Subject: Proposed Government Driving Restrictions!

From: [email-masked] (CVC411)
Date: 19 Jul 1995 09:22:24 -0400

Attention Motorists!

Big Brother is about to tell you what you can drive, how far, and most
important, how much more you’ll have to pay for it!

Did you know that your taxes are paying for a Presidential advisory
committee that is trying to force Americans into smaller cars and to drive
them less.  Even though fewer than two percent of the public buys
high-mileage sub-compacts and most people rely on a motor vehicle for a
variety of reasons, your government wants to change that.  

The Greenhouse Gas Car Dialogue Advisory Committee (known as “Car Talks”)
is due to deliver policy options to the President in late September, but
you have an opportunity now to let your government know what you think of
these policies before the package is put into final form.  Here are some
examples of the policies this committee is considering:

•	Road Use Pricing:  New taxes on motorists and businesses based on
how much they use public streets and highways.

•	Congestion Pricing: additional taxes for use of highways during
peak rush-hours.

•	VMT-Based Registration Fees: registration fees based on Vehicle
Miles Traveled -- how much a particular vehicle is driven.  (The more you
drive, the higher the fee.)

•	Parking Charges: Requiring employers , merchants and other
business owners to charge market prices for all parking they provide.  (No
more free parking at McDonald’s or the supermarket.)

•	Increase CAFE Standards: Raise government fuel economy
requirements for passenger cars to 45 mile per gallon and 34 mpg for
pickups, vans, minivans and sport utility vehicles.  Absent any technology
breakthroughs, the government would be forcing consumers into much
smaller, less safe vehicles with reduced performance.  Most models would
have to come without popular options such as air conditioning and
four-wheel drive.

•	Gas Guzzler “Feebates”:  The government already imposes gas
guzzler taxes on cars with ratings below 22.5 mpg (as high as $7,700 per
car).  The “Feebate Gas Guzzler” scheme would extend those taxes to
popular mid-size vehicles (up to 28 mpg), and then use that money to
subsidize consumers who buy smaller high-mileage cars.  Many popular
models such as the Dodge Intrepid, Ford Taurus, Chevy Lumina and even
entire car lines like Volvo and Audi would be subject to these new gas
guzzler taxes.

•	Higher Gas Taxes: no explanation necessary.

•	Employer Trip Reduction Programs:  Requirement for businesses to
get more of their employees to car pool and or use mass transit.  This is
the same scheme contained in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act that
has already been widely rejected by affected metropolitan areas and has
led EPA to back off on enforcing the rule.

•	Mortgage Rate Disincentives:  The further you live from downtown,
the higher your mortgage interest rate.

All of the above policy options are designed to get consumers into
smaller, less safe vehicles and to use them less than they otherwise
would.  One irony is that two highly visible icons of “consumer advocacy”
-- Joan Claybrook of Public Citizen and Clarence Ditlow of the Center for
Auto Safety -- are members of this committee, and have been pushing for
adoption of these anti-motorist policies just as much as the environmental
extremists.  Because they support these anti-consumer policies one should
question who they really represent...certainly not most consumers.  The
next time the media refers to them as “consumer advocates,” you’ll know
better.

One of the most devastating policies in this group is the least understood
by the general public: Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. 
CAFE standards were originally enacted to reduce reliance on foreign oil
and save consumers money.  However, history has proven they have done
neither and in fact have cost society dearly.  Government and private
studies show that the vehicle downsizing to improve fuel economy since the
mid-1970’s results in thousands of highway deaths and serious injuries
every year.  The Harvard Injury Control Center concluded that if CAFE
standards were raised to 40 mpg the result would be an additional 1650
deaths and 8500 serious injuries annually.

To voice your opinion against such policies, you can post a message to the
“Car Talks” section of the Environmental Protection Agency’s TTN BBS at
(919) 541-5742.  You can also Telnet directly at:  ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov

You’ll be prompted to register (at no charge) and then proceed as follows:
-At TTN Main Menu choose “T” for TTN Technical Information Areas
-At TTN Tech Info Areas choose “S” for Greenhouse Gas Car Dialogue
-At Greenhouse Gas Main Menu choose “F” for Car Dialogue Public Messages

If you have any questions regarding this issue please send e-mail to the
Coalition for Vehicle Choice at [email-masked] or [email-masked].  The
Coalition for Vehicle Choice represents nearly 5,500 automotive,
insurance, consumer, farm, recreation, construction, safety, senior, law
enforcement, and other groups working to preserve Americans' access to
safe and affordable cars and light trucks capable of meeting diverse
personal and professional mobility needs.

---

From: Corey Alambar <corwyn>
Date: 19 Jul 1995 15:13:22 GMT

[email-masked] (Richard Ottolini) wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]>, CVC411 <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>The governement damn well provide incentives in this direction
>as long as they aren't draconian and counter-economic.
>
>- We import $70 billion dollars of petroleum crude and products,
>contributing a major chunk to the trade deficient.  The US now
>imports 55% of its usage up from 25% or so during the two 1970s
>oil crises.
>
>- The highways in most major cities are congested.
>
>And I haven't even mentioned pollution (strong controls already),
>greenhouse abatement (dubious), and vehicle saftey (could be better).

