General Motors is looking to replace it's own buying incentives with tax money. We're about to subsidize GMC again. (Djplong; It looks like you touted the success of the government's "success" in saving the car industry and then backing off a mite too early)

The U.S. taxpayer is going to be turned into automatic rebate provider. The Obama Administration is looking to turn the $7500 tax credit for the purchase of those unpopular "green vehicles" into an instant "point of sale" tax rebate immediately payable to the buyer by YOU.

There's more in the complete story linked, including the fact that Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who represent the state where GM's headquarters are, is sponsoring this bill, that is also supported by the "Eaton Corp." which is the sole American producer of car recharge systems, and "Battery Electric Vehicle Coalition", a lobbying group for the electric car industry.

Oh, if it makes you feel better about this, you should also know that V.P. Joe Biden loves this idea. He gushingly declares it will be as great as the "cash for clunkers" program.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...-capitol-hill/

Originally Posted by RichieLion

...The U.S. taxpayer is going to be turned into automatic rebate provider. The Obama Administration is looking to turn the $7500 tax credit for the purchase of those unpopular "green vehicles" into an instant "point of sale" tax rebate immediately payable to the buyer by YOU....

While I'd like this idea to be a part of a more comprehensive energy policy, and have the rebate idea be a somewhat more permanent one, overall, I think the approach is a good one.

I'm not at all certain that $7,500 is the right number. It could be too high or too low. But if such an incentive will drive the car companies to produce more fulel efficient and/or electric cars, and have a long term influence on the public to buy them--then I'm all for such a program.

All I'd ask is that if this is such a lousy idea, what's a better one to drive the public towards buying cars which consume less gasoline and reduce the requirement that we import more and more foreign oil?

Richie: I'm going to say this respectfully. Which way would you want it? There are many here who decrie the fact that we don't have an energy policy to get us off of imported oil. IMO, this is a VERY justifiable criticism of EVERY administration back to Nixon.

So here we have a policy of a tax rebate encouraging purchase of a vehicle that consumes FAR less gas than most - and in the "average" daily situation consumes *NO* gasoline. (The "average" is that the overwhelming majority of Americans drive less than 30 miles per day).

So now the proposal is to "speed up" the tax rebate from your Form 1040 to the actual point of sale. I believe this is A Good Thing. Why? Because now the buyer has to come up with the $35K bottom line for the car instead of financing $42K and getting the tax rebate. [This also makes it more affordable for people who might not have that much in taxes due but are saving up for such a car] As far as the government is concerned, it's a wash. Just a matter of timing for the $7500.

In my case, I drive 60 miles r/t for my commute 9 workdays out of 10. From what I'm reading, 35 miles seems to be the 'real world' all-electric range of the Volt. So I can be using less than one gallon of gas per commute. Right now, I use 2-2.5 gallons per commute. Buying this car could cut my gas consumption IN HALF. (I already cut it by a third when I went from my old Intrepid to my Camry in '06)

Mind you, this doesn't do much for GM's bottom line because they sell FAR more numbers of OTHER vehicles. The Volt is (I hope) the wave of the future but it has to start somewhere. Like lots of other electronics, early adopters pay a premium and this seems to be no exception. Advances in ultra-capacitors and other technologies will hopefully combine with scaled manufacturing to cut the cost of these vehicles.

So here's a policy that helps cut foreign oil dependence AND promotes domestic manufacturing. That SHOULD be a Good Thing, yes?

Originally Posted by djplong

Richie: I'm going to say this respectfully. Which way would you want it? There are many here who decrie the fact that we don't have an energy policy to get us off of imported oil. IMO, this is a VERY justifiable criticism of EVERY administration back to Nixon.

So here we have a policy of a tax rebate encouraging purchase of a vehicle that consumes FAR less gas than most - and in the "average" daily situation consumes *NO* gasoline. (The "average" is that the overwhelming majority of Americans drive less than 30 miles per day).

So now the proposal is to "speed up" the tax rebate from your Form 1040 to the actual point of sale. I believe this is A Good Thing. Why? Because now the buyer has to come up with the $35K bottom line for the car instead of financing $42K and getting the tax rebate. [This also makes it more affordable for people who might not have that much in taxes due but are saving up for such a car] As far as the government is concerned, it's a wash. Just a matter of timing for the $7500.

In my case, I drive 60 miles r/t for my commute 9 workdays out of 10. From what I'm reading, 35 miles seems to be the 'real world' all-electric range of the Volt. So I can be using less than one gallon of gas per commute. Right now, I use 2-2.5 gallons per commute. Buying this car could cut my gas consumption IN HALF. (I already cut it by a third when I went from my old Intrepid to my Camry in '06)

Mind you, this doesn't do much for GM's bottom line because they sell FAR more numbers of OTHER vehicles. The Volt is (I hope) the wave of the future but it has to start somewhere. Like lots of other electronics, early adopters pay a premium and this seems to be no exception. Advances in ultra-capacitors and other technologies will hopefully combine with scaled manufacturing to cut the cost of these vehicles.

So here's a policy that helps cut foreign oil dependence AND promotes domestic manufacturing. That SHOULD be a Good Thing, yes?

I don't like the idea of helping you pay for your car. The Federal Government is going to give $7500 to present to GMC for every person that buys these cars that the people have shown they have little interest in in order to get them to buy them. It doesn't sit well with me. If they were attractive products, this would't be necessary.

