The production line is gone, shut down, history...
We have fewer than 200 F-22s. Over time, attrition and accidents will wear that number down. If we have to fight someone who can actually fight back, such as Russia or China, those F-22s will simply be too few to do much.
We'll fall back on our fleet of F-15 and F-16 aircraft, which are still very good, but they will take losses as well.
Had we gone ahead and bit the bullet and bought 500 F-22s, the F-35 would not be such a problem.
---
Frankly, I'd rather have updated F-16s with conformal fuel tanks and the modern block upgrades than what the F-35 is today.
WTF?! When was the last time you've ever heard of a dogfight? The days of air-to-air combat are long gone. And where air-to-air combat is still needed, long range missiles take care of it.
The same was said back when the F-4 was being developed, the first version didn't have a gun for that very reason.
It was a huge mistake and the reason for the creation of the Top Gun school.
Just point and shoot, right? Yea, that works sometimes, until it doesn't.
Bullets (or cannon rounds) don't require guidance that can be jammed.
...except they haven't "wasted a trillion dollars". The trillion dollar figure is for the cost of the plane for it's entire lifetime including the 20 or 30 so years from today it's supposed to remain operational.
Are you sure?
My understanding is that $1 trillion is what has been spent SO FAR in the past 10 years of development.
I'm sorry, this made me crack up because just yesterday I was arguing with a guy who was saying it's NOT the cost of the battery that's killing EVs. He kept insisting it's 'range anxiety' and that they're 'too slow to refuel'. He couldn't seem to understand that a bigger battery would fix both issues*, and the reason they don't put a bigger battery in is cost.
*You probably already know this, but you wouldn't need to charge a 300-600 mile battery as often and as a bonus you can put more watts into it, translating into more 'miles per minute' of charging.
Yes, given a large enough input source, you could add 50 miles of charging to a 500 mile battery really fast, maybe in 10 min or less. Of course household outlets won't do that, but a properly wired supercharger can probably do that.
Of course, such a 500 mile range battery for a 6,000lb SUV would cost... more than my entire SUV costs.:)
So we come back to price being the problem. Make that same battery $5,000 and most of these problems are solved really fast.
Yep, like I said, for the deal you described, I understand why you took it.
I probably would as well, all things considered, if I was looking for that sort of vehicle.
I still maintain that such a deal can't be made widespread, due to the tax dollars being used to make it happen. 16.5 million cars and light trucks were sold in the US last year. Less than 1% of them were EVs. You couldn't have the government providing $10k rebates on millions of cars, so that program has to end if the uptake rises.
Still, it makes sense for you and you can't control all of the above, so more power to you.
BTW, if those numbers were the same without rebates, I think the uptake of EVs would take off like crazy. Price remains the primary problem, besides range of course, for EVs. We're a two vehicle household. Our primary truck is going to be gas for a long time, but we could make an EV work for our second car.
Keep in mind that $200 a month with no downpayment will get you a Ford Fusion, which is a larger car than the Leaf. $150 a month with no downpayment will get you a Ford Focus, which is about the same size as the Leaf.
To be sure, they both use gas, abit not that much. The Focus is quite efficient.
What happens to the Leaf payment on that lease without the $7,500 tax credit? On a 36 month lease, it would add about $220 to the payment, give or take.
So the rest of us are paying half your lease payment for you. Needless to say, that can't happen at scale. It works because the number of Leaf's leased or sold is a rounding error, if they tried to sell 100,000 of them a year that credit would vanish really quickly.
It would have to be quite a bit more expensive on the front end for the battery required.
Yes, and that is why I said I think we're a long way from that, the price of the battery is the real problem.
Would you be willing to consider a series hybrid?
I'm picturing something with about 30-60 miles of battery range, but also has a 2 or 3 cylinder diesel engine, or maybe even a small turbine* turning a generator providing a very constant output for maximum fuel efficiency. Hell, I once saw an article on a 2 stroke turbocharged diesel that was very efficient and still met EPA standards.
Would I? Sure, if it would do the same work as the current truck.
The challenge is that just yesterday I towed a 5,000lb trailer for 350 miles. My truck can tow up to about 8,000lbs total, and can do it all day.
Can the small engine in the series hybrid do that? Would the regenerative brakes act as engine braking on downgrades? Can the engine pull 8,000lbs up a 6% grade when the battery has run dry?
Honestly, I'm open to the concept, so long as I don't lose those abilities.
