Senator Rockefeller Proposes Legislation To Strengthen NHTSA

More funding = More enforcement More enforcement = (1) Catching problems sooner + (2) Providing a deterrent for future bad behavior The Obama administration has tried to create a deterrent effect by imposing massive fines at unprecedented levels, but that only goes so far.

Higher vehicle prices, higher taxes, more useless federal employees, weaker economy, fewer vehicle sales, fewer defective ignitions. Voila!

@Dan As a useless federal employee I applaud your reasoning. All that matters is our paycheck and growing our agencies.

@Dan Watch out! 9 Dollars per vehicle increase! Run for the hills our economy is going to collapse! Any other sage advice?

@Pch101 "More funding = More enforcement More enforcement = (1) Catching problems sooner + (2) Providing a deterrent for future bad behavior" You haven't explained how. The problems were discussed internally, but there was nothing known outside GM (or so has been reported) for years. Be specific. What form does "more enforcement" take? Are they going to hire more "enforcers" to monitor internal corporate email? (and that would carry a certain irony, given recent events) Are the "enforcers" going to crawl up everybody's ass at the company looking for something to get 'em on? Unless such enforcement is going to be internally-focused so as to be preventative, then as far as I can tell, it would only be the same after-the-fact enforcement it always has been.

@Xeranar Multiply by infinity. Enjoy the decline, you've earned it.

@RangerM Good luck getting an NHTSA official a seat on the board.

@RangerM I have already explained how. It should be obvious from GM's reaction to the exceptionally high fines and bad government-funded PR that the automakers behave differently when the screws are turned. Not only do they respond to existing problems differently, but they become more proactive about avoiding future controversy.

@Pch101 Then you didn't answer the question I asked. I asked how more money prevents future incidents. Fines are reactive (ie. After the incident has already occurred). You may say they're proactive because higher fines will provide a deterrent. However, how does imposing higher fines cost $3 per car? That is the "how" you didn't answer.

@Pch101 The desire to avoid large fines and bad PR promotes proactive behavior. If you think that automakers don't alter their behavior based upon the level of scrutiny, then you simply aren't paying attention. We have examples of this happening right now as we speak, with GM recalling everything from here to Kingdom Come as it scrambles to avoid more substantial penalties and the prolonged negative media attention that goes with them.

@Pch101 Still obtuse. You can't say what the additional money is spent on, but you know you favor it.

@Pch101 The obtuseness is coming strictly from your end. The facts are hiding in plain sight. More regulators allows for greater scrutiny, since more stuff is noticed and less of it is missed. NHTSA staffing levels are lower than they once were, which causes them to miss problems. Your kneejerk opposition to it causes you to miss some rather obvious points.

@Pch101 How would greater staffing have prevented the incident at GM. What exactly would one, ten, or a hundred additional regulators have done? What would be their job description? Do they approve every engineering schematic, or sit on the assembly line? Again, HOW does more money in the regulator's hands force GM to act on what its internal corporate structure was preventing?

@Pch101 "How would greater staffing have prevented the incident at GM." You should type a couple of words into Google, namely "proactive" and "deterrent." The administration's policy is to hand out large fines when automakers aren't proactive. Do the math: Large penalties when caught + Increased likelihood of being caught = More proactive behavior. Perhaps you don't follow the arithmetic, but Mary Barra clearly does, as we can see from her considerable recall efforts. GM doesn't want to be punished anymore than it already has, and it is setting an example for their competitors.

@Pch101 Greater fines don't require $3, $6, or $9 per car.

@Pch101 I asked you to type "deterrent" into Google. I can see that you didn't bother.

@Pch101 And you haven't established how $3, $6, or $9 per car provides that deterrent, because you can't establish a purpose for it other than "more staff" with no defined job description.

@Pch101 I've made the point several times. You're obviously working overtime to not get it.

@thelaine A deterrent? More fees and more regulators/investigators does not necessarily mean less problems. Might be more effective to hire an advertising agency and run commercials about a company's recalls. Shame and humiliation has been keeping society in line for centuries. Nothing like a light shining into the dark recesses to send the insects scurrying for cover. Ever notice that a government's way of solving a problem is by increasing the size of government?

@thelaine When infinity becomes a number in economics you'll opinion will matter. By the way, it's a user fee that quite literally amounts to .0003% of a sales price of a new car on average. It's infinitesimal. But don't let it get in the way of your anti-government screed.

@Pch101 Your explanation amounts to...... 1. Collect Underpants. 2. ????????? 3. Profit