Bush wants to cut "supercar" budget

I almost posted this in the TDI vs. Insight thread, but thought it merited its own thread.

/snip

The Daily Auto Insider
Bush to Downshift Supercar Project
April 12, 2001


The Bush administration wants to cut funding for the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles by $39 million, or 28 percent, the Associated Press reported.

The partnership began in 1993 as a joint venture with General Motors, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler. The Clinton administration challenged the automakers to develop by 2004 production prototypes of a family-size sedan that got at least 80 miles per gallon, the AP said.

The automakers invested $1 billion in the effort and each produced a vehicle that used combination electric-diesel engines, more aerodynamic designs, and lighter materials.

"We're redesigning that program," Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said. "I think it will be more productive spending to focus on where the industry is headed."

The industry is focusing on fuel cells, which produce energy from a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, the AP said.

/end snip

According to Car and Driver's article (5/2001 issue) on the "supercars," Bush had indicated his support for the program and that it should continue to be funded at current levels--$233.4 million per annum. Total tax $ collected for the program so far: $1.7 billion.

Note: somebody's math is off because 39/233.4 = 16.7%

[ April 13, 2001: Message edited by: GotDiesel? ]

Good point. They'd better be able to figure something out with $233 million per year. Somebody please give me $233 million per year and I'll invent something!!

Money dosen't grow on trees, I want results for my money. Bring on the fuel cells.

Bush is for big oil, and big oil and big car guys want us all to own SUVs. Did you not read the front line news when the Houston Fed Resev Gov said all Americans should go out and buy a SUV and there will be no recesion in America. That the way these people think. Like Hello, I got two kids and the last thing I need is a StupidUselessVec and one more HUGE car payment.

Results take time and money. We need the technology, so money spent this way is about the only way government should spend my money. I don't care about too many other programs, but R&D is way up there on my list. Lets hope this fuel price rise wakes Washington up! I'll send an email to GW, as I see him all the time... NOT

Stupid is as stupid does. Bush proves his incompetence more and more each day. Oh well, maybe in the next election the candidate who got the most votes will actually become the president. There's an idea

One more instance where G W Bush Inc. shows he is the Master of Buffoonery. Here is one great way for America to do something great for the planet plus create another internet type industry but he is in the playpen with the industry of the last century.

How he can whine about an energy crisis on onr hand and then do something stupid like this on the other shows he is a fool and a lapdog for the pushers of Petroleum Madness. Once again this clown makes it embarrassing to be an American.

I realize I'll get flamed for this, but here goes. The administration is right to cut the budget. Govnmt sponsored R&D for consumer technologies is no good. Defense, space, YES, but not to make the avg family sedan get 80mpg. They might as well try to make my toilet flush with .25 gallons - woops, they already did that. It is a noble cause, but the market will motivate on it's own. When people are willing to pay for the technology (when petrol prices make it economical) the market will develop. It's like rent control for the big three automakers.

The rampant SUV bashing in this thread clearly indicates the predisposition of some. The SUV has its place in the market and is popular for good reasons. Again, the market is supreme. People buy them because they meet some need, real or imaginary - it doesn't matter. I get the impression some of you may never have even driven one. If you want a vehicle that can tow (and I mean something besides your suitcase), haul people and stuff at the same time, go anywhere, anytime, command a view of the road, and is safer for your family than the average econobox, why not a SUV. It's my money, not yours. As for the environment, please don't quote how many ppm of XYZ SUVs put out - it doesn't matter. VERY few people buy cars because of lower emissions ONLY (I realize some of you are on this board). The US auto fleet is cleaner now than ever before and is getting cleaner, even with the explosion in popularity of trucks and SUVs. The majority of auto pollution is from old, unmaintained vehicles. I read in C&D (I think) where a study was done that said if EVERYBODY that drives a car now in the US were to switch to a new Excursion, that total emissions would be cut dramatically.

All that said, I am reading this board because I have great admiration for any vehicle that can perform as well as a TDI and get 50+ mpg. As gas nears $2/gal in my area, my stingy wallet and I will probably trade my SUV for a TDI. The market prevails!

cutting anything sounds good to me I am sick of paying 1/3 of my income in income taxes alone plus taxes on gas, sales tax, property tax, the 12.00 dollars in taxes on my phone bill every month for god knows what

A woman in a ford excursion ran me into a ditch today while I was riding down a road (she pulled out into the lane right as i drove by, obviously never looking. Wrecked two turn signals, Screwed my gas tank up, and she never knew, until I jumped back on with a bleeding elbow and followed her home. I have a big V-twin bike that makes quite a big of noise. It is my opinion she couldnt see me out of her big tall vehicle with tinted windows. That security for your family offered by a SUV comes at the cost of my safely. Go to h3ll SUV owners. Its your fault the tires blow and roll over and kill you. It could quite possibly be for the better. </closeangerreliefvalve>

Many people extoll the benefits of the "free market". Having a free market is great, but it is not the solution to the world's problems. Sometimes steps have to be taken to fix things before they go out of control. The free market has ZERO interest in the environment. The vast majority of companies working in free markets care only about the bottom line quarter to quarter... environment be damned.