The reasoning: Most such vehicles as you describe have massively over-sized engines to get their loads started. You don't actually need much more than an econobox engine to keep it moving on the highway once you reach speed.
You're correct, until you're climbing an extended grade.:) I don't personally do that often, but there are places in Texas that have a 6% grade for short periods of time. If I could command the battery to retain charge for that, it would probably be fine, but the trick is driving in Colorado, I may need grade power for 20 min at times, and I imagine the battery wouldn't last long pulling a combined 14,000lbs up a 6% grade for anything other than a min or two.
Keep in mind that my engine runs on 4 cylinders when it doesn't need the extra power, it gets north of 20 mpg when cruising at 70 mph on the highway, without a load. Put the load behind it and it rarely can do that, fuel consumption goes way up due more to drag than to weight. Yesterday, driving on flat road, I was only getting about 14 mpg due to the drag of the trailer. Normally I can do 20 mpg or better without the trailer.
---
In fairness, the above is perhaps a corner use case, I get that. However people who buy such trucks expect them to be able to do it. That being said, towing RVs, boats, utility trailers, horse trailers, etc is not that unusual. Driving across Texas, a whole lot of pickups and full size SUVs have trailers behind them.
Perhaps it would make more sense to turn stuff like the Ford Explorer and Toyota Highlander into full EVs first, since they are not used to tow nearly as often (but they can, up to 5,000lbs)
As for the maintenance of gasoline cars, I agree, it's a lot less than it used to be. Extended duration oil changes, more durable parts, etc... I remember when I was a kid having to do things like replacing spark plugs at intervals that we today replace the oil on!
Something else to consider...
So many people lease new cars, including EVs.
If you're comparing a 3 year lease on a EV to a 3 year lease on a gas powered car... really, MX isn't even a consideration.
The only think the gas car needs in the first three years is a few oil changes. Many dealers will include those for free at the time you buy your car if you ask for it.
As for the maintenance of gasoline cars, I agree, it's a lot less than it used to be. Extended duration oil changes, more durable parts, etc... I remember when I was a kid having to do things like replacing spark plugs at intervals that we today replace the oil on!
Likewise, I remember doing oil changes every three months, tranny fluid every year or two, etc.
Today? Oil change about once a year, maybe a bit more often, every 10k miles. GM now puts synthetic oil in by default, engine is now designed for it and will no longer run on normal oil. However the dealers are doing a very fair price, my local GMC dealer charges $30 for the oil change, and that includes them providing a loaner. I don't even have to go in, they drop off a loaner at my home, take my truck in, it comes back washed and clean and they take the loaner back. All for $30.
Spark plugs? GM now puts platinum-tipped spark plugs on at the factory, they are rated to 100k miles. Drive belts and engine cooling system? 150k miles or 10 years, whichever comes first.
Honestly, it isn't maintenance free, but it is so low that it isn't a material amount of money compared to the price of the vehicle.
Gas, by far, is the single biggest expense. However, I also drive a nearly 20 foot long SUV loaded with stuff. EVs are simply not an option. An EV version of the Yukon XL would cost well into 6 figures, even with average range. I'd have to drive a LOT to even dream of making that back.
Now, if you could sell a 200 mile range full size EV SUV for about the same price as the gas version, you might have something. But I think we're a long, long way off from that.
I'm not saying that it breaks even, but a $33k gasoline vehicle is going to be more expensive in the end than a $33k EV.
While that is true, the question is... Is the savings on gas enough to make up for the range issues of an EV?
It might be for a second car, but I have trouble seeing how that becomes the case for a primary car.
Since the primary car is likely to remain gas for some time, it will be a challenge for EVs to become anything other than a small market. Yes, it is true that many homes have two or more cars, but I continue to see this as a solution in search of a problem.
For most people, I think the EV will have to be less expensive than the gas version to attract interest.
Meanwhile they have one that doesn't need oil changes, visits to the gas station, don't smell, etc...
I keep seeing people talk about the maintenance required of gas cars. Really, oil changes are hardly a big deal, neither time consuming nor expensive. The gas station takes 5 min and recharges your car to full. Yes, with an EV, your garage is the "gas station", but if you forget to plug in, it takes a whole lot longer than 5 min to "refill".
"The estimated average transaction price of a new car or truck sold in the U.S. in April was $33,560"
Stop bitching about "expensive" electric cars. These new models from Chevy and Tesla are pretty much the same price as the old fashioned gasoline burning, fume belching models.
Ahh, statistics can be fun!
