Report: Electricity crisis in Japan driving R&D
Rio Tinto signs MoU with Jindal Steel and Power on advancing HIsmelt direct smelting technology

White House: President Obama will announce fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles on Tuesday

The White House issued a statement that President Barack Obama will announce fuel efficiency standards for work trucks, buses, and other on-road heavy-duty vehicles on Tuesday at a visit to Interstate Moving Services in Springfield, Virginia.

In October 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed a rulemaking for the first national standards to regulate fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions for MYs 2014-2018 medium- and heavy-duty trucks, covering vehicles from ¾ ton pickups and vans to delivery and utility trucks to big-rig combination tractors. (Earlier post.)

Public comments were accepted for 60 days after the proposal was published in the Federal Register. The comment period ended on 31 January 2011.



I hope and pray our next president will be able to roll back all or most of these disasterous policies from O Butthead.


Yes ejj...and go another $17.5T deeper in debt by 2020. The relative value of the USD should go down another 50+%, i.e. down to 25% (or less) of its historic value. The average American would be 4 times poorer and could not afford to purchase and/or operate those heavy vehicles.

Another 8 years of WB like governance would take USA back 200 years or all the way to the Middle Ages.

There are many ways to fix the structural financial imbalance progressively dragging USA down to third world/Middle Ages level. Two or three quick and easy ways would be:

1. to impose (by emergency Presidential Decree) a permanent but progressive Fed goods and services sales tax.
2. to impose (by emergency Presidential Decree) a permanent but progressive extra fuel tax of $0.02 to $0.05/gallon/month to reach $1.00/gallon or $2.00/gallon by 2015.
2. to impose (by emergency Presidential Decree) a new income tax rule to reduce the rate to zero for the first $20K/year, to maintain (+/-) the current rate for people making between $20K and $120K/years, to double (+/-) the rate for people making between $120K and $250K/year and to triple (+/-) the rate for people making above $250K/years.

The plan to redress the debt and economy should be progressive and should give individuald and manufacturers up to 5 years to adapt. A well designed and properly announced emergency plan would take more nerves and courage that most current politicians have but the majority would approve it.


I'm not 100% opposed to "revenues". I think everyone needs to have skin in the game. I think all the NFL, NBA, NHL players and owners can contribute a little more, as well as people at the bottom. I would support a 1% national sales tax and another BRAC (Base Realignment And Closure) commission strictly for overseas bases, many of which we don't need anymore. I totally agree that we must pay for what we want out of government, and there should be absolutely no freeloaders. We all benefit from police, fire, transportation, environmental services, etc - therefore everyone should pay something, someway, somehow.

However, before discussions of any kind begin on revenues, there should be a balanced budget amendment to the constitution capping overall federal spending as a percentage of GDP and requiring the president to submit a budget that is balanced every year. This madness that we have watched in Washington all of our lives has got to stop.


ejj: President Clinton Kept spending and revenues balanced at about 18% of GNP for many years and had surpluses for 3 out of 8 years in office. His well known replacement, lowered revenues to about 15% but increased spending to about 22% creating a huge deficit and leaving a huge imbalance and growing debt for the current President.

Currently, revenues are going below 15% of GNP and spending will soon hit 25% below going down to about 24%. That's simply not enough of an effort. Revenues must be raised to about 20% and more efforts must be done to lower spending to 20% of GDP.

This is not easy to do during the current mad-made financial crisis. People with $$$$$ will have to contribute much more. A goods and service tax is a smart way to tax most if not all imports. A fuel tax does almost the same. Poor people and those on lower salaries could be compensated by making the first $20K/year (or so) income tax free.

Job creation programs are essential. Retrofitting 50 to 100 million existing gas guzzlers with add-on PHEV e-drive on rear wheels to reduce fuel consumption by 50% (+/-) could be one of the early emergency programs. Building and installing V2G and domestic solar power systems could also be given high priorities. Governments do not have to pay for those programs. Tax free guaranteed loans should be enough to get them rolling.

Americans should start to tell those politicians to start moving or quit. Presidential decrees may have to be used to get it through. The current inner fighting Congress will not to it.


OBOZO has 15 months and counting until the Marxist incompetent and his daffy crew can return to obscurity or jail; and for him to the only job for which he is suited: Registrar of Gravestone Names, aka "Community Organizer" in Democrat Chicago.

Looking forward to the emminent retirements or indictments of Lisa Jackson, John Holdren, Dr. (Ah) Chu, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt and NOAAccount Karl.

Lets not forget Obozo's protected looters of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and EF Hutton, Franklin Reines, Jim Johnson along with Jamie Gorelick, who did so much to launch the Great Recession with thier boodling.


ExDemo...who would be the final winner (s) of the Monopoly Game. Half a dozen multi-trillionaires will fight for the final pole position.


Bill Clinton had to deal with a republican house and senate; he was in a straightjacket of sorts. He also had given to him by the GOP, for a short period of time before it was struck down by the supreme court, a line-item veto. Before we move forward with any attempted restoration of our economy, we desperately need a balanced budget amendment to force our federal government to live within its means. A line-item veto amendment would also be fantastic. If we don't change the underlying structure of how our politicians spend our money for the long term, we are truly FU-KED.


