I am signed up for MegaVote which tells me about what all Congress is up to and how my representatives there voted and so on. It’s very informative. They also have links for telling your reps what you think, so I hit the one to tell mine that I am against the auto bailout (I was against the others too, there are a lot of reasons and that’s another post. Just go with this, ok?) and I added a note of my own that was very brief, clicked submit, and moved on with my day.
Today this showed up in my email:
Thank you for your letter on Congress’s response to the financial crisis confronting the auto-industry. The question of whether an additional bailout of the auto industry is good or bad policy depends entirely on how we provide assistance.
Giving the Big Three auto makers more funds to continue business as usual is probably not good policy nor is it a wise use of resources. I have long advocated investments that accomplish more than one objective. In the aftermath of 9/11, for example, I was disappointed that we gave money to the airlines without insisting that they use it to buy quieter, less-polluting aircraft. Today, we have the opportunity to use federal investments to not only help the auto industry respond to future needs, but to strengthen the economy and the environment in communities across America.
We could, for example, create fueling stations for the sorts of cars we need for the future: making sure that people with biofuel, compressed natural gas, and plug-in hybrids are able to get the energies they need for operation. We don’t yet have the infrastructure we need to make it easier to sell the products of tomorrow. Investing in such infrastructure would have a profound effect.
As the largest buyer of vehicles in the United States, the federal government could play an important role in shaping the auto market of future. If all federal departments and agencies were committed over the next three years to buy hyper fuel-efficient cars, plug-in hybrids, and flex-fuel or compressed natural gas vehicles, we could have a profound effect on the industry. This one requirement would provide a modern fleet for our operations, improve the efficiency of our departments, and reduce long-term operating costs.
We could also dedicate a portion of Detroit’s bail-out request to removing old, polluting cars from the road, trading “cash for clunkers.” This would improve the environment and help people who are probably paying too much to operate dirty, unsafe vehicles.
In short, we have a prime opportunity to stimulate a market, improve our own operations, and give people the incentive to upgrade their vehicle.
At a time of unprecedented economic stress, while we are struggling to protect the planet, reorient the long-term practices of auto industry, and change consumer habits, we can either provide a narrowly-defined knee-jerk reaction that has little or no effect, or a more thoughtful policy that will reap numerous benefits and get us where we want to go faster.
Again, thank you for your letter. I look forward to continuing our conversation on the financial challenges facing America.
Sincerely,
Earl Blumenauer
Member of Congress
I was very impressed with this thoughtful response. I also appreciated hearing back. It made me feel like someone received and read that message and sent me a reply. I was heard. Maybe I was the only anti person, maybe I wasn’t. I am completely aware there are staff people who spend a vast percentage of their time on reading and replying to communcation (calls, letters, email) on behalf of Mr Blumenauer. But the point is, SOMEONE (Earl or not) took a moment to send me a reply and while that may not have been a big deal to them it is a pretty big deal to me. I want to make sure I give credit where credit is deserved, and Earl’s office DEFINITELY deserves credit.