Let’s be honest: by now, we were supposed to have flying cars. Do you see any flying cars? No, nor do I. What’s worse is that people seem to think that they’re the top priority in automotive technology. The U.S. Department of Transportation wants cars to be able to “talk” to each other by 2017. It’s Big Brother’s Dream come true.

The idea is that vehicles would be able to communicate with one another using vehicle to vehicle (V2V) technology in light vehicles. This would allow vehicles to know the location and speed of nearby vehicles and, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, could eliminate up to 80% of crashes or, at least, reduce their severity. V2V could also, in theory, help to alleviate congestion. Of course, it would be a mandate, because the government can’t just let the market and common sense determine what the public needs. 

Why wouldn’t the public want V2V? Well, because it’s a little Big Brotherish. While the Department of Transportation says that they would not have personal information on specific drivers or vehicles, they could be identified “if there is a need to fix a safety problem." A safety problem as defined by whom? Will you be spied on for being a known raw milk drinker? What if the government follows your vehicle attending one too many Tea Party rallies or stop by a gun show? Will you be labeled a threat and followed?

So, should this come to pass, the government would know where your vehicle is at all times, and they would even have a handy little black box right there in your car. Yes, the data will be stored, so don’t do anything that might become illegal in the future or you’ll be out of luck. 

All of this, and the cars don’t even fly. What a rip-off. 

There are few retail experiences worse than buying a car. Before setting foot in a dealership, I spend weeks researching makes and models, printing out price sheets and psyching myself up like I’m headed into an MMA bout.

“What if he tries to sell me the extended warranty? I’ll say no! Rustproof undercoating? No way! That lease looks like a pretty good opti… NO!”

Despite constant promises of zero haggling and low-pressure sales, I always leave a dealership with a pronounced limp and wondering where my watch went.

In a world of one-click ordering from Amazon and iTunes, why can’t I just purchase the exact car I want on my terms? The answer is simple: Most state governments have made it illegal.

Automobile dealerships are some of the best-connected businesses in local politics. They contribute a large chunk of sales revenue and campaign cash so politicians reward them with sweetheart legislation.

In nearly every state, manufacturers are not allowed to directly sell cars to customers. Instead, those vehicles need to pass through the middleman of a local dealership. And there’s a list of laws to protect dealerships from any upstart that might compete in this lucrative market.

This crony capitalism helped scuttle the plans of a successful entrepreneur named Scott Painter. Using the “Dell model” of built-to-order computers, customers would select the exact options desired and Painter would deliver a sparkling new car to their doors. The tangle of protectionist policies stole that opportunity — and significant cost savings — from you and me.

The latest company to drive headlong into the growing wall of red tape is Tesla Motors. The luxury electric car manufacturer sees no reason to create an expensive network of dealerships when they could sell directly to the customer. Not only do the various state laws make that difficult, some states are actively trying to keep Tesla out.

The Austin American-Statesman reveals that Texas isn’t always open for business: "You can visit one of the two galleries Tesla Motors operates in the state — one in Austin, the other in Houston — but employees can't tell you how much the car costs. They can't offer you a test drive. They can't even give you their website address. And if you buy one, the car is delivered by a third party — in a truck that's not allowed to have Tesla markings."

The legislatures in North Carolina, New York and Colorado also have pushed measures intended to keep Teslas out of the hands of their residents.

Tesla is no angel when it comes to government intervention in the free market. The politically connected “green” business has benefited mightily from federal largesse and targeted tax credits. But two wrongs don’t make a right. 

State and federal governments must stop choosing winners and losers in the marketplace since the only real loser is the customer. And politicians should step out of the way when innovative entrepreneurs try to radically improve the buying process for you and me.

Follow Jon on Twitter at @ExJon.