However, before discussions of any kind begin on revenues, there should be a balanced budget amendment to the constitution capping overall federal spending as a percentage of GDP and requiring the president to submit a budget that is balanced every year.

This is madness. Jobs are the key to a strong economy. Federal spending pays for public sector jobs which, contrary to the wisdom of the Right, are just as good for the economy as private sector jobs. People with a paycheck spend money locally and a shop owner doesn't care who issues the paycheck. If federal spending was capped as a percentage of GDP then every time the economy took a downturn the public sector would lose jobs at the same time as the private sector lost jobs. The jobless numbers get doubled-up. You need government spending to be anti-cyclic: More gov jobs when there are less pub jobs and less gov jobs when there are more pub jobs.

It's OK to run up a debt during bad times BUT you have to made darn sure you pay it all back during the good times. You only got truly FU-KED when you stopped doing that.

Roger Pham

Balanced budget is vitally important at any times, no matter recession or not. Indebtedness is like an addiction; very difficult to get out of. Tax cut is a no no, very hard to go back to previous tax rate.

The Gov. can reduce unemployment without spending a dime extra. This done by changing the laws to promote PRIVATE investments in promising aspects of the economy to come. During Clinton's years, it was PC's and cell phones. During this Climate Change crisis and looming petroleum shortage, it would be the promotion of green economy. Simple announce in advance that the price of fossil fuels will rise, at at least 5-7% yearly, to double in 7-10 years. This will shift the investment patterns toward Green Economy, in manufacturing and service and in consumers' choices of new vehicles and appliances...

Get all the rich people to finance new job creation while making them feel good about themselves and their contribution to the new direction of the nation: stability, peace, and prosperity. The air and water will be cleaner and we all will get smarter and healthier as the results. Sounds like a win win win situation to me!


The assumption you make alvin is that 100% of federal spending goes directly to the salaries of federal employees. If you have even been paying slight attention to the debt debate & this website, billions upon billions upon billions go to grants and entitlements we can't afford anymore --- the actuaries of medicare & social security, the people that actually run those programs, are saying they're going broke. On top of that, we are now going to be 16.7 Trillion dollars in debt....and we were just downgraded by S & P which will cause even more calamity. To take the Keynsian "more spending" approach right now is insane.


Excellent ideas RP...the implementations of a strong green economy + rich people direct involvement, with all the current lobbies and political parties pushing different ways, would require a much wider consensus than USA has today.

Germany is getting close to doing just that, with the support of the majority (for now). Germans seem to be much more disciplined and willing to pay for what they get than we are. They are more mature and don't believe in Santa as much as we do.

In the short term, USA will have to reduce the current growing imbalance between the have and have not and even more so, between Government revenues and spending. The current high growth rate of the national and individual debts (since the departure of President Clinton) is NOT sustainable. It's time to announce that the party is over.

It is a real dilemma. Paying (even part of) our huge national debt and getting elected are no longer compatible.


OK let's try another approach.

ejj, if you think before discussions of any kind begin on revenues, there should be a balanced budget amendment to the constitution you've got a long wait ahead of you.

'Up to 200 amendments are typically proposed in each term of Congress. Most never get out of Congressional committees. Few of the amendments passed even the first constitutional hurdle: approval by two-thirds majorities in both Houses of Congress. Only 33 such proposals in U.S. history have received the two-thirds vote in Congress necessary to present them to the states and of those only 27 were ratified by them. The passage of the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution was in 1992 - 202 years after it had been approved by Congress.'

Given the odds, you'll need to solve the problem without the amendment.


The assumption you make alvin is that 100% of federal spending goes directly to the salaries of federal employees.

Don't strawman me ejj. I would never assume that, just like you couldn't claim that 100% of private business revenues go to the salaries of their employees.


Better - we can claim that 100% of private business revenues go to the salaries of their employees AND to those who create and invest in the companies.

Don’t forget, Obama says "We need (evil) businesses to invest their money in expansion and capital equip."
Although to be fair, he considers it His money.

So, people do not have enough money (disposable income) to buy more goods and get the economy going. Simple.

Raise taxes and take MORE money from the people, MORE. WHAT?

Give money to the AARP and other special interests for votes

Hire more bureaucrats

Give money to the unions.

Waste more on harebrained, fiscally unsound green projects
like EVERYTHING CA does (i.e. the CA high speed train to nowhere.

The shop keeper gets back cents on his dollar – but that just sounds bad, only the gov knows what's best.

We can be sure for every dollar that goes to the government we get $2 back, maybe more –

HAHAHAHAHA. Just kidding, no one could think this makes sense. We get back cents on the dollar.

No question - the gov takes our money, that we could spend on goods,
and almost invariably spends it unwisely. But either way, it is (should be) our money.

Of course, I must admit, that if the gov let us keep more of our money, we might save some of it.

For shame, "they cannot be trusted with their money".



The comments to this entry are closed.