Senator Clinton's Agenda Isn't Feasible, Contradicts Her Earlier Position and Undermines the Big Three 

On Monday, Hillary Clinton ostentatiously demanded that automakers increase their fuel efficiency standards some 60% by 2020, and to a preposterous 55 miles per gallon by 2030, merely 23 years from now.  To place this in perspective, fuel efficiency ratings 23 years ago stood essentially where they do today.  This is because significant improvements that made our cars safer, more powerful with higher capacity, offset efficiency gains. 

In other words, fuel efficiency mandates of the magnitude that Clinton demands would necessitate far flimsier cars that jeopardize safety, sacrifices in our ability to haul work materials, recreational vehicles and boats and decreased performance. 

On the heels of Senator Clinton's embarrassing and self-destructive debate performance last week regarding drivers' licenses for illegal aliens, she engaged this week in similar chicanery regarding auto fuel efficiency standards by contradicting her earlier position. 

Time after time, Americans have consistently chosen automobiles that are safer, higher-performance and roomier.  But Hillary Clinton intends to strip American consumers of that choice. 

Alongside "HillaryCare," we can perhaps now add the term "HillaryCars." 

Senator Clinton's agenda will also damage the American economy and eliminate manufacturing jobs.  Indeed, American automakers estimate that her draconian mandates could cost well over $100 million, as they will be forced to retool their plants, adjust their designs to create tinier cars and shift production from higher-profit trucks and SUVs, which Americans need for family and work demands, to lower-margin minicars. 

Ultimately, this obviously means that consumers will pay the price in the form of more expensive and unsafe cars. 

To illustrate, recall the atrocious safety record of some of the newer Chinese automakers' designs.  Although their autos are certainly compact and fuel-efficient, they're also potential deathtraps on the road relative to sturdier American cars.  Any volunteers to be first in line to place one's family in such models? 

But Clinton's proposal isn't just dangerous to American consumers and harmful to the American economy.  Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers spokesman Charles Territo pointed out that Clinton's proposal is also completely unrealistic.  According to Mr. Territo, "manufacturers are committed to increasing fuel economy and support efforts to increase the standards by as much as 40% by 2022.  However, Senator Clinton's proposal exceeds even the most aggressive estimates of what is technologically feasible."  He added that despite higher gasoline prices of late, some 54% of vehicles bought in October were light trucks, according to the Detroit News. 

Furthermore, Senator Clinton's latest stance contradicts her earlier position on the matter. 

Specifically, she refused in May 2006 to support the strict fuel efficiency mandate during an energy speech.  At that time, she proclaimed, "we need to be sure that our high standards don't provide an easy excuse for more auto jobs to leave the U.S." 

Now, she flip-flops in order to score easy political points by attacking American automakers.  She now asserts that, "Henry Ford would be dumbfounded until he opened the hood, because he would recognize the internal combustion engine underneath.  It is the same basic concept that he put into the Model T almost a century ago.  In fact, the Model T got better gas mileage than your typical SUV does today.  We can't continue this.  It's time for a change." 

So which is it, Senator Clinton?  Or will you simply evade any substantive position at all, repeating your evasion regarding illegal alien drivers' licenses? 

The simple fact is that automakers already produce an array of fuel-efficient automobiles, and American consumers are free to choose them.  By forcing unrealistic fuel efficiency codes upon our automakers, however, Hillary Clinton will only end up making our family cars less safe, making our work vehicles less effective, reduce American consumers' choices in the products that they rightfully desire and eliminate even more American jobs. 

Or, alternatively, perhaps she'll flip-flop again and eliminate this danger.  Let's hope so.