By her own admission, the CEO of General Motors wants to further her pursuit into crony-corporatism to achieve her vision of an all-electric, zero-emissions future.

There is something inherently wrong with the term crony-corporatism – although most use the term crony-capitalism.

There really isn’t anything capitalistic about cronyism. And there isn’t anything inherently wrong with corporatism. In both cases, the problem is “crony.”

For those unfamiliar, crony-corporatism is when a private-sector corporation gets in bed with the government. It may be federal or state, but in either case (or both), the corporation curries favor with the government, seeking special carve-outs and regulations that effectively lock out their competition. It’s an insidious relationship that benefits none but the corporation and government special interests. The consumer always suffers in the end.

But this is what you do when you find it difficult to compete in the free market or your personal interests run counter to market forces. You encourage the government to step in and pick winners, you, and losers, your competition – and, of course, us, the consumer.

Unfortunately, the consumer is always on the losing end. And such it is and will continue to be if the CEO of General Motors has her way.

CEO and Chief Crony Mary Barra, says the federal government should impose a “National Zero Emissions Vehicle” program that will “move our country faster to an all-electric, zero-emissions future.”

Barra claims in an op-ed that, “A single, 50-state solution will help move the U.S. to a leadership position in electrification.” In other words, a one-size-fits-all federal decree. The feds are great at one-size-fits-all “solutions” – they just never work when they are tried.

To accomplish this feat, Barra has proposed a three-tiered program:

  1. Infrastructure investments to accelerate accessible, convenient electric charging.
  2. Renewing and enhancing federal incentives for U.S. consumers to buy electric vehicles. As electrification reaches its tipping point, allowing these effective incentives to expire, as currently scheduled, will stifle growth.
  3. Regulatory incentives to support U.S. battery suppliers, who can spark domestic job growth with advanced battery development and production.

Now, anytime we see the term “infrastructure investment,” know that this is code for government spending, which translates to increased taxes, fees and other hidden charges.

“Renewing and enhancing federal incentives,” is code for more government spending in the form of bribes and giveaways just to get people to purchase these overpriced EverReadys on wheels. But like EverReadys, these cars don’t keep on going and going.

Yet it’s the only way to keep the public buying them. Depending on the state, these bribes can be north of $10,000 per vehicle. And they are given to the wealthiest among us.

According to data from the Energy Information Administration, “67 percent of households that own an electric vehicle make more than $100,000 per year. And 42 percent earn over $150,000.”

And as for “regulatory incentives,” we can simply replace the word incentive with correct term, mandate, as there is no such thing as a government regulatory incentive.

I gather that Barra believes that by instituting this three-tiered program, GM will be the industry leader in selling cars no one wants.

And that’s the rub – one that she appears to fully understand – that a tiny fraction of the car-buying public even wants these battery-operated toys. In the first half of this year, only 1.5 percent of car sales were electric. Most of the sales were of large SUVs and trucks.

Without the government stepping in and forcing us to purchase, GM and others are left marketing only to rich Hollywood leftists and other wealthy, guilt-ridden liberals.

Let’s hope the Trump administration rejects her proposal outright.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.