This election cannot be all about unemployment. Talking jobs numbers gets monotonous after a while  (granted, it’s still a very important and necessary issue). And those who are lucky enough to have a job need other reasons not to reelect President Obama. Here’s one the GOP needs to hammer home: Obama thinks consumers are brainless.

On Tuesday, Obama released new EPA rules that plan to double the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks over a period of 13 years. Obviously this is part of liberals’ green agenda (working to keep the temperature stagnant since the 1970s!), so a bogus claim that these new regulations will save the consumer the equivalent to a dollar per gallon of gasoline by 2025 was shackled to it.

“[The fuel efficiency standards] will save American families more than $1.7 trillion dollars in fuel costs, resulting in an average fuel savings of more than $8,000 by 2025 over the lifetime of the vehicle,” the EPA boasts. In reality, of course, these numbers are extremely misleading.  From analysis by the Center for Automotive Research, The Heritage Foundation found that these ridiculous standards could add $10,000 dollars to the cost of a new car. With the proposed EPA savings estimate of $8,000 that leaves each consumer with a loss of $2,000. This effort is a direct attack on the consumer, and proof that another four years of Obama will likely mean more risky energy policies that will hurt you and your family.

There are plenty of other unforeseen consequences to these regulations. Unless consumers drive their new vehicle for its entire lifespan, they are unlikely to see the proposed “saving.” If you don’t plan to drive your vehicle past the 150,000 mile mark, you’ll be even deeper in the hole for purchasing your new government-conditioned vehicle.

Increased fuel-efficiency also means that more vehicles will be using the roads more often. The increased wear on the roads and bridges (President Obama’s favorite things ever) will offset some of the savings. But don’t worry! The additional repairs that will be needed on those roads and bridges will create shovel ready jobs! One would also have to guess that the attempt to lower CO2 emissions would also be thwarted by an increase in automobile use.

Not only is the consumer not going to save money because of these new standards, but there are some real economic problems to these policies that are especially frightening in such uncertain times. An increase in the cost of approved vehicles means that demand for them will go down. Americans will be clinging to their older family cars longer to put off spending more money to purchase a new one. This will, no doubt, put many who work manufacturing automobiles out of work.

The Defour Group projects that Obama’s 56 MPG requirement will lead to the loss of 220,000 jobs. The amount of jobs lost looks more like 300,000 if the administration had gone for the more daunting 62 MPG requirement. These are basic, noncontroversial economic phenomena, but the president can’t be bothered to learn about them because they aren’t as emotionally engaging as the story of a mother polar bear stranded in the middle of the ocean because you and I prefer to drive cheap cars that use cheap fuel.

These obnoxious government regulations may even lead to an increase in the production of automobiles that tend to be less efficient in fuel consumption, like trucks and SUVs. Information uncovered by the Detroit News found that foreign automakers are likely to spring to make more light duty trucks “because it would be easier to meet the new requirements— than building more passenger cars.”

Any time consumers are faced with challenges from an industry their go-to method of solving said challenges is choice, not government involvement. Fuel efficiency is a very important element in purchasing a car, and the consumer’s desire to go farther on less gas has led the market to provide them with over 160 automobile models that get 30 MPG or higher. You may say that it is because of the government’s standards that the market provided these improvements, but to say that is being willfully ignorant of how the market works. Without government involvement, we’d have plenty of fuel-efficient vehicles if the consumer wanted them (those automakers who refuse to compete and make vehicles with greater gas mileage would lose business to their competitors who make what the consumer wants).

The reason the cost of these new ObamaCars is so expensive is because the consumer isn’t demanding them, the government is. Even though fuel-efficiency is an important factor, it isn’t the only factor. If people don’t want a car with 56 MPG, they’re not going to demand one. In 2010 only 4-percent of car buyers chose cars with 30+ MPG. Many chose to purchase trucks and SUVs instead. Why? Who cares! The point is that, left alone, the market will provide what the consumer wants at market price (not the artificially high price you get from government).

As consumers of one of the most megalomaniacal federal governments ever, it is our duty in November to choose to fire the man who can’t mind his own business or find the time to stop and think how his policies might hurt instead of help the American consumer. So I get to choose what I want: a car the size of a shoe box that can drive to the moon and back on a half a tank of gas or a truck big enough to haul Todd Akin’s ego. The EPA doesn’t need to tell me how many miles I want to get out of a gallon. I’m not a child. As long as the government thinks it knows more about what I want than I do, its efforts to provide me with it will only artificaly jack up the price for everyone.

Keith Fierro | California StateUniversity | @kjfierro