I see things a bit differently. Google offers a variety of services, many of which can be called apps in their own right. Google wants to integrate these services into a single app, each piece of which integrates into each other. The black toolbar added recently took a major step in this direction. The inclusion of social results from Google+ is yet another step.

My primary problem with social results isn’t that it only offers search results from Google+. My primary problem is that it only offers results from Google+. Google isn’t evil because they are only investing their own social service, but they are choosing to offer me special results from a service that is not high on my list of social tools. My primary social tools are Twitter and Facebook. I would find inclusion of those services to be quite useful, but they fall into the normal search results with no integration to show more focus on those I follow or friend on those services. Google is missing out on opportunity by not integrating more social services within its search.

The goal of the Google+ integration isn’t to improve search results directly. The purpose is to increase the value of the Google+ social network. I personally think that Google+ could use a bit of a value-increase. The proper tools are there to run a social network.  The value, though, is in the people.  Like it or not, the value in social networking is in Twitter and Facebook, and Google+ is still an also-ran.

What is bad about a company integrating various services into a single system? There may be a higher cost incurred by the user if they are required to pay for previously unneeded services.  There could be features that are forced upon the user that they are not comfortable with.  The company may use a dominant market position to force users to “lock-in” to their services, or to drive competitors from the market. I am sure that the list is longer.

Looking at these in turn, the first two do not seem to be at issue. Google is not charging users for access to its search engine, or many of its other services.  Those services that cost a fee still exist, unchanged.  I am not aware of any plans for this to change.  What if Google decided to move to a subscription service, charging $1 per month for access to their now unified application? Many would think of it as a good price for a valuable service, and would pay.  Many would make the opposite decision.  As the price for the service increases the percentage of users who will say and pay the price will drop. At the low price of $1 per month the percentage of takers will be quite high.  Raise the price high enough, though, and users will go elsewhere.

What about unwanted features? Users are used to these. Microsoft’s Ribbon interface replacing normal menus?  Horrible idea.  I don’t want it.  Ubuntu’s Unity interface? Why, oh WHY did someone think that was a good idea? Yahoo? Google putting results from a service you are using in a small area on the search page?  Honestly, I’ve had worse.  If it was a hill I was willing to die on, I’d stop using Google and go elsewhere for the same services they offer.

Google does have some significant dominance in certain areas. In the last half of 2011 Google accounted for just over 80% of all search traffic. Bing and Yahoo shared almost all of the rest. Microsoft has built a good search engine in Bing. The biggest reason it isn’t gaining better market share is inertia.  Similar inertia accounts for why such a large majority of us use Microsoft’s operating systems, Office software, and at one time web browser. Microsoft learned with Internet Explorer that a bad product, or even one perceived as bad, would continue to lose market share until it and its image have improved. With Bing they have a worthy competitor for Google, not only because it’s well-made, but also because it isn’t Yahoo.

What about email?  Google’s Gmail product is huge, right?  Not really.  Google accounts for 4% of email opens in a survey done by Litmus.  Microsoft’s Outlook product in various versions accounts for 37%. Gmail lags behind Hotmail, the iPhone, Apple Mail, Yahoo Mail (a strong point for them), and even the web-based version of Microsoft Outlook.

What other market besides search does Google truly have a dominant market share?  Office software?  No.  Instant Messanging?  No. Social Networking? Most definitely not. Chances are we’re using something other than Google for most everything we do except search. The one major exception is in Adwords Advertising, but this does not cost the user.  In fact, it is what allows the other services to stay free.

This begs the most important question in the argument.  Can Google leverage its dominance in search to gain dominance in other markets in which it chooses to compete? So far the answer to that has been no, except for Adwords. Even the Android operating system for mobile phones hasn’t succeeded in breaking the market dominance of Apple in smartphones. It may yet succeed, or a third party may become competitive in the race.

