It's an odd objection. More consumers would be spending an extra $5,000 for hybrid technology. They would burn less fuel and enjoy a faster commute. As their cars move into diamond lanes, there would be more room in "general purpose lanes."
The only reason to object is if you want gridlock.
Another plus: Detroit would feel pressure to mass-produce hybrids, instead of leaving this fuel-efficient technology to Toyota and Honda. And drivers would see the upside of saying no to SUVs.
It all comes down to entitlement, as Campbell said.
These questions, however, arise: Do Americans think they are entitled to drive on highways designed to hasten their commute rather than to deliberately slow it?
Or do voters believe -- indeed, does the Bush administration believe -- that the people's government is entitled to punish people for driving to work?
Clinton Foundation: Oh, We Made Additional $12-26 Million From Speeches Given By the Former First Family | Matt Vespa
Josh Duggar Resigns from FRC Action After Molestation Admission UPDATE: TLC Removes Show From Lineup | Christine Rousselle