$33K buys you a LOT of car these days, with a lot of features, including NO range anxiety!
Even at $33K, none of the electrics in that price range compare, which is why they are less than 1% of total US sales of vehicles.
The fact is, the world isn't beating a path to their door, they cost too much and have too many compromises. Sure, hippies and extreme liberals will buy them, but they won't gain mass acceptance until the price comes down and the drawbacks go away.
If by tiny you mean 150,000+ because that's how many Leafs have been sold in 4 years on the market, and the numbers go up each year.
Yep, that is tiny...
In the US, all EV sales across all companies was 123,049 cars in 2014.
Total light passenger vehicle sales in the US in 2014 was 16.5 million.
So the percentage of EVs sold in the US was 0.7% in 2014.
That is a rounding error, noise, nothing to get excited about.
Oh sure, I imagine it will continue to rise, it might even be 1% this year, or perhaps next. In 5 years, it might even hit the staggering sum of 3% of total vehicle sales.
It's got heated steering wheel, heated front and REAR seats. XM radio. USB input. iphone controls. bluetooth. HEAT PUMP based heat/air rear view camera. remote control via cell phone Faster than most 6 cylinder sedans (off the line) leather nav, touch screen, around view (4 cameras) bose stereo
Those features can all be had in lower priced cars. Heated seats is no longer "special", neither is a heated steering wheel. Those features are tossed in (since they don't actually cost much) to try and justify the crazy price it costs.
For $30k, you can buy a Ford Fusion with AIR-CONDITIONED seats, much less heated seats, along with lane departure warning and a whole bunch of other stuff the Leaf doesn't have.
For $20k, you can buy a Ford Focus with heated seats, camera, leather, etc, and it doesn't come with the range anxiety feature the Leaf does.
They're quite popular where I live. I could probably walk out to the parking lot where I work and count 20 or 30 just in the corner of the large corporation where I work. And I happen to know that they are the most popular electric car on campus, with the Tesla Model S coming in second.
That is nice, but that is an anecdote, not data...
The fact that they are popular there and not here means nothing.
What does matter is that the total EV sales is a rounding error. There is a reason it is a rounding error, and even the $7,500 tax credit isn't enough to change that.
If anything other than a tiny, tiny number of people buy that car, those rebates would vanish rather quickly.
The government could increase the rebates to $20k and then your argument would be that the car is a "steal" for only $10k, but how long would that last?
Plus it's got options that MANY $30K cars do not have, let along $20K cars.
Like what? You might try shopping some new cars, you might be shocked what is standard these days.
It's true you can buy a similar sized gas car for far less than the Leaf but then the ongoing cost of ownership is much less so it probably works out to a similar lifetime cost for the two.
It does work out about the same, depending on how far you're willing to tilt your head to make it look the same.
Are there use cases where a Leaf makes sense? Sure. Are they as common as EV fans would have you believe? No.
If it makes sense to you, go ahead and get one. There are two of them in my neighborhood, so someone likes them.
Doing the math, they make no sense for me, and based on the sales numbers, for few other people as well.
From how I am understanding it, the government promised to make changes, and quite possibly was elected at least partially because of their promises. If so, that could possibly be construed as entering into a (verbal) contract, which when they fail to carry out these promises would bring them into the jurisdiction of the courts as breach of contract? This would be a great precident too, if the courts could be used to actually force politican to uphold campaign promises.
How exactly would a court force the government to do this?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but we didn't buy enough F-22s.
The production line is gone, shut down, history...
We have fewer than 200 F-22s. Over time, attrition and accidents will wear that number down. If we have to fight someone who can actually fight back, such as Russia or China, those F-22s will simply be too few to do much.
We'll fall back on our fleet of F-15 and F-16 aircraft, which are still very good, but they will take losses as well.
Had we gone ahead and bit the bullet and bought 500 F-22s, the F-35 would not be such a problem.
---
Frankly, I'd rather have updated F-16s with conformal fuel tanks and the modern block upgrades than what the F-35 is today.
Look up the performance of the AIM-7 and AIM-120 in Iraq in both Gulf Wars and the time in-between.
It isn't bad, but it isn't nearly as good as the press makes it out to be.
BVR also doesn't help when the ROE require visual identification of the target anyway.
A gun with a decent ammo load is still a very useful thing.
WTF?! When was the last time you've ever heard of a dogfight?
The days of air-to-air combat are long gone. And where air-to-air combat is still needed, long range missiles take care of it.
The same was said back when the F-4 was being developed, the first version didn't have a gun for that very reason.