There’s always someone else in the race.  This isn’t like cable companies, utilities, and Standard Oil.  There’s no law saying we can’t use another service.  If Google upsets enough users, they’ll go to the competitors.  This is how markets correct. The fact that we can go to someone else denies a monopoly.  Google does not have a monopoly on search.  Microsoft has never had a monopoly on operating systems or web browsers, though it has defended itself against accusation on both cases.

In the end, to me, it’s just a little search feature.  I’d like to be able to disable it if I want.  I’d prefer to be able to select and link with services I use along with Google+.  It is not, however, the end of the world.

As I grew older writing became a constant part of my life. Much of my early education involved drawing block letters in large spaces on lined paper. Every year the spaces grew smaller in order to refine my handiwork. I always knew that my artistic skills were not great when it came to drawing lines, and my simple block letters were no exception.

In third grade I finally reached what I thought was the holy grail of writing. In Mrs. Powers’ class I learned to write in cursive. I learned the letters, and how to string them together easily. Of course, my cursive writing was only legible if I wrote slowly and carefully. In addition I had adopted special forms of certain letters such as the capitalized T and F from Mrs. Powers’ own style, rather than her lessons. She taught the “proper” way, but I preferred the letters as she wrote them. To me it was as much a preference in style as it was in legibility.

The next few years I dutifully wrote cursive in class. I pitied my poor teachers who had to read my writing, and I still do. My cursive legibility relied as much on the readers’ expectations as my own skills. This, I learned later, was a common thread between most writers of the cursive script. Honestly, can you say that you’ve never found a beautifully written page that had words that could only be discerned based on the words around them?

After Mrs. Powers, the most important person in my life of the handwritten word was my 8th grade history teacher, Mr. Keith. One day Mr. Keith pulled me out of class and had a very frank discussion with me.

“David,” he said, “your handwriting is terrible. Some letters angle to the left. Some angle to the right. They should all angle to the right because the eye flows better that way.”

His next words changed my life.

“Honestly, if you can’t write any better than that, then print.”

It really was that simple. The rigid requirements of school said that I should use cursive script, because it was a skill I should practice. Another requirement was that my writing be legible enough to read. The two requirements, in my case, were contrary. I had, though, been trying to meet both requirements. Mr. Keith helped me understand that there could be a choice.

From that day forward I turned in my classwork in printed form. I would have turned in my homework the same way, except that I rarely saw homework as a requirement.

Every year most teachers would approach me and inform me that I should be turning in my assignments in cursive. Printing my assignments was not acceptable, because I was expected to use cursive script. Since I had learned a bit about making decisions on my own in the face of conflicting instructions, I knew what to do. I would smile, nod, and agree to use cursive script.

I would then turn in my next assignment in cursive, without the care required to make my assignment reasonably legible. After that one assignment I would return to my printed words without a word, or a complaint from the teacher.

Cursive, I learned, was pretty but useless. As a system of communication, cursive was imprecise. With practice my writing never improved beyond what I learned in third grade. I had gained in speed, but not legibility. Cursive writing was not for me, and I began to think it wasn’t so great for everyone else either.

Several years ago the news came out that schools were no longer pushing cursive writing skills as a necessity. I was thrilled with the news. Not only would the new kids no longer be forced to learn a form of communication that was barely effective across the general population, but also there was hope that one day I could read a prescription form.

Now when I write by hand I prefer an all-caps block lettering. Occasionally I throw in a lower-case vowel such as when I write the word “email.”

I think the biggest lesson I learned through all of this wasn’t really about cursive script at all. It was about rules. To my teachers writing cursive was the rule. I was expected to follow the rule. The rule, as it turns out, wasn’t 100% right. Learning the difference between rule and right is important to us all, and cursive script was a tool that helped me understand.

When Loughner asked, “What is government when words have no meaning,” he wasn’t simply exposing his own lack of grasp on reality. He was crafting a question that was just meaningless enough to fix itself into the subconscious of a segment of the rest of us.

Several years ago I had a conversation with a new convert to Islam. While I had theological differences of opinion with this person, it wasn’t the actual theology I found so disturbing. What I found disturbing were meaningless phrases that were being used to support the conversion. One in particular stuck in my mind, that Islam “can’t be approached from the back.”

