $4 per gallon. And they have a different model. Back in the Eisenhower administration the political consensus was to use the gas tax to pay for our interstate highway system – a user fee. That fee has not had an increase since 1993!!!! Can you believe a tax in America that hasn’t risen since 1993?!!!! In Europe they pay huge gas taxes and they’re not user fees. The proceeds go into a general treasurey ( kitty ) to pay for whatever they need them for – healthcare, transportation, defense…… . A tax here of 50 cents per gallon could go into a general fund and help pay down our national debt. Instead of placing the load onto the manufacturer – the consumer drives the market by demanding higher mileage cars and trucks. Simple. But it will never happen. It’s just politics.
This is why I endorse a bi-partisan stimulus to jump-start an electric auto revolution.
As for Rashiid Amul. Daily his early East Coast posts render +10s to +20s for his simple, “Just build Volts”, “Go GM, good job guys” positive comments. Today he rendered +73 ( +72 after my negative vote ) for basically stating this darned government spending just has to stop. No kidding! But this particular spending is needed – and more – to right the ship of an out-of-control oil dependency driving us into alot more debt. Period. I say he must work for GM ( half in jest ) because every day he slaps GM on the back yet states to popular approval that the government should just stop helping! When you work for GM, you know the government is that large monkey on your back telling you to build better mileage cars. When you’re GM you know you sat before a Congressional inquiry and stated the Chevy Volt was your “way forward strategy to get off oil and improve carbon footprint, so please bail us out” ( see YouTube for Congressional hearing ). When you’re GM the Volt is expensive. Very expensive. So you don’t want the government sticking it’s prongs into you with incentives to the consumer and public funding of charging stations to force you into actually mass producing expensive Volt in more than a couple markets! Now do you see my point? All of a sudden GM fan boys like Rashiid Amul are barking that government incentives are wrong because, darn it, they just raise our deficit!
RECHARGE! James
+1
May 29th, 2010 (8:07 am)KOZ – I do want the idea of electrification to become reality. But I do believe government does not think things through. If this proposed program is to jump start the BEV/EREV, it really is not needed. The proposed program limits 250,000 cars per company. I have a hard time with people getting a credit for buying a Tesla. There will not be any problem selling these cars at sticker price. There are many willing to pay the price. But lets say I am wrong about that, then there is still the problem of the cars being sold in selected markets. By the time it is available to the masses, the tax credit will be gone. Also, I am a “Skeptic” that the car companies will pad the price a little knowing that the customer is getting a government kick-back. I saw it and participated (yes I am a hypocrite) in it when I bought my Honda Fit in the cash for clunkers program. I had a deal worked out on a FIT with my trade prior to the program. I pulled back and waited. The price suddenly went up $1100, but I still came out ahead with the government kick-back. These companies are doing focus groups to determine the price point acceptable. They will factor in a government kick-back and set the price higher, knowing the consumer will buy if under the focus group price point.
May 29th, 2010 (8:16 am)I’m sorry you had a bad experience with one particular news agency Dan. That certainly effects how you view anything about them. I happen to believe that all the news agencies are “dishonest,” just about different things. I don’t think that Fox is more “dishonest” than ABC, NBC, or CBS, but I haven’t had a personal experience with any of them, except once, when my face made the NBC national broadcast during the Cierro Grande fire in 2000. They did try to make me say something inappropriate for a sound bite. I didn’t bite.
Have a great weekend. Try to forget all our political differences and just think about all that is right with our great land, and remember those who have made it possible!
+1
May 29th, 2010 (11:42 am)#194
Amen. +1
+1
May 29th, 2010 (12:23 pm)#196
Amen. +1
-2
May 29th, 2010 (12:26 pm)#197
That’s us baby, good old LA. 2nd biggest city in the nation with the worst air pollution since they started measuring.
Bring it! +1
May 29th, 2010 (4:47 pm)Hi Micheal,
Thanks for the really nice card you sent me.
I placed it on the fireplace mantle right next to the picture of my mom and dad.
No, FOX doesn’t bother me, I tune them out on the TV anyway. But the purpose of my including them is a reminder warning to others how *totally dishonest and completely backstabbing* broadcast journalism can be and had been. Nothing has changed with them, decades ago during the Vietnam era, and even nowadays. The same owner owns it, so, they aren’t to be trusted.
Anyway, on the positive note, thanks again for the really nice card from you and Susan. It really made my week!
May 29th, 2010 (6:22 pm)Great thread bloggers. Lots of “Amens” and “+1s” – as many as I can remember for a long time. Even if I didn’t agree with Rashiid, LOL.
May 30th, 2010 (3:50 am)May be fuel tax is too early for today. I think that it should come and will be possible when EREV’s and BEV’s cut at leaset 10% market share. At that point would be rational to put in plase tax incentives (stick wise). For now when electric powertrains have 0% market share realy best way to go is simply cleaning way for mainstreaming EREV and BEV. And this require some efforts. I realy don’t undertand Rashid approach and his + voters. I order to get something you have to spend something in exchange. And it does not matter how much you owe to someon.
May 30th, 2010 (6:26 am)There are very few non-commercial consumers that can’t cut down their gasoline consumption by at least 10%.
May 30th, 2010 (1:39 pm)Koz,
My post idea is puting fuel tax “incentive” on purpose. It means that consumers should know where to go in order to avoid fuel tax – buy EREV. But today EREV is even not available on the market.
May 30th, 2010 (5:52 pm)I never Knew that, that is just sick….
Jun 9th, 2010 (12:33 am)blogunuz çok güzel fakat temada üst kısımda bir hata veriyor ve sayfa tam olarak açılmıyor.bilginiz olsun istedim.