“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Rarely are words spoken that elicit more fear and loathing. Those of you who follow my monthly rants know that I am often frustrated and even angered at the ways our elected representatives and bureaucrats attempt to “help” the public and in doing so assault the automotive industry.
Do I need to mention shining examples like Cash for Clunkers, ever-escalating CAFE standards or subsidies for electric vehicles?
What evokes most of my ire are the unintended consequences of their actions. A perfect example was an initiative a few years back designed to “stimulate” the economy by giving businesses an incentive to upgrade their fleets. The concept was to allow a $4,500 tax credit for businesses that bought new trucks. The logic was that our fledging economy would get a boost from business buying the output of our nation’s OEMs and the jobs that would result from that activity.
Two unintended consequences resulted from this well-intentioned legislation. One, the government’s myopic view toward OEM manufacturing meant that “repairable aftermarket vehicles” were retired from fleets, reducing the aftermarket commerce that resulted from parts sales and repair of those vehicles. While that may have benefited the OEMs, it hurt us in the aftermarket.
But the more insidious consequence is more typical of what happens when actual legislation is written. The law articulated what vehicles qualified as “trucks” in terms of gross vehicle weight and wheelbase. Well and good.
It was only after I ran into an architect friend of mine who was driving a brand new Porsche Cayenne that I learned that as a business owner he had qualified for a tax credit when his business bought him the “new truck” under the provisions of the bill.
I think we can all agree that giving successful architects an incentive to buy themselves a new Porsche Cayenne was not the intention of the law. Yet, here we were.
Now in one of the more stunning developments in governmental unintended consequences, I read an article wherein a University of Michigan professor has declared that proposed changes to CAFE standards may cause vehicles to pollute more and get bigger instead of smaller.
What?
I read it again and yes, that is what the study said; larger vehicles and more pollution.
PAGE 3
The article explained that U.S. automakers had so strenuously objected to how CAFE standards unfairly rewarded production of smaller, lighter vehicles that it put their trucks and SUVs at a disadvantage against Asian competitors.
In response, the new formula for determining miles per gallon became one that measures a vehicle’s “footprint,” calculated by multiplying wheelbase by track width, so larger vehicles had lower fuel economy targets. The result, according to the U of M researchers — larger vehicles and more pollution. I swear to high heaven, you can’t make this stuff up.
And can one really look past the stake that our government has in both GM and Chrysler in considering how and why the “adjustment” was made?
My point is this — the more government tinkers with the free market in an attempt to help, the more problems it causes. It's the unintended consequences that bite us in the backside.
To be clear, I’m not opposed to reasonable regulation or oversight. And I’m not in favor of environmental destruction, but I am opposed to bonehead bureaucrats screwing up the marketplace.
And now I learn that some in our industry are looking to the federal government to “help” us with safety standards for some of our products. I beg those who are considering this to rethink their position. Simply review the few examples I’ve shared here, then let your imagination run wild with how the bureaucrats at the NHTSA will likely make matters worse in attempting to help. There are plenty of industry associations that can help with promoting product safety that don’t come with the legacy of unintended consequences.
“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Rarely are words spoken that elicit more fear and loathing. Those of you who follow my monthly rants know that I am often frustrated and even angered at the ways our elected representatives and bureaucrats attempt to “help” the public and in doing so assault the automotive industry.
Do I need to mention shining examples like Cash for Clunkers, ever-escalating CAFE standards or subsidies for electric vehicles?
What evokes most of my ire are the unintended consequences of their actions. A perfect example was an initiative a few years back designed to “stimulate” the economy by giving businesses an incentive to upgrade their fleets. The concept was to allow a $4,500 tax credit for businesses that bought new trucks. The logic was that our fledging economy would get a boost from business buying the output of our nation’s OEMs and the jobs that would result from that activity.
Two unintended consequences resulted from this well-intentioned legislation. One, the government’s myopic view toward OEM manufacturing meant that “repairable aftermarket vehicles” were retired from fleets, reducing the aftermarket commerce that resulted from parts sales and repair of those vehicles. While that may have benefited the OEMs, it hurt us in the aftermarket.
But the more insidious consequence is more typical of what happens when actual legislation is written. The law articulated what vehicles qualified as “trucks” in terms of gross vehicle weight and wheelbase. Well and good.
It was only after I ran into an architect friend of mine who was driving a brand new Porsche Cayenne that I learned that as a business owner he had qualified for a tax credit when his business bought him the “new truck” under the provisions of the bill.
I think we can all agree that giving successful architects an incentive to buy themselves a new Porsche Cayenne was not the intention of the law. Yet, here we were.
Now in one of the more stunning developments in governmental unintended consequences, I read an article wherein a University of Michigan professor has declared that proposed changes to CAFE standards may cause vehicles to pollute more and get bigger instead of smaller.
What?
I read it again and yes, that is what the study said; larger vehicles and more pollution.
PAGE 3
The article explained that U.S. automakers had so strenuously objected to how CAFE standards unfairly rewarded production of smaller, lighter vehicles that it put their trucks and SUVs at a disadvantage against Asian competitors.
In response, the new formula for determining miles per gallon became one that measures a vehicle’s “footprint,” calculated by multiplying wheelbase by track width, so larger vehicles had lower fuel economy targets. The result, according to the U of M researchers — larger vehicles and more pollution. I swear to high heaven, you can’t make this stuff up.
And can one really look past the stake that our government has in both GM and Chrysler in considering how and why the “adjustment” was made?
My point is this — the more government tinkers with the free market in an attempt to help, the more problems it causes. It's the unintended consequences that bite us in the backside.
To be clear, I’m not opposed to reasonable regulation or oversight. And I’m not in favor of environmental destruction, but I am opposed to bonehead bureaucrats screwing up the marketplace.
And now I learn that some in our industry are looking to the federal government to “help” us with safety standards for some of our products. I beg those who are considering this to rethink their position. Simply review the few examples I’ve shared here, then let your imagination run wild with how the bureaucrats at the NHTSA will likely make matters worse in attempting to help. There are plenty of industry associations that can help with promoting product safety that don’t come with the legacy of unintended consequences.