That an idea or belief cannot be approached from the back is an absurdity, yet this guy was completely fixated on this phrase. To him it had a meaning. To me it was meaningless near-gibberish in the context of the discussion.

Loughner’s words seem to be much the same type of meaningless, yet meaningful-sounding gibberish. Much as a lack of solid, easy answers leads some to believe the government knocked down the twin towers, there will be those who will see Loughner’s wacky words as prophetic.

We have a 24/7/365 news cycle now, folks. It is only a matter of time before we have people on TV taking this nutcase seriously for his beliefs. After all, even Manson has a fan club.

Polifact analyzed Obama’s first 100 days in broken promises. Ideapalooza has a downloadable spreadsheet of Obama’s 895 campaign promises. Recently, he called for the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, considered a paragon of Democrat wishy-washiness. Of course, this has been on the White House website for a while, and nothing has been done.

Way to go Mr. President. You’ve learned well. Your supporters really don’t pay close enough attention to what you do to realize the truth. Keep making promises. Don’t worry about keeping them. It’s the liberal way. After all, you can earn the Nobel Prize for just saying you’ll do something now. I’d say this plan has already been a success.

Straightaway as he took office, President Obama promoted the so-called “economic stimulus bill.” This three-quarter of a trillion dollar corporate-welfare swindle was pushed on America as the only way to stop the economic slowdown.  By not addressing the true causes of the bad economy, congressional interference in the mortgage, automotive, and energy sectors, it was easier to blame President Bush, and bankers for situations both were forced to endure.  The result? Massive erosion of freedom, as Congress used the stimulus as an excuse to control individual wages, a contiunuation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to exist in economically harmful ways, and an unemployment rate far above what Obama promised should the stimulus not be passed.

With the stimulus, Obama succeeded in legislation, but failed massively in result.  America is in worse shape because of its passing.

Onward to the next major emergency legislation that must be passed RIGHT NOW. Obama supported the “cap and trade” legislation to “fight global warming” long before he took office.  He actually said, “If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”  Obama’s goal wasn’t just to promote so-called “green technologies,” but to force the forms of energy we rely on every day out of the market.  His stated intention was to run out of business an industry that many thousands of working men and women across many states relied on for a living.

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives complied, passing one of the most egregious infringements on freedom known to America.

Luckily, word got out about what damage the bill would cause.  The bill would cause increases in energy costs, resulting in increases in costs on everything else.  After all, it takes energy to manufacture, warehouse, transport, display, and retail pretty much everything you buy. Since the end consumer pays all those costs in the final price, the end consumer would pay the bill.  That would damage the economy further, likely resulting in an economic spiral when we need it least.

As it looks now, the Senate is unlikely to continue work on this piece of “emergency” legislation until at least next year. So much for the “if we don’t pass this now” horse manure Obama tried to foist on us so many weeks ago.

With one emergency bill not yet completed, another was brought up.  Now it’s time, apparently, to completely upturn everything concerning the healthcare industry.  Painting the insurance industry’s  profit margin of 3.3% as exhorbitant, Obama and the Democrats maneuvered (manured?) to wrest control of healthcare from their hands.  With deficits, and debt piling on daily, the trillion dollar “healthcare reform” bill had to be passed RIGHT NOW.

Then, people started actually reading the bill.  By people, I mean actual citizens.  I do not mean Obama or Congress.  Obama, asked about a detail of the bill, replied, “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” John Conyers said, “I love these members that get up and say, ‘Read the bill. What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

You know what? I haven’t read the whole bill.  I have read quite a bit of it, though.  It is convoluted, and boring, but I took some time to actually research the issue.  I don’t even have a vote in the matter.  You might think, though, that Obama and Congress would bother reading a bill before insulting MY intelligence for opposing it on the issues.

Let me give you a hint, Mr President.  You don’t gain the support of America by insulting your opponents, especially when dealing with an issue in which over half of America is in the opposition.

Obama even went on TV multiple times to push the health care bill.  He continually referred to his plan, even though he has yet to actually propose a plan.  He claimed he would veto a bill presented to him if it contained unpopular provisions, but many of those provisions are in the house bill. Unlike Congress, many citizens could find the time to research this information, which is why Obama’s televised appeals each resulted in a DROP in popularity for the bill.

Oh yeah, the Senate probably won’t get to this piece of emergency legislation until next year.  They’re debating over which provisions Obama said he would veto they want to include (really!) and to what extent.

Obama says the economy is turning around, and jobless claims are levelling off.  Almost immediately, new jobless reports show the opposite.  Obama promotes the Olympics to Chicagoans, and Chicagoans demonstrate opposition.

The latest?  Obama goes to the International Olympic Committee to promote Chicago for the Olympics, and the IOC completely snubs him, knocking Chicago out in the first round of voting.

He’s not the savior.  He’s not bringing prosperity.  He’s not bringing America together.  He’s not leading an ethical government.  He’s not, apparently, capable of speaking coherently without a teleprompter.  Heck, he has yet to demonstrate he’s all that smart.

President Barack Hussein Obama has proven that he is really only good at one thing.  He’s a miserable failure, on his way toward having arguably the worst presidency in the history of the United States.

My favorite way to find things to sell, though, is to scan the auction house for items that are, frankly, being sold too cheaply.  I buy them at the seller’s asking price, and immediately place them back up for sale at a higher price.  The price I sell for more closely matches the price that the market will bear.  Sometimes, I can multiply my investment several times on one item.

Not everyone looks at these tactics the same way I do.  More than once, I’ve been criticized publicly for selling “vendor patterns” on the auction house.  Vendor patterns can be purchased in stores around the Warcraft world by anyone, though some are fairly rare and may not always be available.  Some of these patterns can be purchased for a fraction of what they will sell for on the auction house.

Personally, I see the sale of vendor patterns and items in a different light than some do.  Some of these patterns are in areas that only high-level characters can visit.  The only way a low-level character can get these items is on the auction house.  Sometimes, you might travel a long distance to visit the vendor that sells an item, only to find that it is sold out.  By purchasing these items when I can, and selling them on the auction house for a higher price, I am providing a service to others.  They don’t have to travel.  They don’t have to risk the effort, only to find the item is sold out.  All they have to do is search the auction house, and buy.

When I choose to buy an item from a vendor, or on the auction house at a low price, I am accepting a certain amount of financial risk.  One recent visit to the auction house, I spent over 1400 gold on low-priced items. I then paid deposit fees to list these items again at a higher price.  The sellers of the items got their asking price with little effort on their part, even if the price was too low.  I placed the purchase price, and the listing fees, at risk.  If I can’t re-sell the items at the higher price, I lose that money.  The seller got their asking price.  No one is forced to buy from me at a higher price.  I am the only one taking a risk in this situation.  Some, though, consider me a bad guy for doing this.

There are other benefits to my actions.  By removing items from the auction house at prices that are too low, I increase the likelihood of higher-priced items selling.  Anyone else with those items for sale sees a better chance of making a sale, because the lower-priced competition is dissapearing at my cost.  I will be competing with them for a sale, but I will compete at prices that are closer to the market prices.  My actions benefit others who are selling the same items on the auction house, because they can get a better price.

There’s another great benefit.  I don’t just buy things on the auction house to resell.  I also buy things I need there as well.  If I find an item that would require a lot of travel to find, or a lot of questing to hope that it drops from a mob, I may just buy it on the auction house myself.  I can afford it, and don’t think twice about spending the gold, because I’ve taken steps to increase my available gold.  I’ve purchased many vendor patterns and items at higher auction house prices, simply because it was much more convenient to do so.

I’ve placed thousands of gold in game-wealth at risk, and provided great benefits in the game.  I’ve made items more easily available.  I’ve propped-up the market price and increased profits for others.  I’ve made many things conveniently available with little effort, and I’ve paid untold hundreds of others exactly what they asked for items I’ve purchased, making them happy for the sale.

Some consider me a bad guy.  That’s all right.  Some consider the oil companies bad guys for their profits.  Some consider healthcare companies bad guys for saving lives while making money.  Some consider McDonalds bad for selling food people want at affordable prices.  I don’t mind being in that group.

Plus, I want the mammoth.

So … is there a stimulus plan that could work?  Is there an idea that could put an immediate cash infusion into the American economy?  Could we, with one or two quick decisions, take action to put our economy on the fast-track again, while costing no more than the estimated one to three-and-a-half trillion dollars that Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have allocated so far?

Yes.

Before I get into the solution, I’d like to tell a short story.  Not so long ago, I operated a small business in my hometown in North Carolina.  The business was located in a small, rustic little downtown Main Street area that needed some stimulus.  A bunch of the business-owners started a group to try to improve the area, and we began meeting regularly.  It didn’t take long for ideas to start flowing, and one of them was beautification.

It seems that the city had a beautification program that we could take advantage of.  If we would purchase the cement planters to place around our little downtown area, the city would fill them with flowers, and take care of the upkeep.  Not a bad deal, all in all.  We all thought it was a great idea, so the next question was, how to get the planters, and pay for them.  The head of the group, a Republican, was pushing for a special tax district for our area, with a small additional tax being paid by the building-owners that would go into the coffers of our group, the designated business association.  The tax money could then be used to purchase planters, as a first project.

The tax-district idea had been put forth in multiple meetings.  It wasn’t popular.  Honestly, I did my part to make sure I talked to everyone that hated the idea, and make sure it couldn’t be pushed through.  When it was brought up yet again, in reference to the planters, I stood up to say exactly how stupid I thought the idea was, and where I thought the district lines should be drawn so that I was excluded.

The leader of our group looked at me, and asked a simple question.  “Without the tax district, and the money we would get from it, how would we pay for the planters?”

I stood my ground, and presented my idea.  It was simple.  We call around, and find suppliers of the planters.  We find the best price, and any business owner that would like a planter can buy one, two, or however many they need.  We just collect the money, and go pick them up on a truck.

You would have thought I had slapped the guy’s sister.  While others in the room nodded at my suggestion, our leader blustered something about how not everyone would buy them, and we would have planters in front of some stores, but not others.

My response to his objection was, yet again, simple.  If everyone doesn’t buy planters, then not everyone gets planters.  Those who don’t get them will see them appear in front of the other stores, and they’ll want them too.  Before much time passes, a second order will need to be made for those that don’t buy-in the first time.

Well, my idea won, and his idea lost.  Money was collected, planters were purchased, and flowers were planted.  The tiny improvement made a huge difference, and lots of people talked about how nice the planters looked.  Those that didn’t buy on the first round saw the benefit, and a second round of planters had to be purchased.

The point of the story is that we could have gone the tax route.  Money could have been taken from profits to pay the tax.  The tax money could have gone to the city, until the time came to pay the business owner’s group the proceeds (100% of the tax would have gone to the group).  The group would have had to pay costs of accounting, and decide how to spend the money.  Some day, perhaps months down the road, we would have been able to purchase planters for everyone.  Instead, we simply allowed those who wanted the benefit of the planters to buy-in, and we got a good deal.  Peer-pressure worked on the stragglers, and they soon paid for planters as well.  No taxes, and great benefit in two weeks, rather than months.

How does this story apply to today’s economic issues?

Right now, our government is taking taxes at every level.  They take a personal income-tax, which you pay out of your paycheck.  They take a corporate income-tax, which you pay in the price of the goods and services you receive.  They take tax in tariffs, duties, and licensing fees, all of which increase the cost of goods and services you receive, and so you’re the one paying them in the end.

Looking at the bills Congress is passing, and Obama is signing, that tax money isn’t being spent well.  It’s paying for streetscaping, trollies, libraries, museums, sidewalks, “Totally Teen Zone,” fairgrounds, ferries, a swamp canal, a water-taxi service, a Historic Jazz Association, aircraft displays, lobster research, catfish research, and many, MANY, more non-stimulus items. For the record, there’s even at least one downtown revitalization project in there.

All this, and Obama is talking about tax increases “for the rich.”

What if we took a little different path.  What if we cut out the middleman.  It seems to be a good idea for business to cut out the middleman, and passing the savings on to the customer.  The customer pays the money, and the customer gets the benefit of the purchase.  YOU are the customer.  YOU pay the taxes, and YOU are supposed to be the beneficiary of all the good that government does. The government is the middleman.

Let’s do something simple.  Let’s go back and cancel the “Porkulus” bill, that is disguised as stimulus.  Let’s cancel the spending bill with 9000 earmarks.  Let’s replace them with a simple, effective stimulus plan that we can agree on.

Here’s the plan.  We cut the 2008 personal income tax to zero.

That’s it.

I can’t take credit for the idea.  Rush Limbaugh is the one I heard mention the idea, but as I keep thinking about it, it sounds better and better.  Here’s how it would work.

Starting as soon as possible, all federal income-tax withholding would be stopped from your paycheck.  This would result in an immediate boost in available cash to every working person in America.  How much of your paycheck each payment period goes to federal income taxes? Is it 25%?   Let’s just take that as an easy number to work with.

If 25% of your check goes to federal income taxes, and your tax rate is cut to zero, your $1000 in take-home pay will rise to approximately $1330.  That’s enough for a payment on an affordable car. $330 per week for a year is over $17,000.  That’s enough for a nice downpayment on a house, or a full purchase on a slightly-less-affordable car.

In April, anything you’ve paid into the federal income tax withholding before the wittholding was stopped would be refunded to you. If the plan went into action on April 1, then your refund would be almost $4000 based on the numbers above.

What’s the cost to the government?  It would cost one trillion dollars.  That, conveniently enough, would be offset by the cancellation of the last spending bill.  What’s more, unlike the spending bill, the tax cut would actually stimulate the economy.

What would YOU do with your federal income-tax money back?

Because the opposite of Merry Christmas isn’t “Happy Holidays,” “Happy Festivus,” or “There is no God.”  The opposite of Merry Christmas is, “I hope your dog craps on your face to wake you up on December 25th.”

I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

First, we need to think about why the US auto industry is doing badly, while foreign automakers are performing better with US based plants.  A large reason for this is that the unions have, over time, gained far too much control over the automakers.

When most think about union involvement in the automotive industry, they think of the line-worker.  It isn’t unreasonable that automakers provide decent pay and benefits to those who make the cars. When someone talks about reducing the power of the unions, the automatic assumption is that this would mean lower pay and benefits for the line workers.  While that may be a side-effect of reducing union power, it’s not the area in which the unions need to be broken from the process.

The most cumbersome requirement of the unions is that the automakers rely on unionized vendors.  Let’s take brake pads, for instance.  If Ford has bids from three different manufacturers of brake pads, each capable of producing the same pads to the same standards of quality, they are able to make a decision on price.  Manufacturer #1 can create the brake pads for $20 per car in its North Carolina plant using non-union labor.  Manufacturer #2 can make the brake pads for $30 in Massachusets using some union labor.  Manufacturer #3 can sell their brake pads for $50 per car out of their Ohio plant using nothing but union labor. 

Given identical standards of quality and safety, the choice is easy.  The North Carolina manufacturer gets the contract.  In Detroit, this isn’t allowed.  Union contracts require that the parts that go into the cars be made by union labor.  This means that each part of the car costs more to produce than it should, thus driving up the price

It’s the extraneous requirements on the contracts that have to go.  The best way to do this is the bankrupcy process.  Bankrupcy proceedings could allow the big-three automakers to renegotiate these contracts.  The end result could, and should, be reduced manufacturing costs per car, and therefore a lower cost per car.

Lower prices per car would increase sales, allowing for profitability.

Lower prices aren’t the only answer, though.  In order to be able to sell the cars, the automakers also have to be able to make cars that people want to buy.  That’s easy enough, isn’t it?  A little market research, good design teams, and quality engineering should be able to produce the cars that America wants.

