It's tempting to call the shameful taxpayer subsidy for electric cars - vehicles that are unaffordable for all but a small number of wealthy Americans - this nation's costly little secret.

Once again, the regulators in California have decided to lead the nation in terms of vehicle emission standards, proposing to require that 15.4 percent of all vehicles sold by 2025 must be electric cars, plug-in hybrid cars, or (currently non-existent) fuel cell cars.

The private sector is entirely capable of developing EVs and other new automotive technologies without the need for subsidies.

Let’s say that you were a politican with a GM Volt and turned it into an icon of your administration. And let’s also observe that despite giving people (most of whom are wealthy) a whopping $7,500 subsidy to buy a $40,000 car, your union- and government-controlled car company couldn’t sell enough of them to justify keeping the assembly line open. What would you do?

There are some ideas that, no matter how often they rise and how spectacularly they fail, just won't go away. Perpetual motion machines, for example. Passive exercise machines. Diets that work. These technologies sound great in theory, but don't seem to pan out in practice. Add to the list, electric (or largely electric) cars.

Banter is AEI’s weekly podcast series, where hosts Stu James and Andrew Rugg sit down and talk with leading thinkers and political commentators on a wide range of policy topics. True to its name, Banter keeps the conversation fun, entertaining, and interesting for anyone with an interest in politics and policy.

There are no good arguments for using government coercion to force electric cars into the U.S. fleet. But there are many arguments against this crusade.