Washington State Considers Annual Flat Fee for Electric Cars

A user base tax to drive a car on public road is another way how the government is trying to siphon every penny we earn. This tax will affect every person who owns a car. It will affect every social economic class; from the poor to the very rich. The government doesn't discriminate anybody because they believes it's their money and they want it. By the way, the user base tax will not only affect electric cars, but also, eventually affect cars that run on gas and the combination of gas/electric. The government isn't stupid. They have all areas covered. The annual flat fee to drive an electric car is only the beginning.

(Yahoo) OLYMPIA, Wash. – Drivers of electric cars may have left the gas pump behind, but there's one expense they may not be able to shake: paying to maintain the roads.

After years of urging residents to buy fuel-efficient cars and giving them tax breaks to do it, Washington state lawmakers are considering a measure to charge them a $100 annual fee — what would be the nation's first electric car fee.

State lawmakers grappling with a $5 billion deficit are facing declining gas tax revenue, which means less money to maintain or improve roads.

"Electric vehicles put just as much wear and tear on our roads as gas vehicles," said Democratic state Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, the bill's lead sponsor. "This simply ensures that they contribute their fair share to the upkeep of our roads."

Other states are trying to find solutions to the same problem, as cars become more fuel-efficient and, now, don't use any gas at all.

In Oregon, lawmakers are considering a bill to charge drivers of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles based on the number of miles they drive. In Mississippi, lawmakers briefly considered a similar plan. In Texas, significant opposition scuttled an electric vehicle fee.

In Washington state, some electric car drivers and lawmakers are against the fee, saying they prefer paying based on how much they actually drive.

Of course, such use-based fees could end up costing drivers more.

With a Democrat in the Oval Office, Five Dollars a Gallon is No Big Deal

Rush Limbaugh exposes the hypocrisy of the Main Stream Media. Under Bush, the media went on a rampage with the $4.00/gallon of gasoline, but under Obama, it is denyingly quiet. It is abundantly clear that Obama is forcing us to change our ways. The president wants us to get rid of our big SUVs and trucks. Obama wants us to buy expensive hybrids, smaller economical cars (deathtraps), use more mass transit, and buy defective electric cars. Well, the government cannot tell the American public or force us to buy something that we don't want.

Transcript from Rush Limbaugh Show

RUSH: It is so predictable. There's MSNBC during their one-year retrospective impact of the Gulf oil spill. And you know what the purpose is of this particular episode being anchored by Andrea Mitchell is. The purpose here is to make sure we don't drill for oil ever again. It's to support Obama and the regime 'cause, man, look what almost happened. Do you realize every prediction of doom and disaster from that oil spill ended up being totally wrong, as wrong as you could be if you wanted to be a hundred percent wrong, and yet here they are, their one year retrospective with the whole focal point being, "Boy, it was a disaster, dangerous, could have been really disastrous. We better never drill for oil again." Why do this? What's the big deal about this anniversary? And to whom is it an anniversary, aside from the media? Zilch, nobody.

I want to show you something on the Dittocam. I just turned it off while I zoomed tight. We did a little Google search here. In the previous hour of the program I made reference to the fact that, where are all the stories on the gasoline price going up? Five bucks a gallon. If you heard the riff, you know, I don't need to repeat it, basically the point of it was that compared to 2005, the last time gasoline prices spiked big time, there's no coverage of it. So, yeah, while the price is exceeding four bucks in many places, five bucks in Washington, there's not this accompanying panic. No. What are we getting? A one-year look-back at the oil spill. So the media is doing everything it can to suppress any negative economic impact to Obama, virtually no coverage of the rising gasoline price.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a search, gasoline prices, Google trends. Here it is. That big spike that you see on the left is 2005 when the price was approaching four bucks a gallon and the oil price was around $150. That's been the way they've been covering gasoline prices since. This year, no coverage. See the little spike there. It just proves the point that I was making an hour ago, and that is that there's no coverage on this. I mean people are sending me notes, "Gasoline prices are skyrocketing. People are really feeling the pain." Are they? Do they know it? They're feeling it but do they think anybody else is feeling it? There's no news on it and there's certainly no negative news about it. Whatever news about the gas price going up tends to be, "Well, you know, there's really some good news about this. Less dependence on foreign oil. Less travel. Less accidents. Fewer lives lost." I mean, they're actually doing stories on the benefits of rising gasoline prices. Something you would never see, of course, if a Republican were in the Oval Office.

Obama Rushes to Sell GM Stock at a Lost

The government is willing to take a loss with the bailout with GM because the Obama administration would like to sever its last ties to the auto maker; of course, at the expense of the taxpayers. It is already a lost cause. Obama dump billions into the auto industry and for what? GM built defective cars with steering wheels that come off, electric cars that causes electrical spark, electric cars that can cause an electric fire while plugged in, and building smaller cars that people don't want. It is a huge waste to the people tax dollars. This need to end right now.

(WSJ) The U.S. government plans to sell a significant share of its remaining stake in General Motors Co. this summer despite the disappointing performance of the auto maker's stock, people familiar with the matter said.

A sale within the next several months would almost certainly mean U.S. taxpayers will take a loss on their $50 billion rescue of the Detroit auto maker in 2009.

To break even, the U.S. Treasury would need to sell its remaining stake—about 500 million shares—at $53 apiece. GM closed off 27 cents a share at $29.97 in 4 p.m. trading Monday on the New York Stock Exchange, hitting a new low since its $33-a-share November initial public offering.

"Planning for the sale of our remaining GM stock is still at an early stage, and the IPO lock-up does not expire until late May," a Treasury spokesperson said. "At that point, we will consider all of our options, based on our twin goals of protecting taxpayers' interests and exiting as soon as practicable."

Shares have been hurt by rising fuel prices, industry production disruptions and management turnover. At Monday's price, and taking into account shares sold during the IPO, taxpayers would lose more than $11 billion on the rescue if the government dumped the rest of its stake now.

Government officials are willing to take the loss because the Obama administration would like to sever its last ties to the auto maker, the people familiar with the matter said. A summer sale makes it more likely Treasury could sell all of its stake in GM by year's end, avoiding a potentially controversial sale in the 2012 presidential election year.

When Will The Auto Industry Understand That We Dont Want Electric Cars

This is very startling. Alternative energy have been shoved down our throats for years, and still, we want bigger and safer cars. Green energy is worthwhile, but the technology is still eons away.

(AutoblogGreen) Peruse Chevrolet's February sales release, and you'll notice one number that's blatantly missing: the number of Chevy Volts sold. The number – a very modest 281 – is available in the company's detailed data (PDF), but it certainly isn't something that GM wants to highlight, apparently. Keeping the number quiet is a bit understandable, since it's lower than the 321 that Chevy sold in January.Nissan doesn't have anything to brag about here, either (and it didn't avoiding any mention of the Leaf sales in its press release). Why? Well, back in January, the company sold 87 Leafs. In February? Just 67. Where does that leave us? Well, here's the big scorecard for all sales of these vehicles thus far:

Volt: 928
Leaf: 173

Ouch. The big questions, of course, revolve around one word: "Why?" Is ramping up production and deliveries still a problem? Is demand weak? Are unscrupulous dealers to blame? When will sales start to climb? And what are these numbers doing to plug-in vehicle work at other automakers? We don't know all the answers, but for more on February auto sales, click here.

[Sources: General Motors, Nissan]