Obama Ups Subsidy For Chevy Volt to $10,000 While Cancelling $8000 DC Voucher Program

Question, by the way.

Obama talks a lot about the rich paying their fare share. And suggests it's patriotic to overpay taxes.

That being the case, why do the rich not purchase the Chevy Volt without the subsidy? Sure, it'll cost $7500 more (or $10,000 more, according to Obama's new budget).

Is that not patriotic? Why do Obama's rich minions need to be bribed into (supposed) virtue?

Anyway, the rich win, the poor lose.

That's not a surprising outcome in socialism.

In case you haven’t been shopping for a Volt — and odds are, you haven’t — the vehicle carries a hefty $41,000 price tag. So what kind of person benefits from that tax credit? General Motors says the average income of a Volt buyer is $175,000 per year. And according to Bill Visnic, senior editor for Edmunds.com, “The Volt appeals to an affluent, progressive demographic.” In other words: rich yuppies.

The Daily Caller reports that the subsidy “would cost taxpayers $100 million each year if it is approved by Congress, presuming only 10,000 new-technology autos are sold each year.” And if the President reaches his goal of putting 1 million of those kinds of cars on the road by 2015, the subsidy could cost $10 billion.

Why is the subsidy necessary? It’s no big mystery. Despite the slick marketing, high-gas mileage, and environmentally friendly cachet that comes along with them, the cars just aren’t selling. In January, General Motors sold 603 Volts — almost twice as many as in January 2010, but less than half of its total sales in December. And in 2011, GM missed its projected sales volume for the vehicle, shipping 7,671 of the vehicles — well short of its target of 10,000.

...

To be clear: $10,000 in taxpayer funds to subsidize the purchase of an electric car versus $8,000 to give a child a choice in education. We know what the President chose. Which would you pick?

During the ObamaCare debate, there was some question whether Obama would choose to lose his progressive base or the independents who hated ObamaCare.

Not a question at all, I thought. Progressives give you money and votes; Independents, at most, will give you votes (and they'll tend to split votes fairly evenly besides).

So, forced to choose, you go with the people giving you the money.

As Allah noted last night, Obama also chose to kill Keystone. Sure, tens of thousands of construction workers would have had jobs. But they don't donate money -- and the Sierra Club and other progressive "environmental" groups do.

Now, as between poor people in DC, who are voting for Obama no matter what, and the green lobby, or especially the cash-rich Teachers unions -- who does Obama side with?

The ones with the money.

Not really all that hard to explain. Odd thing about socialism -- while some of the rich claim they want a socialist society, they want the costs of their preferred mode of government to fall on others, too.

Which itself isn't surprising, either. Once you've got the socialist frame of mind, why shouldn't your preferred socialist mode of government come out of someone else's pockets, too?

posted by Ace at 11:29 AM

| Access Comments