It was a huge mistake and the reason for the creation of the Top Gun school.
Just point and shoot, right? Yea, that works sometimes, until it doesn't.
Bullets (or cannon rounds) don't require guidance that can be jammed.
...except they haven't "wasted a trillion dollars". The trillion dollar figure is for the cost of the plane for it's entire lifetime including the 20 or 30 so years from today it's supposed to remain operational.
Are you sure?
My understanding is that $1 trillion is what has been spent SO FAR in the past 10 years of development.
I'm sorry, this made me crack up because just yesterday I was arguing with a guy who was saying it's NOT the cost of the battery that's killing EVs. He kept insisting it's 'range anxiety' and that they're 'too slow to refuel'. He couldn't seem to understand that a bigger battery would fix both issues*, and the reason they don't put a bigger battery in is cost.
*You probably already know this, but you wouldn't need to charge a 300-600 mile battery as often and as a bonus you can put more watts into it, translating into more 'miles per minute' of charging.
Yes, given a large enough input source, you could add 50 miles of charging to a 500 mile battery really fast, maybe in 10 min or less. Of course household outlets won't do that, but a properly wired supercharger can probably do that.
Of course, such a 500 mile range battery for a 6,000lb SUV would cost... more than my entire SUV costs. :)
So we come back to price being the problem. Make that same battery $5,000 and most of these problems are solved really fast.
Yep, like I said, for the deal you described, I understand why you took it.
I probably would as well, all things considered, if I was looking for that sort of vehicle.
I still maintain that such a deal can't be made widespread, due to the tax dollars being used to make it happen. 16.5 million cars and light trucks were sold in the US last year. Less than 1% of them were EVs. You couldn't have the government providing $10k rebates on millions of cars, so that program has to end if the uptake rises.
Still, it makes sense for you and you can't control all of the above, so more power to you.
BTW, if those numbers were the same without rebates, I think the uptake of EVs would take off like crazy. Price remains the primary problem, besides range of course, for EVs. We're a two vehicle household. Our primary truck is going to be gas for a long time, but we could make an EV work for our second car.
Keep in mind that $200 a month with no downpayment will get you a Ford Fusion, which is a larger car than the Leaf. $150 a month with no downpayment will get you a Ford Focus, which is about the same size as the Leaf.
To be sure, they both use gas, abit not that much. The Focus is quite efficient.
What happens to the Leaf payment on that lease without the $7,500 tax credit? On a 36 month lease, it would add about $220 to the payment, give or take.
So the rest of us are paying half your lease payment for you. Needless to say, that can't happen at scale. It works because the number of Leaf's leased or sold is a rounding error, if they tried to sell 100,000 of them a year that credit would vanish really quickly.
Impressive... If that is a 36 or 39 month lease, then your payment is, give or take, $250 a month or so.
The rebates and subsidies must be very good out there.
It would be interesting to see what the number would be without them, but I imagine you wouldn't have those numbers.
Since you can't control any of that, for the deal you described, I can see why you'd take it, that does seem pretty reasonable.
It would have to be quite a bit more expensive on the front end for the battery required.
Yes, and that is why I said I think we're a long way from that, the price of the battery is the real problem.
Would you be willing to consider a series hybrid?
I'm picturing something with about 30-60 miles of battery range, but also has a 2 or 3 cylinder diesel engine, or maybe even a small turbine* turning a generator providing a very constant output for maximum fuel efficiency. Hell, I once saw an article on a 2 stroke turbocharged diesel that was very efficient and still met EPA standards.
Would I? Sure, if it would do the same work as the current truck.
The challenge is that just yesterday I towed a 5,000lb trailer for 350 miles. My truck can tow up to about 8,000lbs total, and can do it all day.
Can the small engine in the series hybrid do that? Would the regenerative brakes act as engine braking on downgrades? Can the engine pull 8,000lbs up a 6% grade when the battery has run dry?
Honestly, I'm open to the concept, so long as I don't lose those abilities.
The reasoning: Most such vehicles as you describe have massively over-sized engines to get their loads started. You don't actually need much more than an econobox engine to keep it moving on the highway once you reach speed.
You're correct, until you're climbing an extended grade. :) I don't personally do that often, but there are places in Texas that have a 6% grade for short periods of time. If I could command the battery to retain charge for that, it would probably be fine, but the trick is driving in Colorado, I may need grade power for 20 min at times, and I imagine the battery wouldn't last long pulling a combined 14,000lbs up a 6% grade for anything other than a min or two.
