A common trick in congress is to call something what it isn’t. Tonight, I have been scanning some les of recent bills before congress. One of them I found is HR 6. The long le is:
“To reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes.”
link in pdf format
Now when you read this bill, it is actually a tax bill. It taxes domestic oil at $9.00 per barrel and gas at $1.25 per million BTU’s. These are at 2005 dollars and adjusted accordingly. It also repeals some older agreements.
The last part of the bill simple speaks of the additional funds this generates to be part of a fund called the ‘‘Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewable Reserve’’.
I don’t know about anyone else, but it seems to me congress spends too much money in these areas already. All they are doing is creating an extra tax, which will raise our fuel prices, to maybe fund more research into renewable energy. There are companies searching for alternatives. They simply are not cost effective. I don’t see how redistribution of money is going to do anything substantial to help.
isnt that what the greenies want? To make us not want to buy gas guzzlers and to influence the industry toward producing more fuel efficient vehicles?
Seems the only way to persuade the avg Dad not to buy his princess a Hummer/Tahoe/Navigator is to make them ridiculously expensive to own.
WC's ideological robot-think: every tax is evil.
Taxing oil and gasoline, to make it an expensive addiction, to reduce consumption is the best way to get industry and consumers to switch to alternatives, because America only follows the $$$.
Taxing landed oil reduces consumption and keeps the more of the nation's wealth inside its borders rather than in Russian, Iranian, Venezuelan treasuries.
Instead of being smart, the corrupt, less, balless, spineless US Congress, owned by the corps, does like this:
====================
Senators Try to Limit Fuel-Efficiency Rules
By Sholnn Freeman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 14, 2007; D01
Allies of the U.S. auto industry stepped up a campaign yesterday to soften strict vehicle fuel-efficiency mandates in proposed energy legislation before the Senate, even as momentum for the tougher measures continued to build.
Sens. Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow, the two Democrats from Michigan, and Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) are leading the effort to craft an amendment that opponents say would water down measures already approved by the Senate Commerce Committee.
The Senate bill's current provisions would require automakers to meet combined fuel-efficiency targets for cars and trucks of 35 miles per gallon on average by 2020, with 4 percent annual increases from 2021 to 2030. Levin wants 36 mpg on average for cars and 30 mpg for trucks by 2022, without further increases. The final text of Levin's proposal has not been released.
Midwestern lawmakers are under pressure back home -- especially in Michigan, where downsizing by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler has contributed to a three-year-old, one-state recession.
At a news conference yesterday, Levin and Stabenow expressed frustration that some senators overlook what effect the fuel-economy mandate in the proposed bill could have on the auto industry.
"Michigan has been hurt very badly," Levin said, "The bias that exists here against the American automobile industry is a hurdle."
( Toyota is hurting Michigan worse than fuel efficiency standards. )
Stabenow complained about a meeting this week in which senators were simply "throwing out" fuel-efficiency figures, some as high as 40 mpg. "These numbers at some point become arbitrary," she said. "There's not a context based on what's achievable."
( hey , go look at gas taxes and fuel efficiency ratings in other countries. USA is World Champion Efficiency Loser )
A vote on the Levin-Bond amendment is expected next week. Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), who is opposing the auto industry, said this week that he thought there were enough votes to defeat the attempt to weaken the legislation.
Stabenow said the vote could be close. "We don't pretend we have it in the bag," she said. "We know it's going to be tough."
To win support, Levin yesterday said he dropped a provision that opponents had "mischaracterized" as a loophole that would allow auto companies to cir vent new rules. A Senate staff member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said leaders of the push for an amendment were making changes to make it more palatable to Senate colleagues.
Auto lobbyists said they were encountering stiff resistance on Capitol Hill. They said they felt like the industry was being punished for what one called the "sins of the past" -- successfully beating back attempts to make major changes to the nation's vehicle mileage laws.
One lobbyist said lawmakers and their aides expect automakers to deliver new vehicles that are the same size as today's but consume less fuel.
Yesterday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) defended the current bill, arguing that it would provide flexibility for automakers. "There are all kinds of dire warnings," Feinstein said. "The fact of matter is that Detroit has done nothing about mileage efficiency for the past 20 years, and the time has come."
.
Hmmmm, 20 years, goes back to the dimm-o-crap days,
doesn't it. When they had control of the WH and both
houses. Yeah, thought so.
"Taxing landed oil reduces consumption and keeps the more of the nation's wealth inside its borders rather than in Russian, Iranian, Venezuelan treasuries."
Strange way of looking at things. Since you are so set on using
tax money for everything. I suppose you send them all your
money every month and ask them for allowance, right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote