Bush declines to enact higher fuel-economy standards
Fuel efficiency. It's an issue that has seemingly fallen onto America's the back-burner for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are declining fuel prices and economy along with the auto industry's financial plight. Still, few would argue that the issue of cutting down on petroleum use is any less important today than it was six months ago, so the decision (or, really, the lack thereof) of the Bush Administration to leave future fuel economy standards on the table for President-Elect Barack Obama and his future staff is ruffling a few feathers.
Even the automakers themselves would like to see a new set of rules decided upon so that they can accurately plan for the future. Without the passing of Bush's bill, questions remain as to whether states - especially California - will have the right to impose their own regulations above the national requirements. Oh, and there's also the issue of where the money to develop these fuel efficient technologies will come from. See the official statement from the US Department of Transportation after the break.
[Source: Detroit Free Press, Photo by Ron Sachs-Pool/Getty]
STATEMENT:
STATEMENT FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The Bush Administration will not finalize its rulemaking on Corporate Fuel Economy Standards. The recent financial difficulties of the automobile industry will require the next administration to conduct a thorough review of matters affecting the industry, including how to effectively implement the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has done significant work that will position the next Transportation Secretary to finalize a rule before the April 1, 2009 deadline.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Bryan 8:13AM (1/09/2009)
onto America's the back-burner
-the
Reply
Noidor 9:24AM (1/09/2009)
They need to completely dump these ridiculous requirements that burden car companies & suppliers with higher costs, which then get passed onto consumers. Not to mention the fact that it hinders companies' ability to compete with foreign manufacturers. These politicians are just out of control...democrats AND republicans alike.
Frank 9:23AM (1/09/2009)
I agree with Smegley and Bonehead. Remember, the "surplus" was wiped out by the recession that occurred at the end of Clintons term. What you have to remember is - economic growth increases the revenues to the treasury, recessions easily wipe out the increased growth and make it go negative. Now we all know that many (not all) economists say that governments should spend when the economy is down, so we know gov spending is going to go up in a down cycle. So if the government was a person, it would put money away in the good times to get it thru the bad times. But instead the government spends during the good times and the bad times! Brilliant, no? (No). So get ready the Bush deficits are going to be downright puritanicle next to the Obama deficits.
Bush did the right thing. He should defer to the incoming government and not try to saddle them with something they want to do themselves. Remember - the two of them talk to each other. If Obama wanted Bush to do the new regs he would told him to go ahead and do it. Bush has been more than cooperative, unlike Clinton who put into place stupid executive orders that Bush had to undo, and the rest of Billy's administration who acted like spoiled children or college frat boys. I know one thing, there will be no missing Whitehouse silverware or furniture this time. It is reassuring to me to know that BOTH the outgoing Bush and incoming Obama administrations are acting like adults and not children.
Chidfreegearhead 2:52PM (1/09/2009)
Exactly where it belongs. Thanks to CAFE, we've already lost the chance at having a rear wheel drive Impala, and countless other cool cars. But then again someone like you, would rather everyone drive a hybrid... Or worse yet an electric car.
Smegley 8:15AM (1/09/2009)
Being POTUS must really stink. No matter what you do or don't do, half the country hates you and most of the world too. I don't blame W for passing the torch on this, because if he made a decision that Obama disagrees with everyone will say he is just causing problems. These standards are going to have effect under Obama - let Obama take the heat or the glory.
On the other hand, Obama's supporters are learning quickly ot their dismay that The One's campaign rhetoric was all BS. Per Yahoo his people are now talking about $1.2 trillion deficits or more so that they in 2 years can do more financial damage than the GOP did in 8, plus Barack's appointing lobbyists to the DoD as well as a bunch of status quo geeks. Looks like we may be in for 4 to 8 years of more of the same, only worse.
Reply
BoneHeadOtto 8:34AM (1/09/2009)
I sincerely hope you are wrong. The last 8 years have seen the worst rise in govt spending ever. Bush was a horrible president and those who blindly voted republican, got a republican who grew govt spending like a democrat. Anyone remember teh talk in 2000 about "what are we going to do with this budget surplus!"....wow
GOT 9:16AM (1/09/2009)
Congress grew spending faster than any other person or group.
Kattleox 9:20AM (1/09/2009)
Sort of. Everything costs money, and from Iraq to No Child Left Behind, he caught a lot of flak.
