Make it revenue-neutral. Cut some other tax to match the [realistically] projected revenue from this.

Or do set it up as a new tax and revenue source and fund this:

A Solar Grand Plan

The Volt is a prime example. It’s a vehicle that exists with lots of promises (more efficient than the Prius) but without a powertrain. Even if the batteries are developed in the next two years, you would be crazy to start using them right away in a vehicle that may be put to use in extremes of temperature, extreme vibration (America’s roads are literally crumbling), and varying altitudes without years of test data and refinement.

If you believe that higher gas prices are the better alternative to CAFE regs, I ask you, “To whom should the extra gas taxes go?” because a tax is what you’re proposing. Shall the monies go to the Saudis, or the most-profitable-ever-in-history gas companies, or to the bureaucrats in Washington?

The smart car company will be the one who sees this as an opportunity to wean America off her insatiable, empire-building, oil war mongering appetite, and to take the credit therefrom.

Well … here’s you energy policy. Shockingly, GM execs are still complaining.

GM, in other words, is whining because new CAFE doesn’t make trucks quite as artificially cheap and attractive as old CAFE did. Meanwhile, Toyota and Honda just shut up and make small cars that don’t betray a seething hatred for their drivers.

While this will most likely cause them to invest in technology that makes large vehicles more efficient, it will still result in unhappy consumers who will perceive these high tech efficient products to be too expensive given the relatively low price of gas.

Gosh, I’d be awfully surprised if he didn’t clearly convey that message to Congress…

—

If I recall correctly, Toyota had a similar problem with demand for their gas hogs (like the Rav-4!) skewing their fleet fuel economy downwards. So, they raised prices on the thirstier models to shift demand back to the higher-mpg end of their fleet.

Maximum Bob could try that trick.

No of course not. GM doesn’t want to be seen as lobbying for higher taxes. It’s up to congress to raise taxes, but they are too gutless, so we end up trying to make the manufacturer make the cars that we aren’t choosing.

Of course Maximum Bob may be looking a gift horse in the mouth. W/o cafe how much farther behind would GM be in fuel efficiency ?

As for Bob and his bankers, I sure hope their golden parachutes will cover the declining cost of their homes. Cause guess what: it’ll get worse before it gets better. just think of all those baby boomers who will progressively sell their assets, including their houses.

So he has a way to pull electricity out of thin air or otherwise produce it without burning fossil fuels or using nuclear fuel? Does GM have a solar- or windmill-powered car that we don’t know about?

You’re correct, “ought” isn’t going to be a winning defense when the fines are levied. As you say, the rules are in place and clear, so less bitching and more engineering is in order.

Still, we pistonheads should defend the automakers on those rare occassions when they are correct. Even Maximum Bob can’t be wrong all the time.

The sad thing is GM is already a couple model generations behind on Hybrids. And Toyota will probably beat them to market with Plug ‘n play cars too.

Dynamic88:

Bob is right, there are still people who want 3/4 ton V8 powered trucks, and GM ought to be able to sell them w/o worrying about fines.

I agree as well. CAFE is a joke. But "ought" ain't gonna cut it.

The rules of the game were and still are clear: if GM wants to sell loads of big ass high-profit pickups and SUVs they gotta balance that out by selling (you know, selling) smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.

Toyota: Prius, Tundra. Do the math.

Anyway, what's the bet GM and the domestics find sufficient regulatory wiggle room to sell all the pickups and SUVs they can? And what's the bet that "all that they can" still won't be enough to stave off Chapter 11?

The problem with the tax -aside from being politically unpopular- is that GM isn’t well placed to provide the kind of vehicles people will be demanding. But that’s another story. Bob is right, there are still people who want 3/4 ton V8 powered trucks, and GM ought to be able to sell them w/o worrying about fines.

Note to Bob:
We’ve already taken a decade or two of hits and we’re not OK.