Posted by Glenn Strickler on 2/20/09 1:15pm
Msg #278236

More on the "Inefficient Vehicle Bill"

Here is the text of the bill as before the House.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h520/text

I have been following this for two years. The only reason that the mandatory participation clause has been taken out of the bill at this time is the work that car clubs, used car dealers and a lot of members of the general public. I just began posting in general forums about it now is that it has a real chance of passing in the dead of night and those mandatory provisions being put back in during the conference committee process to reconcile the two versions of the bills. We need to defeat this thing totally, in my opinion.

The original bill had a few provisions, two of which Congressman Henry Waxman has vowed to put back into the bill when it reaches conference committee.

· The program is voluntary for vehicles 7 to 10 years old. After 10 years, the states would charge a $200.00 surcharge on the annual registration fee on older vehicles to encourage owners to participate. If the states would not comply, they would lose part of their federal highway fund allocation
· Owners of vehicles 10 or more years old would not be able to sell their vehicle to a private party unless the vehicle was a certified antique and driven less than 1000 miles per year. Presumably that was to buy off people like me (I own a 1967 Mustang). Now who was going to certify the vehicle as an antique and in the long run, this would mark the end of the classic car market, as no future cars would survive to become classic or antique cars.

Even if passed in the voluntary form, it would dry up affordable cars for those who are not high wage earners in any case. The program begins at 7 years and in many cases, would give government money (borrowed from China, I presume) in excess of what the car might be worth. So many people will take the government bribe. Those of you who have kids getting ready to drive, what kind of car will they drive? The average age, according to the AAA, is 7.3 years. Hell, my newest vehicle is a 2001, so it is in the ballpark. Personally, I drive my vehicles until the wheels fall off. I can’t afford to buy new cars every 4 years.

So yes, the program will be voluntary for now. But even if you buy that, and given the mindset of the committee members in congress and Waxman’s pledge to make the program mandatory after it passes both houses and goes to conference committee, you need to ask yourself “Do we need to borrow billions of dollars more to fund this program?” This bill has it's roots in the human caused global warming frenzy.
It has nothing to do with vehicle efficiency. I can get into the physics of the whole thing, but l'll save that for another post. Suffice to say I won a bet with a relative who owns a Prius over who's vehicle emits fewer emissions in a California Smog Check.


Do any of you think that we need more free market government intervention?

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 2/20/09 1:17pm
Msg #278237

Ooops, sorry. I'll repost in politics .... n/m

Reply by jba/fl on 2/20/09 1:30pm
Msg #278239

Since many don't go to Politics, it is good that

you posted here. Everyone, EVERYONE, needs to call, write, fax their state and US rep/Senators - anyone and everyone who will listen. This is critical for us all. My 2005 was to be my last purchase for a long time, very long. We love older cars, also driving well beyond 3-4 years. This could be another travesty.

See you in politics forum...

Reply by trnsa_IL on 2/20/09 1:55pm
Msg #278249

So true...I for one will! n/m

Reply by CopperheadVA on 2/20/09 2:45pm
Msg #278257

Thanks for posting this. I have a 1994 Geo Prizm that has 253,000 miles on it and I drive it to all my closings. It still looks good and is still plugging away so I continue to drive it. Not to mention that it is cheaper to insure than the car my spouse drives, which is a 2006 Acura TL. I almost had a coronary when we got the first insurance bill! And yes we have teenagers and we bought a great used 2007 Honda Accord with only 60,000 miles on it for them to drive.

My family is making great progress working to get out of debt and we will be keeping our older cars - charging us $200 per vehicle will certainly be a great reward for those who are trying to live within our means (NOT!).

Reply by CopperheadVA on 2/20/09 2:53pm
Msg #278259

Oops - that should have said 1997 used Honda Accord! n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/22/09 6:27pm
Msg #278444

Once more rewarding people for what appears to be bad decisions. Those of us who have acted in a way that today looks responsible, don't qualify for any vouchers or assistance. I'm still driving a '96 Camry that pretty consistently gets around 22+ mpg, and always has. Doesn't fit into the "low efficiency" category, so according to this bill, my tax dollars should go to pay for someone else to replace their low-mileage monster SUV?! I'd love to get a $1500 voucher towards the purchase of a new or newer car!

It'll never happen because it wouldn't help change people's driving habits short term, but wouldn't it be great if, for once, the people who sacrificed to live within their means and who made good decisions in relation to the environment were the ones who got rewarded for a change? I know this should probably go in "Just Politics", but I try to stay away from there for the most part. Just a flight of fancy, anyway...