In ten years, though, when all this is in retrospect, we will probably sit back and say Carter
happy_penguin 10:56AM (1/09/2009)
"I sincerely hope you are wrong. The last 8 years have seen the worst rise in govt spending ever. Bush was a horrible president and those who blindly voted republican, got a republican who grew govt spending like a democrat."
"Worst rise in govt spending ever" and "grew govt spending like a democrat"
In other words, the second statement is wrong because this republican grew spending worse than any democrat ever. This just proves that democrat or republican makes little difference. They're both out of control.
Dan 11:23AM (1/09/2009)
I don't think the lesson to be drawn is that Republicans are even more financially irresponsible than Democrats, it's that one party government is a disaster.
snp 11:59AM (1/09/2009)
Stupid dude, havent you heard yet? Bush started his presidency with 500B surplus and 5T national debt. 8yrs later, we're at 1T deficit and almost 10T national debt. And the war in Iraq is estimated to cost us a total of 1T. You cant tell me Bush didnt screw up? He ignored his general's advice and listened to his buddy rumsfeld and got us in this hole.
In times of a recession of this size, I dont mind having a 1.2T spending plan to recover and then pick up the pieces afterwards. On a second note, we're about due for another HUGE innovation that america can capitalize on.
Once every 10-15yrs for the past 60yrs. I hope obama invests heavily in alternative energies and rescind some of the stem cell research laws. One of those could be the next big thing.
Nick 3:10AM (1/10/2009)
@BoneHead
No worse than people voting for a guy because he had the same skin color as them.
Sea Urchin 8:29AM (1/09/2009)
Thanks George, you reminded me why i voted for Obama.
By the way now Government can mandate a 200 MPG easily, since all the government will be doing is asking its department of autobuilding (aka GM and Chrysler) to do what its owners and rulers (government, taxpayer) want.
Reply
nardvark 8:48AM (1/09/2009)
Physics still gets a veto, even if Congress mandates 200mpg.
But seriously, if he had passed something, the talking point would have been "Bush passes new fuel economy standards to stop Obama from making them higher" or some other garbage.
Let the man go quietly into the night, his time is over.
Richard 9:01AM (1/09/2009)
"Thanks George, you reminded me why i voted for Obama."
America...here is our problem, people will vote more on the basis of hating the current administration than even knowing anything about what they are voting in.
Did anyone here his economic speech....it sounds pretty(that's why he got elected) but he literally said in his speech that government will run the economy.
LM 9:17AM (1/09/2009)
I'd rather the government run the economy than Lehman Bros and Madoff.
Thanks, you made my point for me.
Richard 10:31AM (1/09/2009)
@LM
Your an idiot.
The government running the economy is not going to hurt the large companies as much as it will destroy small business. If small business fails, the American economy will fail and those big companies will just move.
Good job at just listening to what the media says and not going to class.
Justin 12:19PM (1/09/2009)
Thank God physics will get a veto!
For the record Georget W. Bush increased the federal income from tax payers at record breaking numbers for the longest duration of time. Thanks for the Bush Tax cuts that actually created jobs, who those who does not stick their head into the sand of Class War Fare (he has more money than I do, blah blah...)
George W. Bush gave more money and helped more black people in Africa than anyone else in the world, including Nelson Mandela
George W. Bush has the longest period of lowest unemployment rate in the history of this country, and everyone seem to forget to mention the fact that it was Democrats who screwed over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Oh yes, one more thing thats related to the Auto industry. Not only is 24 million more people are free in Iraq, because of the liberation America will also benefit from the oil supplies in Iraq. Is that a bad thing or a good thing? I guess it is all dependant on if it benefit democrats or not.
Dan 11:38AM (1/09/2009)
Disgust with large corporations and what they have done is perfectly understandable. That isn't a conservative or liberal issue, nobody on either side is happy with the abuses that are going on. Frankly anyone who isn't disgusted has something wrong with them.
The disconnect is the liberal answer that since those unaccountable corporations did wrong then the answer is for the federal government to takeover these corporations instead
The federal government is the largest and most unaccountable corporation of all. It's the largest corporation in the history of human civilization. It's isn't just a monopoly, its customers are required to participate at literal gunpoint.
Giving the largest corporation in the world even more authoritarian power over more aspects of its customers lives isn't liberal.
Avinash machado 9:09AM (1/09/2009)
There might be yet another Bush in the White House. Recently George HW Bush said that he would like Jeb Bush to run for president one day.
Reply