There Oughta be a Law
Once upon a time I owned a 1970 Oldsmobile Delta 88 with a 455 cubic inch engine. A very quick and powerful vehicle. Stomp the accelerator at 70 miles and hour and it would bury the speedometer so quickly it amazed me. It would even beat Corvettes from a standing start. The power plants may have been similar but the Vettes were lighter and would spin while the Olds just dug in and ran. Just a family sedan but the dangest hotrod I ever owned.
Then I bought a 1973 Chevrolet Caprice Classic with a 454 cubic inch engine and a VW could beat me off the line. What was the difference? The federal government had mandated a certain fuel efficiency in sedans and Detroit had monkeyed up the engine trying to get that efficiency in a large block, full sized sedan. They couldn't of course because there's only so much power in gasoline. Instead, they made later model cars smaller, lighter, more streamlined (all looked like they'd been designed by the Jelly Bean company), and with smaller engines. The government once again had stepped in with legislation trying to force private industry and the American people into a place they didn't want to be, and the results have been just exactly the opposite of what the government wanted. They wanted to reduce the demand for gasoline. Obviously they expected a more fuel efficient car would help with this, but they didn't take the desires of the average American into account, looking instead at some figures on a sheet of paper.
Like this: "Fuel efficient cars = less gasoline usage".
They needed to look at the bigger picture.
At least consider "Fuel efficient cars + America's desires = ?"
The problem came when they realized they could not mandate the same fuel efficiency in trucks they were requiring in automobiles. People use trucks for work, for hauling, for industry. They need power. Of course, the American public had grown up with muscle cars, with ever increasing cubic inch engines and ever increasing horse power. The people that wanted economy bought a VW or Datsun. The people that wanted power stopped buying cars and started buying pick-up trucks and the demand exploded for trucks. Then Detroit got the idea of building a large car on a truck frame and called it an SUV (Sport Utility Vehicle). The demand for family cars decreases, the demand for pick-ups and SUVs increases, and the average SUV or pick-up gets worse gas mileage than my 1970 Delta 88. All the government managed to do was nearly destroy the U.S. automobile and increase gasoline consumption. Just the opposite of their stated intent when they passed this legislation.
Unfortunately we have reached the stage in the development of our government that they feel it is their mandate to micromanage every aspect of American life. We have a bunch of elected officials listening to whiners, passing feel-good legislation, throwing perfectly good tax dollars at every conceived problem in our lives, and most of their efforts are predictably about as effective as the fuel economy legislation. Now if it were you or I making decisions for our personal lives, and we found what we were doing was counterproductive, we would immediately stop that and try something new. Not the government. Every failed, feel-good mandate they've handed down stays right there and receives ever greater amounts of money to try to make it work. Wouldn't it be great if Congress would start listening to the Government Accounting Office occasionally? At least that agency has had the good sense to point out some of Congresses failed experiments from time to time. They've never managed to get any of them discontinued, but at least they've recognized a white elephant when they've seen one.
At one time they amended the Constitution to make alcoholic drinks illegal and get it out of society. The result of course, was a huge crime syndicate providing illegal alcohol to the public.
We've spent what portion of the GNP in the "War on Drugs" to get drugs off the street? How has that worked?
More than twenty two thousand gun laws on the books to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Yeah, right!
You can go on for several pages with this sort of list, but when they're campaigning for re-election the Representatives and Senators can point to the fact they supported this bill or that bill of feel-good legislation. Passing a law does not solve a problem, it just allows you to spend fortunes trying, convicting and housing the law breakers.
Then I bought a 1973 Chevrolet Caprice Classic with a 454 cubic inch engine and a VW could beat me off the line. What was the difference? The federal government had mandated a certain fuel efficiency in sedans and Detroit had monkeyed up the engine trying to get that efficiency in a large block, full sized sedan. They couldn't of course because there's only so much power in gasoline. Instead, they made later model cars smaller, lighter, more streamlined (all looked like they'd been designed by the Jelly Bean company), and with smaller engines. The government once again had stepped in with legislation trying to force private industry and the American people into a place they didn't want to be, and the results have been just exactly the opposite of what the government wanted. They wanted to reduce the demand for gasoline. Obviously they expected a more fuel efficient car would help with this, but they didn't take the desires of the average American into account, looking instead at some figures on a sheet of paper.
Like this: "Fuel efficient cars = less gasoline usage".
They needed to look at the bigger picture.
At least consider "Fuel efficient cars + America's desires = ?"
The problem came when they realized they could not mandate the same fuel efficiency in trucks they were requiring in automobiles. People use trucks for work, for hauling, for industry. They need power. Of course, the American public had grown up with muscle cars, with ever increasing cubic inch engines and ever increasing horse power. The people that wanted economy bought a VW or Datsun. The people that wanted power stopped buying cars and started buying pick-up trucks and the demand exploded for trucks. Then Detroit got the idea of building a large car on a truck frame and called it an SUV (Sport Utility Vehicle). The demand for family cars decreases, the demand for pick-ups and SUVs increases, and the average SUV or pick-up gets worse gas mileage than my 1970 Delta 88. All the government managed to do was nearly destroy the U.S. automobile and increase gasoline consumption. Just the opposite of their stated intent when they passed this legislation.
Unfortunately we have reached the stage in the development of our government that they feel it is their mandate to micromanage every aspect of American life. We have a bunch of elected officials listening to whiners, passing feel-good legislation, throwing perfectly good tax dollars at every conceived problem in our lives, and most of their efforts are predictably about as effective as the fuel economy legislation. Now if it were you or I making decisions for our personal lives, and we found what we were doing was counterproductive, we would immediately stop that and try something new. Not the government. Every failed, feel-good mandate they've handed down stays right there and receives ever greater amounts of money to try to make it work. Wouldn't it be great if Congress would start listening to the Government Accounting Office occasionally? At least that agency has had the good sense to point out some of Congresses failed experiments from time to time. They've never managed to get any of them discontinued, but at least they've recognized a white elephant when they've seen one.
At one time they amended the Constitution to make alcoholic drinks illegal and get it out of society. The result of course, was a huge crime syndicate providing illegal alcohol to the public.
We've spent what portion of the GNP in the "War on Drugs" to get drugs off the street? How has that worked?
More than twenty two thousand gun laws on the books to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Yeah, right!
You can go on for several pages with this sort of list, but when they're campaigning for re-election the Representatives and Senators can point to the fact they supported this bill or that bill of feel-good legislation. Passing a law does not solve a problem, it just allows you to spend fortunes trying, convicting and housing the law breakers.
posted by Fish-2 at 5:45 AM
8 Comments:
I never thought of it like that but I'm not surprised - damn interfering nosy-parker busybodies.
That's about it Patrick. Once they're elected they only have two jobs, spend money and pass legislation. They need to be given something productive to do for a change.
so many reps and senators wouldn't be able to hold down a regular job.
I feel that our forefathers wanted real people to spend time in "their" government ... and not professional politicians.
I say outsource the House & Senate to India. That ought to shake 'em up a bit!!???
Pamela, I think we made our first mistake when we started paying our representatives. Prior to that we had "statesmen" serving their country because they loved it.
Money really is the "root of all evil" isn't it? *sigh*
I hope you're having a wonderful Memorial Day weekend, Fish.
Thanks Gayle, and the saying is the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. Our Capitol is sure full of that kind.
fish-2,
What engine was in your 88, 4 barrel, high-compression?
Joe, the car had what they called at that time a "Police Package Set-up". It was four barrel, high compression and had the most stable steering and suspension I'd experienced up to that time.
Post a Comment
<< Home