Keep in mind that my engine runs on 4 cylinders when it doesn't need the extra power, it gets north of 20 mpg when cruising at 70 mph on the highway, without a load. Put the load behind it and it rarely can do that, fuel consumption goes way up due more to drag than to weight. Yesterday, driving on flat road, I was only getting about 14 mpg due to the drag of the trailer. Normally I can do 20 mpg or better without the trailer.
---
In fairness, the above is perhaps a corner use case, I get that. However people who buy such trucks expect them to be able to do it. That being said, towing RVs, boats, utility trailers, horse trailers, etc is not that unusual. Driving across Texas, a whole lot of pickups and full size SUVs have trailers behind them.
Perhaps it would make more sense to turn stuff like the Ford Explorer and Toyota Highlander into full EVs first, since they are not used to tow nearly as often (but they can, up to 5,000lbs)
As for the maintenance of gasoline cars, I agree, it's a lot less than it used to be. Extended duration oil changes, more durable parts, etc... I remember when I was a kid having to do things like replacing spark plugs at intervals that we today replace the oil on!
Something else to consider...
So many people lease new cars, including EVs.
If you're comparing a 3 year lease on a EV to a 3 year lease on a gas powered car... really, MX isn't even a consideration.
The only think the gas car needs in the first three years is a few oil changes. Many dealers will include those for free at the time you buy your car if you ask for it.
As for the maintenance of gasoline cars, I agree, it's a lot less than it used to be. Extended duration oil changes, more durable parts, etc... I remember when I was a kid having to do things like replacing spark plugs at intervals that we today replace the oil on!
Likewise, I remember doing oil changes every three months, tranny fluid every year or two, etc.
Today? Oil change about once a year, maybe a bit more often, every 10k miles. GM now puts synthetic oil in by default, engine is now designed for it and will no longer run on normal oil. However the dealers are doing a very fair price, my local GMC dealer charges $30 for the oil change, and that includes them providing a loaner. I don't even have to go in, they drop off a loaner at my home, take my truck in, it comes back washed and clean and they take the loaner back. All for $30.
Spark plugs? GM now puts platinum-tipped spark plugs on at the factory, they are rated to 100k miles. Drive belts and engine cooling system? 150k miles or 10 years, whichever comes first.
Honestly, it isn't maintenance free, but it is so low that it isn't a material amount of money compared to the price of the vehicle.
Gas, by far, is the single biggest expense. However, I also drive a nearly 20 foot long SUV loaded with stuff. EVs are simply not an option. An EV version of the Yukon XL would cost well into 6 figures, even with average range. I'd have to drive a LOT to even dream of making that back.
Now, if you could sell a 200 mile range full size EV SUV for about the same price as the gas version, you might have something. But I think we're a long, long way off from that.
I'd be happy to be wrong.
I'm not saying that it breaks even, but a $33k gasoline vehicle is going to be more expensive in the end than a $33k EV.
While that is true, the question is... Is the savings on gas enough to make up for the range issues of an EV?
It might be for a second car, but I have trouble seeing how that becomes the case for a primary car.
Since the primary car is likely to remain gas for some time, it will be a challenge for EVs to become anything other than a small market. Yes, it is true that many homes have two or more cars, but I continue to see this as a solution in search of a problem.
For most people, I think the EV will have to be less expensive than the gas version to attract interest.
Meanwhile they have one that doesn't need oil changes, visits to the gas station, don't smell, etc...
I keep seeing people talk about the maintenance required of gas cars. Really, oil changes are hardly a big deal, neither time consuming nor expensive. The gas station takes 5 min and recharges your car to full. Yes, with an EV, your garage is the "gas station", but if you forget to plug in, it takes a whole lot longer than 5 min to "refill".
Why not instead let's say that the US public buys seven MILLION cars every year, so your analogy is even more useless.
And that is still useless, since the US public bought 16.5 million cars and light trucks in 2014.
"The estimated average transaction price of a new car or truck sold in the U.S. in April was $33,560"
Stop bitching about "expensive" electric cars. These new models from Chevy and Tesla are pretty much the same price as the old fashioned gasoline burning, fume belching models.
Ahh, statistics can be fun!
$33K buys you a LOT of car these days, with a lot of features, including NO range anxiety!
Even at $33K, none of the electrics in that price range compare, which is why they are less than 1% of total US sales of vehicles.
