Skip to main content

Spending $7.5 billion on electric car tax credits and loans is a lot of money that some people think is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars, but let's put it into perspective.

When the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, otherwise known as the CBO published its report on the projected costs of the federal tax credit -- and other related programs -- to encourage the development and acquisition of plug-in electric vehicles, the media predictably rose in chorus, "Electric Cars: A Waste of Taxpayer Money."

They based this on the fact that at current gasoline and electric car prices -- the first, arguably, also subsidized by taxpayers to oil companies; the second admittedly high due to technology costs and low volume production numbers -- the current $7,500 tax credit still doesn't make EVs cost competitive.  In fact, writes Ezra Klein in the Washington Post, "Even with the tax break, an average plug-in hybrid would still cost roughly $4,000 more over its lifespan than a conventional vehicle of similar size and performance.."

As a result, the CBO estimates that fewer than a third of a million -- far below President Obama's 2015 goal -- will be sold over the next seven years, meaning they will do little to reduce oil demand or cut carbon emissions.

Okay, I'll buy that. Of course, the report also noted that should the price of gasoline (which the report assumes would remain at $3.60/gal.) increase and/or electric car prices drop (largely by cutting the cost of their battery packs), their findings would have to be revised. Of course, both are big IFs, so it probably doesn't made sense to assume either will occur, which leaves the question, Are EV tax credits worth the cost or are they a waste of taxpayer money?

Look, you'll get no argument from me that $7.5 billion is a helluva lot of money by anyone's measure, except maybe the United States Congress, which tends to think more in terms of hundreds of billions and even trillions of dollars (a trillion is a thousand billion, which is, in turn a thousand million). In fact, the Congress seems so inured to the cost of things they fund that during the previous Administration, they didn't even blink at the MONTHLY cost of fighting the war in Iraq.

Do you recall what the CBO estimated that little enterprise cost America's revolving credit card?  Would you believe $9 billion a month? A MONTH!

Now, I ask you, which will prove the better investment? Funding technology that will ultimately reduce the nation's dependence on oil from corrupt, despotic nations and regions, at a fraction of the cost of a pointless, completely unnecessary war (in my view): a war that the CBO estimates will ultimately cost the United States something well north of a couple trillion dollars. (Pretty much all of it waged on credit, of course, so there'll be interest to pay, as well as the principle). And that's just the monetary tab. We're not even talking about property destroyed and lives ruined, both American, coalition and Iraqi. And if all this weren't obscene enough, the Pentagon reported that in the early months of the War, they couldn't account for up to $3 billion. It just went missing.

So consider the math. Based on the above CBO projection, I estimate the war cost something like $994 billion over eight years (2004-2011) plus two partial years in 2003 and 2012.  By way of contrast, that much maligned EV tax credit and related programs costing $7.5 billion represents 0.0075 percent of the cost of the Iraq War.

Now ask yourself this. What did taxpayers get for the government's Iraq "investment"?  A stable government in Baghdad?  A reliable ally?  A dependable source of petroleum? Or did we create a huge deficit and tens of thousands of wounded veterans, one of whom takes his or her life every 80 minutes? You be the judge: you and I and your grandchildren will be paying for it for decades to come.

And the $7.5 billion in tax credits on 21st century technology and jobs that give America a leg up on global competition?  Worth the investment? Again, you be the judge.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  if the unions want to promote something (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    it should be new technologies like this.  

    hope springs eternal and DAMN is she getting tired!

    by alguien on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 06:09:17 PM PDT

  •  Well, actually, the money is irrelevant. (0+ / 0-)

    Money is a symbol of materials and energy expended just as the written word is a symbol of thought and speech. That's why money is also referred to as script. When money was made out of relatively scarce metals, it was scarce. But, since 1971, we make money out of paper or even just enter numbers electronically. Our money is just an IOU, a promise that value received will be compensated. Having this promise certified by our government is a guarantee that the debt will be honored wherever presented, even, it turns out in China.
    The value of our currency, as opposed Somalia's, for example, rests on the credibility of the American people. We keep our word.
    The Congress threatening not to was a disgrace and those irresponsible reps should be removed.
    What is the point of claiming there is not enough money? It is a power play. Congress wanting to show the people who is the boss. That the people govern is not welcome news. That is why there is an effort to trim the voting population.

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 06:25:33 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site