Oregon's largest city, Portland, has long been a model of transit planning and alternate forms of transportation. Ever since the days of Neil Goldschmidt, regional leaders have adapted the planning model to attempt to force commuters from cars to such mass transit options as bus, light rail and street car (paradoxically not considered the same thing). Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) has famously championed MORE congestion as a way to force people out of their cars. Despite this high powered attempt to paint Portland as a mecca for extremists hoping to end individual reliance on cars, the results show little actual positive effect.

In 2010, Portland hosted "Rail-Volution", a day of seminars, demonstrations and celebrations of the light rail transformation of the city:

When they weren’t riding demo trips on the light rail, they attended seminars with names like “Bikeways and Green Streets,” “High-Speed-Rail and Development Paradigm Shifts,” and “Sustainable Communities for the New Economy.” Portland’s mayor presided over one of the seminars, and Earl Blumenauer, the left-wing congressman who represents Portland’s east side, was a featured speaker. The event, one local wag noted, had the air of a religious revival.

However, the resultant reliance on federal funding for mass transit and a lack of investment in freeway expansion has led to several negative results, including far greater commute times and a reduction in funding for other forms of transit - bus lines have been cannibalized by light rail. And the flow of new studies continues unabated showing that this reliance on mass transit has almost no effect on commuters.

One such article was published just this week by Wendell Cox, author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life. On the blog New Geography, he writes,

Since 1980, before the first rail line was opened, transit’s share of work trip travel in the metropolitan area has declined by one-quarter, from 8.4 percent to 6.3 percent. Overall, the share of travel by car remains about the same as before the first light rail line opened [in 1986].

Transit access to destinations outside downtown Portland remains scant. Despite the huge expenditures on transit, only 8 percent of the jobs in the metropolitan area can be reached by the average employee in 45 minutes, despite the fact that nearly 85 percent of workers are within walking distance of the transit stops or stations.

According to the latest American Community Survey data, the average work trip by people driving alone in Portland is 23.6 minutes, while the average transit commute trip is 43.8 minutes.

Further, Portland transit users could face draconian service reductions. Tri-Met, which operates light rail and most Oregon services, has warned that it may be required eventually to cut 70 percent of its service. This results from the failure to control labor costs, particularly pension costs, which is detailed in an Oregonian article.

As a resident of a suburb of Portland, I can personally attest to the uselessness of light rail. I live within a 4 block walk of one MAX stop, and used to work in a building right at another stop. Yet I was unable to commute via mass transit, because I had children to take to school, various other stops to make along the way, and a need to get to meetings outside my work hours that required me to have my own personal vehicle. What light rail proponents fail to consider is what we like to call "real life", where errands are run and groceries are bought and kids are brought to soccer practice and violin lessons. The stats bear this out.

It's a wonder that planners even still consider these to be viable options.

Detroit serves as a cautionary tale warning of long-term liberal leadership. As Michigan’s governor prepares a state takeover of the terminally troubled city, many blame the short-sighted policies of the local Democratic machine. To be sure, runaway pensions, red ink and union obstinance have helped hollow out the once-mighty Motor City. But liberal antagonism to the city’s economic engine has worsened the decline not only for Detroit, but the entire state.

As long as we’ve spoken of the American Dream, the automobile has served a primary role in its mythos. Zora Arkus-Duntov, the designer of the Chevy Corvette, said, “in our age where the average person is a cog wheel who gets pushed in the subways, elevators, department stores, cafeterias . . . the ownership of a different car provides the means to ascertain his individuality to himself and everybody around.”

Since Henry Ford’s first Model T rolled off the Detroit assembly line, the car has represented the individual and freedom. Finally, the city dweller could chart his own direction outside of a subway or trolley car and the farmer could explore beyond the reach of his horse and buggy.

But in the Age of Obama, the individual is less important than the group. Hence the push for light rail, high-speed rail, unrealistic mileage standards and emission mandates, rising energy prices, and even the state-ordered destruction of perfectly good automobiles. In the Long March toward the bright progressive future, even transportation needs to be collectivized.

