Several state governments are going to a four-day workweek to save money. Some are issuing IOUs to taxpayers in lieu of tax refunds. There is talk of eliminating Saturday mail delivery. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

So how come the same breaks aren't being cut for the auto industry - and car buyers? Why not, for example, at least temporarily suspend federal requirements that force the automakers to build 3,000 pound, 30 mpg "economy" cars that can't match the fuel efficiency of the mid-sized cars of 20 years ago and which cost thousands more than they need to?

Yes, you can thank Uncle Sam - well-intentioned, as always - for the fact that if you want a car capable of 40 mpg or better, your choices are very slim, or very expensive. Only hybrids and diesels make the 40 mpg cut. The best of today's "economy" cars are in the 35-38 mpg range. Most average closer to 32 mpg on the highway and high 20s around town.

Yet back in the early '80s, it was routine for economy economy cars to get 40 mpg. A few - such as the 1982 Dodge Omni - were in the 50s on the highway. The old Mercury Lynx got 44 on the highway; the Chevy Cavalier 42 mpgs. This was with Disco-era technology (no variable cam timing technology or cylinder deactivation, etc.) and four-speed manual transmissions without overdrive gearing (universal today).

There were literally dozens of cars available in the early-mid 1980s that got 40 mpg or even more. There is not one available today - unless you count elaborate/expensive hybrids and diesels. Doesn't "progress" mean we go forward? What happened? Government happened.

Over the past 25 years, our friends in Washington - who are always looking out for us, of course - have demanded, under penalty of law, that new cars be made ever "safer," both in terms their ability to withstand a crash and also in terms of their ability to protect the occupants in every conceivable type of crash - frontal, side, offset. You name it. All well and good but it comes at a price.

The weight of the average 2010 model year "economy" car has increased by 500-800 pounds relative to the economy cars of 25 years ago. Modern cars are a lot safer. But they're also much less economical.

Given a quarter-century of technological improvement (everything from five and six-speed transmissions to very sophisticated engine management systems that were not around in the early '80s), it would be simple - and cheap - to build a 50 mpg economy car today. If the government would allow it.

Merely suspend federal bumper impact and "passive" (air bag) safety requirements. Let the automakers build 2,000 pound, 50 mpg cars that cost $10k - which they could easily do, if allowed. But such cars would be unsafe! Well, not really.

The '70s and '80s - era of genuinely economical cars - were not a time of mass carnage. True, if you wrecked an '82 Omni your chances of being hurt - or hurt worse and maybe even killed - would be greater than would be the case if you'd been driving a 2010 Toyota Yaris. If you wrecked.

But maybe - probably - you'll never have a serious accident. Most people don't. Some of us - many of us - stand a good chance of never being involved in more than a minor fender-bender.

Perhaps the very real everyday fuel savings (and up-front savings on the car itself) are worth more to you than the theoretical "what if?" safety advantages of the modern, government-approved car? Shouldn't it be your decision - not Uncle Sam's?

Why can't we - like the eggheads running the government - weigh the pros and cons of something and come to a conclusion that best meets our particular needs? And does anyone doubt that what America - what the car industry - needs very much right now is affordable, very high-mileage cars?

In a single stroke - and with not one cent spent - President Obama could resuscitate the U.S. car industry and massively decrease the nation's annual fuel consumption. Smaller, lighter cars would have another good effect, too. Our highways would take less of a beating - and need fixing less often.

In so many ways, we're being forced to confront realty - economic and otherwise. It should be no different when it comes to the cars we're allowed to buy. The plain truth is out-of-work and financially struggling people cannot afford $25,000 hybrids, let alone $40,000 electric cars such as the soon-to-be-here 2011 Chevy Volt.

Why should they be told by know-it-all (and invariably very rich) DC politicos that they must have "x" and "y" - invariably at their expense. The principle behind this has always been obnoxious. But now, it is unaffordable. We can have uber-safe cars that cost $15k. Or we can have cars that get 50-plus MPG and cost $10k. We can't have both.

========

www.ericpetersautos.com or EPeters952@aol.com for comments.