This isn't meant to start a discussion on the subject, just
a re-confirmation of my general disappointment with the Congress
in general.
Its funny how these bills always "sound" great... let's see a little
old grandmother drives her 1970 Buick in and receives a new car
minus the $1500.00 credit.
What's wrong with this picture?
1. whats the mpg of early cars? Early cars weren't EPA rated and
at some point the rating technique changed... we can form a new
agency to administer this... $$
2. where did the $1500 credit come from? Seems that was the money
that was supposed to go to the Feds, the U.S. public just paid
this lucky grandmother $1500, more deficit or more taxes...
3. "Accumulating these credits ... flexibility in meeting the federal
standard" the manufacturer is supposed to be MEETING the CAFE, not trying
to obtain credits against future penalties, seems this defeats
the intent of the CAFE in the first place.
4. this seems to encourage the selling of more cars which do not
meet the CAFE, now we have 10 more years of bad mileage NEW cars
on the road vs. a couple of old clunkers.
5. average car life is something like 10 years anyway, so the
pre-80's cars will shortly be headed to the junkyard.
6. seems this encourages the average "joe" to drop by the salvage
yard, pick up a junker (with un-credited VIN) for $100, have it to
towed to the dealer and collect $1500 trade-in... could be a business
opportunity here...
Oh, one other item, how many 40 mpg cars have you seen lately, and can
you see the grandmother in one?
Besides, anyone with a calculator can tell you that there is already
a STRONG financial incentive to trade in 10 mpg for 40 mpg, at 15k
miles/yr. and $1.25/gallon that's 1500 gallons vs. 375 gallons or
a savings of $1406.25 per year, at a 30% marginal income rate, you
just received a $2,008.93/yr raise.
And think of the time you save at the pumps just waiting for the other
1125 gallons to flow into the tank.
Yeah, Senator Roth, great idea???, see you at the next election...
Roger
|