Although most Americans still want a shiny new car in their garage, that once-common desire is increasingly out of reach. According to a new study, only one city in the nation has a median income that can afford a median-priced new automobile. Gee, I wonder which city that is:

The typical new vehicle is now more expensive than ever, averaging $30,500 in 2012, according to TrueCar.com data, and heading up again as makers curb the incentives that helped make their products more affordable during the recession when they were desperate for sales.

According to the 2013 Car Affordability Study by Interest.com, only in Washington could the typical household swing the payments, the median income there running $86,680 a year…

Affordability has been a matter of growing concern for the auto industry in recent years as prices have continued to move upward. Even the most basic of today's cars are generally loaded with features that were once found on high-line models a few decades back - if they were available at all - such as air conditioning, power windows, airbags and electronic stability control, as well as digital infotainment systems. They also have to meet ever tougher federal safety, emissions and mileage standards that have added thousands to the typical price tag.

As Detroit’s long-suffering residents wonder what happened to their American Dream, perhaps they should remember which political party watched over the destruction. If they work hard and save up long enough, maybe their children can afford a nicer car than the one mom and dad were able to buy.

Follow Jon on Twitter at @ExJon.

When President Obama came to office, he promised that government would solve all kinds of problems. The economy would boom, war would end, and the scourge of crabgrass would never again despoil suburban lawns.

Progressive believers never doubted that Washington could merely snap its fingers and the infinitely complex global economy would snap to attention. Even the ocean levels would obey President Canute.

However, as Thomas Sowell famously said, “there are no solutions... only trade-offs.” Like a half-filled balloon, if a politician squeezes one side, the other side pops out.

One of Obama’s first initiatives was the “Cash for Clunkers” program. While those saddled with common sense ridiculed its naiveté, big-government devotees were sure the scheme would create jobs and heal the planet in one fell swoop.

The results are in and the skeptics were right.

“Cash for Clunkers” allowed drivers to trade their old gas-guzzler for up to $4,500 towards the purchase of a sparkly new green machine. Progressive pundits hailed it as a foolproof win/win/win: The anemic auto industry would sell cars, broke customers would get a sweet deal, and Gaia herself would breathe easier at America’s crystal-clear skies.

Alas, reality begged to differ:

[Cash for Clunkers] created a dearth of used cars, artificially driving up prices. For those who needed an affordable car, but didn’t qualify for the program, this increase in price meant affordable transportation was well out of reach. It also meant used-car dealers, most of whom are independently owned, small-business owners, had little to no stock. According to Smith, 122 Virginia dealers chose not to renew their licenses after that year.

If 122 dealers were put out of business in one state alone, just imagine the damage nationally. And help to the consumer was illusory. The artificial trade-in bonus helped people who couldn’t qualify for a new car loan get saddled with debt they had no hope of repaying. Once financial reality — and higher insurance rates — kicked in, many saw their cars repossessed and their credit ruined. Ultimately, they traded in their affordable ride for a daily bus ticket.

At least more people riding public transportation helped the environment, right? If you dare to have your faith in politicians rattled further, read on.

E - The Environmental Magazine gravely notes that Cash for Clunkers produced tons of unnecessary waste while doing almost nothing to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Shredding vehicles results in its own environmental nightmare. For each ton of metal produced by a shredding facility, roughly 500 pounds of “shredding residue” is also produced, which includes polyurethane foams, metal oxides, glass and dirt. All totaled, about 4.5 million tons of that residue is already produced on average every year. Where does it go? Right into a landfill.

E Magazine states recycling just the plastic and metal alone from the CARS scraps would have saved 24 million barrels of oil. While some of the “Clunkers” were truly old, many of the almost 700,000 cars were still in perfectly good condition. In fact, many that qualified for the program were relatively “young,” with fuel efficiencies that rivaled newer cars.

Despite Washington’s lofty promises to consumers, car manufacturers and environmentalists, “Cash for Clunkers” was a lose/lose/lose. And you can add another “lose” for the taxpayers who funded this foolish scheme.

Follow me on Twitter at @ExJon.