Readers Write: Auto industry future, Sack cartoons, regional differences, Phillips’ farewell

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The Dec. 2 editorial page featured a reprinted article from the editorial board of the Detroit News with the headline “Return auto industry to the free market.” The article states that President-elect Donald Trump is “promising to relieve the American automobile industry of the pressure from Washington to rapidly deliver an all-electric-vehicle future.” While there were many things in the article that caught my attention, the one that most stood out is that Trump plans to prohibit states from determining their own Corporate Average Fuel Economies. Trump believes that individual states should be able to regulate abortions as they choose, but not fuel economy.

Additionally, the article states the current average price of a car is $50,000, leaving 60% of American households unable to buy a new car. That might be the average, but I can name 10 new cars that cost under $30,000 and countless more for under $40,000. What you can’t buy for under $50,000 is a full-size SUV or full-size, four-wheel drive, extended-cab pickup which just happens to have the highest profit margins for automakers and use the most gas.

The article also complains about the government providing a $7,500 tax credit for EVs, saying the government has no business subsidizing auto sales. Not surprisingly they say nothing about the $20 billion subsidy the federal government provides the fossil fuel industry each year even though they are making record profits.

And nowhere in the article is there any mention of what impact there will be on the climate if Trump’s proposals are implemented and progress in developing and selling EVs and providing recharging stations is short-circuited by a lack of federal support. Of course, Elon Musk will make sure Trump provides his SpaceX program the funds needed to develop transportation to Mars for our grandchildren if the Earth is no longer inhabitable.

Roland Hayes, Shoreview

•••

When I took economics many decades ago, I was taught that the free market did a poor job of including all the costs of a good. A favorite example was pollution dumped in rivers or spewed into the air because there was no charge for the disposal but there was a cost in the form of health impacts, environmental damage and recreational benefits lost. In today’s classroom, global warming would be added to the list of unreimbursed costs. These costs are termed “externalities” because they are outside of the free market calculus.

Society bears the burden of externalities without being paid for the damages. How do you calculate the cost of the death of the planet through global warming? I don’t know, but that cost must be added back into the cost of a car, to the extent that a car contributes to the problem. The accepted mechanism for accomplishing this is government regulation. It might also include subsidies for new, expensive technology where the price of the technology will fall when it is widely accepted. Electric vehicles fit this definition. The reprinted Detroit News editorial does not acknowledge the failings of the free market. It reads like it was copied from an auto industry lobbying manifesto. If left to the free market, gas powered cars will be cheaper, EVs more expensive, the air dirtier, health poorer and the planet closer to its demise.

Scott Nessa, St. Paul

Every day, from 2017 to 2021, I cut out Steve Sack’s Trump cartoons from the Star Tribune. I no doubt missed some, but I have placed the almost 150 Sack Trump cartoons in a binder and as I look at them, as time goes by the next four years, they will ignominiously remind me that history repeats itself. For example, the Star Tribune could rerun the Jan. 19, 2017 Sack cartoon in 2025, and it would be timely and appropriate (tinyurl.com/MovingDayCartoon). We miss Sack’s insightful commentary.

Ron Engle, Minnetrista

•••

During the first Trump term, cartoonist Sack drew a biting commentary on Trump’s immigration policy (tinyurl.com/LadyLibertyCartoon). It depicted the Statue of Liberty and a small child, crouched in the their respective cages, looking at each other. The child asks Liberty, “And what was your crime?” Liberty replies, ”I welcomed you.” I fear we are headed for a repeat of this cruelty with his second term. Please publish that cartoon again, preferably on the first page above the fold. Thank you.

Deborah Webber, Richfield

What a beautifully written essay (“From a place passed by: How I represent Minnesota now that I’m in college out East,” Strib Voices, Nov. 30). Having grown up in a town of 2,500 people in rural Missouri, spent nearly a decade in a Midwestern college town and then relocated here nearly 40 years ago, I can relate strongly to Jackson’s experience. I still remember the arrogant attending physician when I was doing an elective rotation at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. Upon finding out that I attended the University of Missouri, he responded, “Oh, they have medical schools out there?” He then proceeded to let me know that his son was at the University of Virginia, and wondered if I’d ever heard of it.

Ironically, I have lived in several states and traveled to 41 states, and my suspicion is that he had not ventured west of the Mississippi River — yet somehow felt superior because of that. It is understandable and natural for the place where we are from to hold a special place in our hearts that feels like “the best.” But Jackson is spot-on when she relates that it is human to fill in blanks with assumptions when we have no data or meaningful experience in other places — and those assumptions are most often superficial, lazy and completely wrong. Her last line was priceless: “There is so much more to the world, to this country even, than we think we know” — emphasis on “think.” There are a lot of wonderful places to live in this country, and I also wish what the author wishes — ”an attempt to understand,” acknowledging our presumptions for what they are, being open to learning about places that are not our own, and becoming more enriched as human beings in the process.

Cindy Smith, Edina

I read the article written by Elliott Hughes concerning the farewell town hall by Dean Phillips multiple times with interest and dismay (”Phillips feeling good exiting Congress despite ire of Democrats,” Nov. 27). I was there and I feel the article did not convey the more positive mood and message. The author disregarded Phillips’ comments about Braver Angels promoting bipartisan dialogue, that both sides on an issue can be right, that we are more alike than different, that 60% of bills passed in Congress pass with limited discussion on a bipartisan basis and that Phillips was a member of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus.

To me the author chose the most sensationalist comments to report on. I feel those choices were done to create a more provocative article and this goes against reaching common ground. I previously attended an introductory meeting put on by the Braver Angels organization, started in Minnesota, where the media was listed as one of the three main groups that, by their reporting, promoted division between liberals and conservatives. This article, through its focused comments, continues this in a somewhat softer way. As an independent I would favor more balanced reporting rather than concentrating on the more lurid details. In my opinion, this is usually done to promote sales by print media, continued listening to talk radio or watching television news. Sensationalism sells. Also, it would have been interesting to interview audience members as to why they gave him so many standing ovations.

David Olson, Minnetonka