Robin Hood on CO2: Tax rich motorists to help the poor get a cleaner car? I say 'yeah!'

Now here's a novel thought that a right-wing fiscal conservative would scream at but a pro-active, left-leaning person would consider: raise taxes on high-income motorists, then take that money to fund a government voucher program to allow low-income motorists to buy a newer vehicle.
Why? In Los Angeles, fewer than 10 percent of the vehicles on the road are more than 15 years old yet they account for more than half the smog. Now read this carefully. If the government would institute the voucher program just mentioned and not require automakers to develop even stricter emissions systems for their vehicles, everyone wins. How? The price of the cars would come down, so the high-income motorists more or less would break even and low-income motorists get a cleaner car. Again, everyone wins because the air is cleaner.
It'll never be debated because those who are against larger government and so called "income redistribution" would freak out at the thought of a CEO who makes $5 million a year directly helping a struggling single mom who works the cosmetics counter at Macy's buy a clean, fuel efficient car.
During my talks with powertrain engineers, I feel their frustration at increasing government regulations over emissions. Today's vehicles put out less than 2 percent of the emissions from 30 years ago. But the cost to go another 1 percent is probably equal or greater than what the automakers have already spent. It's like building horsepower in an engine. I can take a basic 250-horsepower small-block Chevy and make 100 horsepower more on a $1,000. But to add another 100 horsepower is probably going to cost me an additional $2,000. And another 100 horsepower will cost $5,000, an so on. NASCAR engine builders are spending millions just to find 5 horsepower these days. It's the same with reducing emissions in passenger cars. Take that cost out of the vehicle and help low-income drivers buy a new vehicle, and you've achieved the same overall result, probably with less money. And I'm not against stopping all emissions research, just spread out future regulations and give the voucher program some time work. I know the automakers won't make cuts on their own, so keep the pressure one. Just try another approach that can make significant differences in a hurry.
My thoughts follow a reading of a think piece by Robert Frank in the New York Times. He also considers health care in the same light. Basically, he's calling on anti-government crusaders to violate their top two commandments, and with good reason.
[Source: Robert H. Frank / New York Times]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
vernita 10:02AM (8/09/2008)
I'm a single mom working at a low end paying job trying to take care of 3 beautiful children and paying high market rent which is extremely hard but I have the lord with me and mine guiding us through life. At this time I driving a 1994 Buick that needs alot work but thanks to the lord it's still running. I guess what I'm asking how could I find out more information about automobile voucher's. Please contact ASAP
Thank You Kindly
Ms Vernita Barkley
08/09/08
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 5:30PM (3/16/2007)
The problem with Liberal (capital 'L') income-redistribution schemes is unintended consequences. There are enough past examples of this that a few dozen shouldn't be difficult to dig up. My favorite is the pig farmers' tax break in the 1970's, which resulted in pig farmers becoming much worse off within a couple of years.
On the surface, this particular redistribute-the-wealth welfare plan looks appealing, although you left out the required "for the children" tie-in needed to assure Liberal (capital 'L') buy-in. But when it fails to achieve its intended purpose (which is highly probable), the Liberal (capital 'L') argument will be that there wasn't enough of whatever it was that caused the original failure, or that there weren't enough laws passed, or something.
Reply
1985 Gripen 6:03PM (3/16/2007)
Government is grossly inefficient and just adds more problems.
Take the Los Angeles Unified School District, for example: they get BILLIONS of dollars each year yet there's always a new multi-billion-dollar school bond on the ballot every election cycle and it ALWAYS passes, because after all, who doesn't want the children to have the best education?
Yet at the elementary school my son goes to we have seen no improvements to either facilities or curriculum. California still lags most of the other states in education. Where does all that money go?
How about the lottery? The money was supposed to go to education. Where does the money go?
So much money in government programs goes to "administrative costs" because it's so inefficient. I don't want to see yet another program where it's okay to take money from rich people just because they can handle it. That's just not fair. Likely the end result will be bureaucratic waste anyway...
Reply
Tim 6:25PM (3/16/2007)
There are no more “conservatives” in congress except for Rep. Ron Paul (R) Texas who is now running for president. Look him up in Google Video.
Other than Ron, there are only Big Gov't Liberals and Big Gov't conservatives. They only disagree on what to spend our money on. Follow the $$$$$$.
Reply
Rick 6:44PM (3/16/2007)
Kudos to the commentors. The public school example is right on. God help anybody who has kids in public schools nowdays. They should all be privatized. Ever seen a bad teacher fired? No. They get promoted into administration or paid to sit in a room somewhere and do nothing until they retire. It's the way beaurocracy works. The more money it gets, the worse it gets. The school system is broken almost anywhere you look.
Incomes ARE being redistributed on so many levels it's already crazy. And the single mom at the cosmetics counter at Macy's? Dare we ask for details?
Liberals just think they care more but the recent book out on "Who really cares: The surprising truth..." reveals much. Liberals give the governments money, not their own. Then they interfere with attempts to manage inefficiency. Conservatives give their own money--by an overwhelming percentage. It's documented fact.
To autobloggreen editors: You think you're talking to a bunch of liberal treehuggers. There are plenty of conservatives here who care, who are doing the right thing by the environment, the economy AND charity.
Reply
Chris M 8:59PM (3/16/2007)
One problem with this idea is how to implement it while preventing fraud and mismanagement.
Another is that "low income" drivers may not be able to afford a new car, but might afford a "newer cleaner more efficient" used car. Would this program benefit them? If it is limited to new cars only, it will mainly benefit the middle class and the auto makers.
Reply
Owen 9:07PM (3/16/2007)
Handouts are never the answer. First thing that happens is someone gets a voucher, gets a new car and sells the car 20 minutes later to someone whom they arranged a "deal" with to get them the partial cash value of the voucher back in their hands. Cars=Cash. Who know's where that goes next.
That said, before I met her, my wife was a struggling single mother, and she had managed to scrape every penny she could to put her kid through Catholic school because of the governments inability to handle that money. She didn't get a penny from the state because she made a measly $500 a month and didn't qualify, the only people who got assistance were the truly lazy ones who didn't bother to get a job. Welfare = everything bad with this country. Rent Idiocracy (dumb movie), then look around for a couple of weeks and tell me it's not true.
I seriously am considering never coming to this site again because of the political messages (propoganda) that constantly are thown in the viewers faces. It's sad, but if I want green car related info, it's my best source for now. So until someone comes up with a site that just reports the facts without the funk, I've got little choice.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 11:09PM (3/16/2007)
"Rent Idiocracy (dumb movie), then look around for a couple of weeks and tell me it's not true." -Owen
In a very interesting coincidence, a friend of mine recommended that movie, and loaned me his copy today, which I plan to view this weekend.
Reply
chris 11:41PM (3/16/2007)
Or you could ditch this idea and just improve the LA public transit system. Or is that to Liberal too?
Reply
K Smith 12:54AM (3/17/2007)
I am an avid hiker.
I love the outdoors.
I work to preserve open space.
I have physically worked to clean up the environment in my area.
I belong to and donate money to a select group of environmental organizations.
I have adjusted my lifestyle to recycle and save energy.
But some of the ideas on this site are so far to the left I have to adjust my monitor on a regular basis just to read them.
I'm not sure what else I can say...
Reply
Owen 11:22AM (3/17/2007)
What's so liberal about public trans. It supports big business. LOL.
Reply