At a recent meeting of the California Air Resources Board the discussion turned to the subject of providing a voucher for poor people to purchase a new Nissan Leaf, electric car, with a MSRP of more than $22,000. It was thought that this would be not only a way to stimulate the economy by the production of additional cars, but it would raise the self worth of that particular population, and maybe make them more inclined to utilize the Student Loan Program.......and thereby get this low income group into colleges. It was thought that if more poor people were graduated from colleges that they would be able to move into higher paying government, or union jobs, and begin to pay higher taxes to support other programs for poor people. A Win, Win, Situation!, as touted by another board member.
Several of the board members stated that all this sounded like a worthwhile stimuli's package, but that poor people tended to not pay their electric bills, and then how would they get these electric cars charged up? Board member Alfred Steel commented that California should take a 'page' from the Hillary Clinton book, "It Takes A Village", and to recommend that the California state legislature make electric sharing mandatory between neighbors. Steel further stated that it only stands to reason that unless the poor have electric power to charge their Nissan Leaf they will not be able to attend college or seek employment..........and thus will not be paying the taxes needed to create more programs for the poor. It was at this point that another board member, Keysha Lincoln, stated that a new car needed not only electric, but insurance. Ms. Lincoln stated that all recipients of these free Nissan Leaf cars should also get an insurance package of at least a million dollars in coverage because of the fact that poorer people tend to be involved in more auto accidents.
It was at this point that another board member, Pablo Pangloss, stated that maybe giving vouchers for new $22,000 cars to poor people was not a good idea. Mr. Pangloss stated that maybe it would be better policy, and better utilization of public money, to provide a Taxi Voucher of $5,000 a year instead. This way the insurance and electric power issues would not exist, and by doing this it would not only give the poor person the freedom of travel at any time of day or night, but it would stimulate the California taxi industry, and at the same time increase the production of taxi vehicles by the auto manufacturers. Mr. Pangloss further stated that the definition, of Poor Person, in California, should be extended to individuals making less than $50,000 dollars, and families with an income of less than $95,000.....thus making it possible for these 'new poor persons' to get rid of their car/or cars........and to free the roads of thousands of air polluting vehicles. It was at this point that the chairman of the board declared that much progress had been made in that morning session, and that after a two hour lunch break the board would vote on the recommendations as proposed.
Personally, I was too sick to my stomach to attend the meeting after the lunch break. So I have no idea what transpired. I suspect that we will only know the details after the recommendations are passed into law.......because we can never know what is in a bill until it is passed into law, or so says California Congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi.
Lord Howard Hurts