The fact is, the world isn't beating a path to their door, they cost too much and have too many compromises. Sure, hippies and extreme liberals will buy them, but they won't gain mass acceptance until the price comes down and the drawbacks go away.
I'm curious...
What is your payment, what was your downpayment, and what is the buyout at the end?
That is just the government handing me back my own money, it isn't a savings.
And as I have stated on many occasions, if EV sales ever grow to anything more than a rounding error, that credit will vanish.
What is even worse, is that WITH that tax credit, EV sales are STILL less than 1% of vehicle sales in the US.
People don't want EVs, not as they exist today. The sales figures don't lie.
If by tiny you mean 150,000+ because that's how many Leafs have been sold in 4 years on the market, and the numbers go up each year.
Yep, that is tiny...
In the US, all EV sales across all companies was 123,049 cars in 2014.
Total light passenger vehicle sales in the US in 2014 was 16.5 million.
So the percentage of EVs sold in the US was 0.7% in 2014.
That is a rounding error, noise, nothing to get excited about.
Oh sure, I imagine it will continue to rise, it might even be 1% this year, or perhaps next. In 5 years, it might even hit the staggering sum of 3% of total vehicle sales.
It's got heated steering wheel, heated front and REAR seats.
XM radio. USB input. iphone controls. bluetooth.
HEAT PUMP based heat/air
rear view camera.
remote control via cell phone
Faster than most 6 cylinder sedans (off the line)
leather
nav, touch screen, around view (4 cameras) bose stereo
Those features can all be had in lower priced cars. Heated seats is no longer "special", neither is a heated steering wheel. Those features are tossed in (since they don't actually cost much) to try and justify the crazy price it costs.
For $30k, you can buy a Ford Fusion with AIR-CONDITIONED seats, much less heated seats, along with lane departure warning and a whole bunch of other stuff the Leaf doesn't have.
For $20k, you can buy a Ford Focus with heated seats, camera, leather, etc, and it doesn't come with the range anxiety feature the Leaf does.
They're quite popular where I live. I could probably walk out to the parking lot where I work and count 20 or 30 just in the corner of the large corporation where I work. And I happen to know that they are the most popular electric car on campus, with the Tesla Model S coming in second.
That is nice, but that is an anecdote, not data...
The fact that they are popular there and not here means nothing.
What does matter is that the total EV sales is a rounding error. There is a reason it is a rounding error, and even the $7,500 tax credit isn't enough to change that.
Yes. It's $22,500 after rebates.
If anything other than a tiny, tiny number of people buy that car, those rebates would vanish rather quickly.
The government could increase the rebates to $20k and then your argument would be that the car is a "steal" for only $10k, but how long would that last?
Plus it's got options that MANY $30K cars do not have, let along $20K cars.
Like what? You might try shopping some new cars, you might be shocked what is standard these days.
It's true you can buy a similar sized gas car for far less than the Leaf but then the ongoing cost of ownership is much less so it probably works out to a similar lifetime cost for the two.
It does work out about the same, depending on how far you're willing to tilt your head to make it look the same.
Are there use cases where a Leaf makes sense? Sure. Are they as common as EV fans would have you believe? No.
If it makes sense to you, go ahead and get one. There are two of them in my neighborhood, so someone likes them.
Doing the math, they make no sense for me, and based on the sales numbers, for few other people as well.
You don't think a Nissan Leaf for $30K is affordable? Maybe not for everyone but it is for a lot of people.
No, it isn't... You can buy a similar sized gas car for half the price...
You can buy a MUCH nicer car for the same price...
The Leaf is really, really expensive for the size and utility of what it is...
Honestly, in what banana republic do you live?
The United States of America.
Congress has the US Capital Police, one of the few federal police agencies that answers directly to them.
The President has the Secret Service, and of course, he is Commander in Chief of the US Military.
At the end of the day, what the US Marshalls service wants to do isn't the final word. Even the US Capital Police or the Secret Service isn't it.
It always comes down to the military.
Individual civil sanctions just like with any other contract.
Against whom?
Hold the members of government in contempt and jail them for failing to follow a court order?
Who would arrest them?
The members of government have their own security services, do you honestly think you could arrest the entire government?
From how I am understanding it, the government promised to make changes, and quite possibly was elected at least partially because of their promises. If so, that could possibly be construed as entering into a (verbal) contract, which when they fail to carry out these promises would bring them into the jurisdiction of the courts as breach of contract? This would be a great precident too, if the courts could be used to actually force politican to uphold campaign promises.
How exactly would a court force the government to do this?