Wait a minute, though.  That isn’t how it works.  Thanks to the US Government, the automakers can’t just produce what America wants.  The greatest impediment to this is called CAFE standards.  CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy.  In short, the CAFE standards say that each automaker must produce CARS with an average mileage defined by the government.

Notice the emphasis on cars in that last sentence.  That’s important, and I’ll get to why in a moment.

My parents love their Mercury Gran Marquis. It’s not a gas hog, but it isn’t going to get any awards for economy, either. The estimated miles per gallon on the highway is 25mpg. This is below the government’s CAFE standard rate of 27.5mpg.  In order to compensate, Ford must produce cars that exceed this standard.  The Ford Focus exceeds this standard.  Unfortunately, the Focus is a tiny car that, quite frankly, wouldn’t meet my parents needs in a car.  By averaging the fuel economy across the full production, the automakers try to keep the number below 27.5mpg.  If they exceed 27.5mpg, they pay civil fines.

Personally, I love my Mustang.  If I change the plugs and wires, and buy a new air filter, it should get more than 27.5mpg.  It is, after all, a six-cylinder model, and I drive conservatively.  I’d really rather have a V8, as I’m sure many other people would.  What happens, though, if  the automakers find that there’s more demand for the V8 model, and other less fuel-efficient automobiles?  They either follow the CAFE standards and make cars that are in less demand, or they pay fines on their cars and pass the costs on to the customers.

There is another answer.  You see, the standards for light trucks are necessarily lower than those for cars.  People in need of more space for their family, more cargo room, more pulling power, or safer cars (CAFE standards kill, but that’s another post and a radio interview I gave several years ago) have to buy a light truck, instead of a car.  The intersection of needs for more car and a family-friendly format created the surge in SUV sales.

The SUV turned out to be the best way you could get a “real car” in the current regulatory environment.  A new format, the crossover, still qualifies as a truck while providing better fuel economy to meet the light truck CAFE standards of 22.2mpg.  They’re lighter, and less safe than the SUV, but still provide more than that little Ford Focus in room and carrying ability.

So, the second thing that should be done is to abolish the CAFE standards, and allow the automakers to create cars based on customer demand, rather than government mandate.  Let’s face it, letting the government decide what you can and cannot buy has never been a good idea.  For the automakers, it’s been a disaster.

Thirdly, the government should reduce taxes on the auto manufacturers.  The fact of corporate taxes is that the companies have to pay the taxes out of money they get from the consumers.  If you buy a car, part of the cost of that car is taxes paid by the company.  Corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES.  Their customers pay them in the price of the products consumed.

The government should, therefore, start a 12 year tax reduction plan for the automakers.  For the first two years, corporate income taxes on the big three should be reduced to zero.  That’s right, they should pay no corporate income taxes.  The savings should be taken out of the price of the cars, thus allowing consumers to buy new cars at lower prices.  After the first two years, the taxes can be put back into place in 10% increments.  At the end of 12 years, the corporate tax burden would be back where it was in the beginning.

Of course, reducing or abolishing the corporate income tax isn’t just a good idea for the car companies.  It should be done across the board.  Corporate income taxes should be abolished entirely.  The best way to demonstrate this is to experiment with the auto industry in their time of need.  It would be a great benefit to the manufacturers, the employees, the consumers, and the economy as a whole.

Three simple steps.  Reduce costs by reducing union controls over every aspect of the big three automakers.  Remove the crippling restrictions that government has placed on the industry, and allow the companies to create cars that people want for a change.  Finally, cut the unnecessary cost of government out of the automakers’ bottom line by cutting their taxes to zero for at least a short time.

If, after all this has been done, a loan is needed to get the companies past the short run, then maybe that can be done.  Just don’t add on extra requirements that hurt their business like demanding they make certain types of cars, or disallow dividend payments for stockholders.  That’s just more stupid government micromanagement, and that’s been half the problem the automakers had in the first place.