Comments arrive every day from readers who have thoughts to share about gas mileage, modern motor vehicles and the government's cash for clunkers program, all addressed in a recent column. These comments are from an anesthesiologist at University of Maryland Hospital.

Consumer Reports can write an article on the dangers to our life support system of burning too much petrol, and still NEVER downgrade an auto rating for poor
mileage. I have written to them many times about this, with no response.

Instead of a one-time gas-guzzler tax, it should be annual.

When I drive at 65 or even 70 mph on I-95, vehicles zoom past, and
they are all much bigger than my 2003 VW Jetta diesel (40 mpg), and
they are all minimizing their already poor mileage by their high
speeds.  Even though we face imminent catastrophe, we cannot even
discuss driving at 55 mph to save fuel. What will we do when China
stops lending money for us to buy fuel, and none of the oil countries
will take the currency of the most indebted weakling of a country that
ever existed? Will they ship oil to avoid being hit with nuclear
weapons, the only thing we have left that makes us "powerful?"

The Cars for Clunkers program is suicidal from either an energy or
economic view, and a direct contradiction to the administration's
claiming that energy independence is a national goal. It also
contradicts frequently stated goals of producing jobs in the U.S.
since any brand of vehicle from any where is eligible.

Could Bush have pulled this stuff off?

-- Art Milholland