Updated at 12:45 p.m.

“We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control …
Hey teacher leave them kids alone!”
- Pink Floyd

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every Administration has some real winners. This is even better than the Bush Administration’s color coding system for homeland security. Hopefully EPA didn’t spend as much staff time and money on these school grades as TSA did for the colors.

But don’t car buyers need things simplified for them in the same way the star safety system helps to keep our families protected? The difference is that it’s nearly impossible for the consumer to understand what’s involved in giving a vehicle a crash rating. It’s quite easy to figure out the letter grading system for fuel economy.

So what’s the point? It seems like it’s one of two possibilities:

A. The government wants to help Americans who are known to be really bad at math.

B. A letter grade creates a stigma for the buyer. By grading the car, you judge the person who buys it.

I think the answer is B. And this represents much of what is wrong with the current government. Are people who buy cars like students who need EPA teachers to send them home with a report card?

What’s next? Under the EPA/HUD/DOT triumvirate, the czar could develop a livability grade for the size and location of your home and the design of your neighborhood. The professors at FDA could prominently display letter grades on our groceries and shrink down that complicated nutritional information data. Perhaps the CPSC commissioners could grade the clothes we buy based on the materials and labor force involved (or fashion sense)!

In the end, the grade indicates what’s most important to the regulator, not the consumer. Displaying a huge letter grade over the more important quantitative data shows that the regulator judges the grade to be more important than all of the other things a consumer might want to consider: safety, comfort, towing capacity, upfront engine costs, maintenance, etc. We don’t need teachers to substitute their judgment for our own.

In conclusion, the proposal is one small piece of evidence of the need for smaller government. People are tired of the nanny state and regulatory overreach. EPA’s decision will show whether it remains as tone-deaf as usual.

The proposed car stickers are what one might expect from a transportation department that seems more interested in political correctness than in safe mobility. They are significantly misleading in that "upstream" costs (e.g. the costs of generating the electricity used to charge car batteries) are ignored.

This grading approach is certainly applicable to other important factors, such as safety. If safety were to be included, the following text is offered:

GRADE A ("Admirable"): Cars in this grade provide the dual advantages of saving fuel and increasing fatalities. Earth lovers buying such vehicles would be helping to save the planet in two ways: The lower fuel consumption will minimize global warming and the higher fatality rates associated with lighter cars will help meet the target of zero population growth.

GRADE G ("Guzzlers"): Cars in this grade are doubly undesirable in that they not only warm the planet but also support and protect large families, which would increase population growth. Earth lovers should avoid such vehicles.