Budget talks: This is getting nasty

I'm glad you weren't in charge of making fiscal decisions when the U.S. was building a space program.

 

When do we cash out on ARPANET?

 

http://www.techi.com/2011/08/neil-degrasse-tyson-continues-his-onslaught-on-the-governments-betrayal-of-science/

 

Volt is in demand because Obama pals at GE bought half of production.

http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/16/chevy-volt-ayn-rand-opinions-patrick-michaels_print.html

 

"Starve the Beast."

 

I didn't want to spend a penny of my tax money on endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so we could continue to suck out Mideast oil either but there you are. Tax forms aren't multiple choice, unfortunately.

 

As nice as the idea of more fuel-efficient vehicles sounds, there are two problems:

1. More fuel-efficient vehicles cost more money. Plus manufacturers seldom, if ever, offer rebates on them. A 2011 Ford Fusion Hybrid costs about $7,000 more than the Fusion SE model and about $5,000 more than the SEL model, both of which have substantial rebates.

2. More fuel-efficient vehicles are sedans, and often smaller-sized sedans at that. Not good for families who have to transport multiple kids and their gear to a sports practice or haul large quantities of groceries and other purchases. Even if buying the 18 mpg Ford Explorer costs $30,000 to the Fusion Hybrid's $27,000, the savings doesn't do any good if the vehicle isn't useful.

There are a few hybrid SUVs out there, but not many. And the ones that are out there offer only minimal fuel economy savings. If automakers want to sell more hybrid vehicles, improve hybrid SUVs so the gas mileage is closer to those of hybrid sedans.

 

I test drove a Highlander Hybrid that claimed to give 28/28 mpg, which is about the same as the Corolla in the city and way better than any mid-size crossover I know of on the highway. The problem is, this was a 2007 or 2008 with 70k miles and they still wanted $21k for it. SUVs are already ridiculously expense these days so hybrid SUVs would just be absurd. I'm guessing it would be about $40k new.

I notice a vehicle that seems to be gaining a little steam these days in urban areas is the Mazda5. It's built on the chassis of the 3, but it's a mini, minivan. You can have three rows of seats, but very modest storage in the back, fold down the third row and have decent storage or push forward the second row and let the seat backs fold down and you have pretty good cargo room (I'd guess you maybe could haul a love seat or something like that, but it's hard to say). The trade-offs are you don't get a ton of storage compared to a regular mini-van and if your youngest kids are beyond toddler age, the third row is pretty useless. Plus, the second row has bucket seats, so you're going to seat 6, not 7.

But the good thing is you can buy it new for less than $20k and you get something like 28/21 mpg with it, pretty good for something that seats six or carries decent cargo.

The strange thing is, Mazda pretty much does not promote it (I think it sells well overseas) and you'll only find it in larger markets where people still like smaller vehicles but are looking for the utility of a van. I think it would have a niche if they promoted it because there's nothing else like it out there and it's in a good place in fuel economy, price point and versatility. And, to me, it's not as ugly as most mini-vans.

 

Until "relatively recently," Ragu? How do you figure? Tax rates are less, not more, progressive than ever, and the wealth gulf between classes has grown, not shrunk. If we're using the tax system to redistribute wealth, we're doing a shitty job of it.

 

Taxation can be about public goods, even when it doesn't benefit someone.

Take welfare, for instance. People who aren't on it and pay taxes complain that they're subsidizing people who are lazy and should get off their butts. And yeah, there are a lot of people who are like that.

But at the same time, it can be seen as a public good. Get rid of welfare, and you have an awful lot of people on the streets. And you'll have even more crime, and more anger.

So while I'm not always crazy about welfare, and think there should be some reforms (such as drug-testing and disqualification for future criminal records), I understand the need for it. I wouldn't want a group of hungry people storming my house to raid my refrigerator.