Sometimes it stinks to have a crystal ball.
The US House just passed a "cash for clunkers" bill that awards an auto owner up to $4,500 "for trading in their older vehicles for new, more fuel efficient transport." (HT: Glenn Reynolds)
I didn't know that such legislation was even being proposed, but my June 2 posting, "Tax on owning older cars will be next," I predicted three government steps that would ultimately penalize people who hold on to old cars. The first, much higher MPG requirements, had already been dictated by President Obama. Here was the second:
2. Announce tax credits for cars older than X years taken off the road. We'll also be told that it's patriotic to buy a new car to help save the environment and rejuvenate the domestic auto industries.While not precisely a tax credit, the voucher is money from the government that (presumably) is not subject to income tax, and so amounts to much the same thing. But wait, there's more:
The bill, which passed 298-119, drew overwhelming support from automakers, local business groups and dealers who claimed the passage could boost sales – further aiding GM and Chrysler's "reinvention" – during the economic downturn.We gotcher patriotism right here! And then:
Dealers are required to provide proof that the vehicle (1984 MY or later) has been crushed or shredded, and the government estimates that around 25 million vehicles are eligible.Which leads to my last prediction: the next step will be "tax penalties for hanging on to cars older than so many years." Just wait for it. And remember, you heard it here first.
BTW, if all 25 million eligible autos are awarded the maximum of $4,500, you and I will be further in hock to the amount of $112,500,000,000. Which is more evidence (as if any were still needed) of what I pointed out a long time ago,
Governance in America today means nothing much more than who benefits from the money funnel that we call the federal government. Whether Left or Right, whether Democrat or Republican, the only real questions of American government and governance are, "'Who will be be the beneficiaries of government spending? How much shall we exact from the public for it, and by what means?"Every day we learn a new answer.
Posts
7 comments:
The administration's idea is that adding a massive health-care program this year can fix the broader budget problems. If that sounds too good to be true, there's a reason. To voice your opinion visit http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/takeaction/index.cfm?ID=380
An automobile embodies considerable energy which was consumed in the making of the steel and other materials it contains and also in the fabrication and assembly process and transportation to the dealer? How much energy is wasted when a functioning car is scrapped? How does it compare with the energy saved by use of a more energy-efficient new car?
What are the chances that any members of Congress were curious enough to ask the above quiestions?
Dav id, why are you under the illusion that your questions are even remotely relevant to the government? The goal is not energy conservation or emissions reduction, not at all. The goal is increasing control over more and more aspects of the way we live. The goal is to remove choices from our hands and dictate from on high.
David: Granting all of that, the notional goal here (bracketing Rev. Sensing's points for the moment) is to reduce oil consumption, not "energy use" in some generic sense.
Congress is doubtless quite happy to trade a blob of electrical power (coal, hydro, NG, nuclear) for lessened gasoline consumption.
(I don't know that I agree with them that it's worth the tradeoff - even if we ignore the tax burden - but trading one kind of energy expenditure for another can be sensible, even when the total expenditure increases.
After all, not all sources of energy are equivalent in cost, practicability, side-effects, and political implications.
Especially since the production energy cost of a new vehicle is a one-time expenditure, but vehicles in use are a continuing fuel expenditure...
I'd agree that it's none of Congress' business, though, and they shouldn't do it - but because it's outside of the scope of their duties and proper powers, not because it might use more energy in total, while shifting the consumption around.)
Sigi...you have more confidence in the intellectual depth of the politicians than I do....I'd bet 50% of our Congressmen actually believe that oil is a primary fuel for U.S. electricity generation.
Donald,
I am glad that there are still some people that can see past the 'green' trend... what most consumers think is intended as saving the environment is really on meant to enrich pockets of those who are in power... I was raised in a country that is drowning in socialism, and no one benefits but the government. People are so busy with everyday crap that no one pays attention to what's really going on... keep up the good work.
-Tanya
while this was suppose to be for consumers, it is not. scams abound, buyers beware. check this : http://butasforme.com/2009/07/17/cash-for-clunkers-the-ultimate-bait-and-switch-marketing-tool/
Post a Comment