I work for a public institution that receives a LOT of government and private funds for R&D every year. And I can tell you that good things come from research. Many people single out failed programs but few talk about the successes.

Inmba, you're right. The world automakers (expecially the U.S. automakers) won't spend money developing fuel-efficient and elternative-fuels technologies until the price of gas goes sky-high. But do we want to wait for that to happen? These technologies cannot appear overnight... it takes time. I'd rather them be developed NOW before a crisis happens!

My $0.02. Take it or leave it.

-davin

It's amazing the level of hypocracy that could be exposed of people who claim to be "environmentalists". All of you who live in the suburbs and drive 40-60 minutes to work are doing just as much damage to the environment even with our 47 mpg TDI's.

The declining population of our cities, the proliferation of the suburbs, strip shopping centers everywhere and traffic on a saturday to rival rush our traffic is more symptomatic of the bigger problems we face as a nation than what GW Bush has done to some R & D funding.

Car pool, take public transporation(even if it means riding the BUS) walk, if you can, to buy groceries and supplies. Support local businesses, and don't shop at Walmart.

Don't get on here an lecture us on your environmental views until you examine your own fuel-wasting, resource hogging tendencies.

California is a case study for the entire country. Many factors went into the entire mess. Over zealot environmental policies, bad timing and handling of deregulation, lack of rain for the Colorado river, and increased unmanaged population growth, all add up to a recipe for disaster. No one, who supported a 10 year moratorium on building new power plants, should be complaining about 50% increases in their electric bill (Because you got your environment protected)

Please examine your own life and be sure that you're doing all you can. Move closer to your jobs, car pool with your co-workers, try to own one or two cars, don't drive to places within walking distance, use recycled products, and donate useable things instead of throwing them in the trash.

I agree 99% of the time for less government. But in large R&D outlays, the government is the only ones with the deep pockets, check out a book by Thurow, Building Wealth, dean of MIT bus. school, you wil realise that R&D pays back in spades. 90% of what government does is useless but R&D pays, read the book.

[ April 13, 2001: Message edited by: Oldman ]

tongsli well said. I've worked hard to get light rail in Hawaii (voted down by 1) after 10+ years of fighting, I worked for a year to get Austin light rail, once again voted down. You educated Euro guys have no idea of the thought level in America. It my money, build me a road, gas will never run out, smog is cause by other people. Bush, Clinton, Gore are all baby boomers with baby boom bone head ideas. Lets have clean air, but I'll go out and buy two SUVs, lets have clean water, but I'll get a pleasure boat and dam up a river. Lets have safe roads, buy I own two SUV killing machines that have a 55% average roll over rate vs 5% for good cars. But I'll be safe in an accident, no concern that avoidance should be the word. It is all the super self centered boomer modes operandi. I'm gald I'm not a boomer... Boomer words: I, me, mine.

[ April 13, 2001: Message edited by: Oldman ]

Hmmm....Texas oilman wants to encourage burning of oil.

Gee, couldn't have seen THAT one coming.

-mickey

SUV's have little place in the American market, especially suburban, where sitting in traffic is the rule. If you are going off-roading, live on a farm or in a small town (like I do), maybe SUV's have some utility, like hauling horses or hay bales, but stuck in traffic on the Dan Ryan burning 15 mpg, I think not. No, this is a way for behind-the-times US car-makers to make a buck and a buck (or two) they have made. However, this comes at the expense of the environment, safety, efficiency, and of consumers. Bush claimed in various articles that he turned down the 1997 Kyoto accord because of the economic and energy crisis surging through America. He didn't want to add CO2 restrictions in these "tough times." However, this logic doesn't make sense: in an energy crisis, you would want to SPEND LESS on fuel not MORE. But we are doing precisely the about take: spending LOTS MORE on (SUVs) to burn lots more (fuel) that is non-renewable=lots more CO2 and lots of $$$$ out of consumers' pockets which means less money for other goods. BAD for the ECONOMY!! Put money INTO consumers' pockets and then people will spend!! America's econcomy is based on a tenuous link to oil that hasn't changed since 1950. You tell me if we have made more dino petroleum since 1950??? So should oil be less expensive now or more?? America needs to limit its reliance on non-renewable dino oil but not by drilling in protected lands. Burn less and spend (and pollute) less. Waste not, want not. Ben Franklin was right. And wasn't he American???

inmba,
Sorry my friend but you are dead wrong here. The market will be the demise of our civilization and the planet if left on it`s own to run the world. Sorry to see that you are afflicted with the disease it is spreading, selfish denial.

tongsli,
I agree with you at some level but forces beyond our control (the almighty "market", government at it`s worst in bed with immorally corrupt businesses, and a half a century of absolutely terrible suburban planning) have been working very hard to see that it is difficult if not impossible for the U.S. citizen to do the right thing. I invite you to see how we live, we try hard to "walk the talk", knowing the way we Americans live just is`nt sustainable, but it has been made difficult. BTW we would`nt be caught dead in one of the Mart Brother`s (Wal and K) ugly, local economy robbing big boxes. We`d rather pay twice as much and support our neighbors.

DavinATL,


Oldman,
Once again, thanks. You are unlike most Texans I`ve met here and I appreciate that.

SUVs should be strongly discouraged, and not just for environmental reasons. Yes, it's true that the person who drives 80 miles/day in a TDI is doing more harm to the environment than the housewife who drives her Lincoln Expedition 2 miles to the kids' soccer practice.
But the damn things are dangerous. They're dangerous even to their own drivers, though the mythos in our culture is that they are safe. Just look at the crash test data. You're safer hitting a tree or a brick wall in your Beetle or Golf, and the Golf is less likely to flip and roll in any other driving. (I personally know two people who have rolled Ford Explorers, and nobody who has rolled any other car). However in the crash between the Golf and the SUV, the SUV wins for sure. I think the main market force at work is "I've got to get one so the others who have them don't kill me." I know people who have bought them for that. The madness must be stopped, and the market isn't going to do it because of the psychology involved. The market may do it as gas prices rise and the markets crash, and less income is available to buy and support the things.

Hauling and towing are not the issue here. Almost every SUV you see has one person it in at a time, hauling a briefcase or a purse. Most of us can rent or borrow a rig for the once every two years you need to do that.

I've driven goats around in my old VW Rabbit and Passat wagon. I don't need a truck. I've rented them when I really needed them.

Certainly some people do need trucks and something like SUVs, and they should be allowed to get them. But that's not the issue here. It's chic, trendy, stupid.

Just a strange note on "W". I do not know what vehicle that he drives, but his new house in Texas is a model of environmental friendliness. It is a reasonable size, apx. 4000 sq. ft., and geothermal heatpump cooled. It incorporates a roof water collection system and 25,000 gallon water cistern to collect water for grounds watering. The home also recycles gray and black water for watering also. The outer walls are covered by discarded local Leuders limestone. And the grounds are being planted in native wildflowers for low maintenance. The home is also a single story to blend in with the environment. The only non enviro friendly addition is a swimming pool for the daughters. Overall, a frugal home for a new president. (Info taken from the April 13th, 2001 USA Today.)

Maybe we should try to get "W" to try a TDI for himself or his family. If they are that frugal with their home, wouldn't they be a good prospect to join the our TDI group? Think of the possibilities. Isn't Texas going to ULSD in 2002? We could have a trend setting leader for once.

-Tim



[ April 14, 2001: Message edited by: BlueBugTDI ]

I still like GW, but as I've said one of the only things I like to see public money spent on is R&D. I have a GW grant to implement a telecoputing Masters level program in Austin using Interactive TV with wireless LAN laptops. I for one can see major benefits to public R&D.

Last night I posted a long blast against SUVs which I've edited, I won't waste my breath on StupidUselessVec. I just consider them an indication of own IQ. Sort of like all the fun when you were young with the X-Ray glasses. It so fun doing the speed limit and having these SUVs cut in and out at high speeds while on the phone only to pull up next to them at the next red. In the end I look forward to the day where the SUVs line the side of the road with the "for sale $500.00, bring your own gas" same thing happened in the last energy crisis. Where people were trading in there 440 cid 7 liter Newports that cost $6000 for a $2200 Datsun 1.2 liter and only getting .10 on a dollar of market value. I got a mint 69 Camaro Z28 for $1200.00 and sold it 20 years later at almost 10 times the price! I won't be buying any StupidUselessVec. I'll just smile.

Oldman now with TDI (51 MPGs) and 5 speed auto Volvo low presure Turbo 1.9 (26 MPG)

Is this a political page now? Fuel cells are the future no question. In all farness to W. its not the job of the Fed Gov to build cars. Thats why we are capitalists. When companies find a way to build a fuel cell that is cost effective than we will all be using fuel cells, and not just for cars. Homes, Labtops mp3players. I don't see anything wrong with the the government looking over the sholders of companies to make sure they are tring Hydrodren and Oxygen Fuel cells produce electrisity and hot water, but there are other types that convert differient elements to produce electricity. Simply, a fuel cell is a big expensive Catalytic converter.