Okay, you have some valid points.  But if the original poster's points were
true (some of them sounded remarkably alarmist, though potentially realistic
considering the things government discusses),  then what we are talking about
is an attempt that would force the owners of pretty much any vehicle older than
ten years to replace it (penalizing those who either (a) can't afford something
better or (b) have taken good enough care of the old vehicle to keep it
operational).

Then consider the following effects of this kind of legislation:

Increased urban and suburban population densities.
   This would lead to:
	- Increased crime
	- Increased air pollution (particulates in particular)
	- More extreme changes in property values

Disincentives for interregional travel
	- Higher costs of goods (having to be shipped by rail/sea rather than 
		truck, or higher trucking costs)
	- Increased traffic at airports
	- Increased poverty and/or increased prices on goods
	- Increased rifting and regionalization along political lines

Penalties for families
	- Increased cost of "family vehicles": station wagons, minivans, etc.
	- Increased housing costs in key corridors
	- "Ghettoization" of families to more rural areas

Increased Cost of Living
	- Higher parking fines/fees
	- necessity of delivery services for basic needs (groceries, etc.)
	- Shift to retail from wholesale purchasing by individuals

This is for the urban/suburban population.  The rural/agrarian population would
be extremely hard-hit.  These measures would potentially isolate large areas of
the US, particularly through the central plains and montaine states.  People
who exist in these areas, many already near the poverty line, would become
unable to move goods to markets, driving a new element into urban areas:
displaced farmers.  Already with the small farm in decline, this would be a
very dangerous move, in that it would move an entire segment of self-sufficient
people into the cities, where a lack of skills and/or training would contribute
to a growing underclass.

All in all, if the allegations are true, this kind of a movement would be sheer
economic idiocy at best.  There are better ways to try to reduce air pollution,
etc. than by imposing such restrictive measures on people who require vehicles
for their livlihood.

And before you ask, I am rural born and bred, and lived by mass transit in a
large metropolitan area (Silicon Valley) before finally purchasing a car.  I've
run into numerous difficulties with mass tansit, including the difficulty of
purchasing any kind of durable good (television, etc.) without some kind of
exorbinant fee.  In fact, shopping of any variety, including and especially
groceries, became a nightmare.  The inability to buy in bulk (to reduce
packaging and expense) was disturbing and had a negative impact on my budget.
The contention that mass transit is more inexpensive for its users is often
patently false.

-Corey, apologizing for a rant at 8 am.

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Adams)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 06:39:44 GMT

Corey Alambar (corwyn) wrote:
: >
: >The governement damn well provide incentives in this direction
: >as long as they aren't draconian and counter-economic.
: >

This sounds like both to me.  It is reducing my mobility freedoms, and 
putting my standard of living into even more of a freefall than it 
already is.

: >- We import $70 billion dollars of petroleum crude and products,
: >contributing a major chunk to the trade deficient.  The US now
: >imports 55% of its usage up from 25% or so during the two 1970s
: >oil crises.
: >

If we would stop talking half of the world's immigrants, maybe we would 
be in better shape.  If immigration is not controlled, our population 
will go up from 260 million now to over 400 million by 2050 (source:  
U.S. Census Bureau).  Gee, I can't wait.  The government will probably 
tell us how many times we can use the toilet in a day, let alone what, 
where, and when to drive.

Hello people-goodbye freedom.

Michael Adams
-- 
                                             [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Dunn)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 14:43:41 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>putting my standard of living into even more of a freefall than it 

Why should the government be the one to provide incentives?  Do you think 
the market can decide for itself what it wants to do?

>: >imports 55% of its usage up from 25% or so during the two 1970s

We have been buying oil for a long time.  But if we're so concerned about 
imports, then we should increase import duties on things we buy over 
seas.  This way, we don't punish ourselves.  A lot of people honestly 
believe that America can't make it alone.  I believe that we have enough 
resources to stick it out alone.  I'm not saying we should be 
isolationist.  I'm saying we don't have to let down our guard completely 
when it comes to trade.

>be in better shape.  If immigration is not controlled, our population 

We could stop this bi-lingual education bullshit which leaves the 
immigrants less capable of understanding english.  And for the kids who 
are born here, they should be taught to read phonetically.  It's time to 
ditch this "whole word" philosophy which has stunted the reading 
ability.  And finally, the best thing we can do is STUDY THE LAW.  This 
will keep governments honest.

One problem that is lost on many people is how we resolve conflicts.  For 
the most part, very few of us know the law.  So, when we grow up, we know 
how to negotiate and fight.  When negotiations break down, we fight - 
with guns.  If we knew how to handle a simple fender bender or breach 
of contract lawsuit as plaintiff or defendant, that gives us one more 
avenue for resolving the conflict.

But, since we DON'T know the law, and we are loathe to pay a lawyer his 
exhorbitant fees, we don't always have that extra option.  Learning the 
law, finding its origins, and knowing how to use it will do wonders to 
reduce government regulations.  There is a loophole everywhere in the 
law.  It's set up that way so that our elected can stay in office.

>Hello people-goodbye freedom.

So study the law, it's not so bad.

-- 
Scott Dunn :  Sui Juris : @netcom.com :  
"When there is crime in government, there is no justice." --Potato