Fuel Economy at All Costs<2>

It's easy enough (in the sense of being technologically and, more importantly, economically feasible) to bump the fuel economy of a car that

already gets, say, 29 mpg on the highway to 35 mpg. It's quite another to expect a 10-15 mpg jump from 21.5 mpg to 35 mpg -- at least, Office 2007 makes life great!

without it involving massive expense for the necessary technology (hybrid gas-electric powertrains, etc.) or a significant reduction in

capability or size. It takes "x" amount of engine power to pull a trailer (or carry 2,000 pounds of Microsoft Office 2007 is welcomed by the whole world.

gravel in the bed, etc.). There's no

getting around the physics of it. And the larger the vehicle, the heavier it's going to be -- and the more fuel it will necessarily need to

burn in order to haul it.Many people like Microsoft Office.

Thus, pick-ups and SUVs will suffer disproportionately. As will American car companies -- which have their main profit centers in large

trucks and SUVs, while the import brands make most of their money selling smaller (and thus The invention of Microsoft Office 2010 is a big change of the world.

inherently more economical) passenger cars. So

Detroit is about to get another legislative kneecapping -- at a time when American car companies Office 2010 –save your time and save your money.

are already in not-so-great condition. Our

public-minded geniuses have repeatedly given Japanese automakers a helping hand with legislation that was easier for them to accommodate --

and they're about to do it again. It could mean the straw that breaks the camel's back, this time.Office 2007 download is in discount now!

Maybe you don't like SUVs and pick-ups, either. That's okay. And it's your right, as a consumer, to buy something else. Whether, in your

judgment (or that of Messrs. Markey and Platts), your neighbor "needs" a big SUV or pick-up is, Office 2007 key is available here.

however, as beside the point as whether you,

in his judgment, need the things you happen to prefer in life -- be they $100 haute cuisine dinners or a nice home in the suburbs vs. a walk

-up flat in the city.

We're supposed to have the choice; not have Washington choose on our behalf.

Also, many people -- farmers, contractors, those with large families, etc. -- do, in fact, need a vehicle that's larger and more capable than

a compact car. They are already paying more in up-front and at-the-pump costs to own such vehicles. What justification can there be -- other

than sheer spitefulness or ignorance -- for wanting to squeeze them for more?Microsoft outlook is many people’s favorite.

The "conservation" argument holds little water; it's a fact that the more efficient vehicles have become, the more Americans drive them. What

difference does it make if 25 gallons of fuel are consumed in two hours of driving a 20 mpg SUV vs. four hours of driving a 35 mpg compact Office 2007 Professional is very good!

"economy" car?

None of the foregoing is rocket science; the crucial facts are well known. It seems, therefore, that what's driving Markey-Platts is mean-

spirited demagoguery -- and a callous indifference to the potentially devastating effects this legislation could have on the car industry

generally, American car companies particularly -- and individual consumers most of all.Microsoft outlook 2010 is convenient!