I don't like the idea of the taxpayer being used to prop up an expensive product people didn't want, and the company that manufactured it due to government's original duress.

I don't like the idea of these electric car charging systems companies lobbyists filling the pockets of politicians to get this law, you like, passed.

These cars now become one more drain on our already overtaxed energy grid that the same people who love these cars refuse to allow to expand.

This is all about Corporate money now. The government forced the hand of the auto companies and now the government is trying to ease their burden on the back of the taxpayer as usual.

This doesn't pass the smell test with me.

Consumer Reports gave the Chevy Volt, the Govt. Motors car this bill is mainly being written for, a very poor review. We are being used to save GM's investment cost at taxpayer's expense. A good product should sell itself.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industrie...sumer-reports/

Originally Posted by RichieLion

This doesn't pass the smell test with me.

My guess is not much does.

needs to become foreign oil independent. It is a short term incentive with "some" energy use impact. The future based on oil consumption is as precarious and potentially debilitating as ever.
And these guys know we will not do anything to intereupt their cash flow:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7fa28b96-5...#axzz1I5zW1YxL

btk

Originally Posted by DaleMN

My guess is not much does.

Please add to the conversation. Your comment directed at me, and not the topic, does not.

Richielion, I happen to agree with your position regarding the cash rebates. I take umbrage at the thought that my tax dollars are going to ventures such as this one. Worse yet we have a double whammy because the government subsidies production of electric and hybrids vehicles. Yet experts will tell you that electrics are actually are less efficient ( e.g. batteries inefficient in cold weather not to forget their weight) and create more carbon dioxide (coal to generate the electricity). Electric cars also require replacement of batteries in 7 years or so ($20,000) Essentially what we have is an environmentalists moral victory over the science of thermodynamics.

In my view we have all the natural resources available domestically to fuel our economy for the next two hundred years. All we need is a sensible energy policy and the will and courage of our politicians to let the oil industry free to explore both oil and gas. It will never happen because we have made this issue too political.

"All we need is a sensible energy policy and the will and courage of our politicians to let the oil industry free to explore both oil and gas."

Unfortunately our politicians are ALL under the thumbs of the oil producing nations for one reason or another. I am afraid their concern of the impact of our independence on them INSTEAD on the needs of our country. How very unfortunately.

Even the Russians were smart enough to begin drilling and are now exporting to participate in the growing export revenues.

If we are not addressing the obvious how there be any HOPE for anything that might be more complex?

It is past time for a regime change in America.

btk

Originally Posted by rubicon

...In my view we have all the natural resources available domestically to fuel our economy for the next two hundred years. All we need is a sensible energy policy and the will and courage of our politicians to let the oil industry free to explore both oil and gas...

I won't opine on whether we have enough oil reserves to last 200 years. I don't know one way or the other about that. But I do agree with you that this country needs our elected leaders to formulate a long-term, overarching energy policy designed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and over time reduce our consumption of oil, period.

What our government is doing is encouraging the absolutely wrong behavior by both consumers as well as the U.S. oil companies. In another post here, I explained how the money we're spending on military actions to protect the flow of oil from the Middle East costs U.S. taxpayers about $2.00 a gallon. Said another way, our government is subsidizing the continued use of gasoline by essentially interfering with the free market's ability to properly price oil.

Through thru military force we've been able to keep the oil from the Middle East flowing. As the result, there is little economic incentive on the part of the U.S. oil companies to extend the effort and spend the money to actually explore and drill and pump it from U.S. reserves. It's a whole lot easier and more profitable for them to simply buy oil from Saudi Arabia, have it refined offshore in places like Aruba, then bring it here and sell it in gas stations. Why should they incur the additional cost to actually drill and pump it from our own reserves, when as much oil as they need is available from tankers coming from the Middle East? And our government is making sure that continues to happen.

So going back to Richie's original criticism of the electric car rebate program, I still think the idea of using government money to influence the behavior of consumers and private sector companies is a good thing. The problem is they way we have been spending U.S. taxpayer's money--hundreds of billions for the military to run around the Middle East with little recognizable purpose other than to "maintain regional stability" to assure that the oil keeps flowing thru the Suez Canal and ultimately into our gas tanks--is government intervention in the free market that is a whole lot more offensive than a piddly rebate program.

Like a lot of things, our government has this all bass-ackwards, just like a lot of things they do.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I won't opine on whether we have enough oil reserves to last 200 years. I don't know one way or the other about that. But I do agree with you that this country needs our elected leaders to formulate a long-term, overarching energy policy designed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and over time reduce our consumption of oil, period.

What our government is doing is encouraging the absolutely wrong behavior by both consumers as well as the U.S. oil companies. In another post here, I explained how the money we're spending on military actions to protect the flow of oil from the Middle East costs U.S. taxpayers about $2.00 a gallon. Said another way, our government is subsidizing the continued use of gasoline by essentially interfering with the free market's ability to properly price oil.

Through thru military force we've been able to keep the oil from the Middle East flowing. As the result, there is little economic incentive on the part of the U.S. oil companies to extend the effort and spend the money to actually explore and drill and pump it from U.S. reserves. It's a whole lot easier and more profitable for them to simply buy oil from Saudi Arabia, have it refined offshore in places like Aruba, then bring it here and sell it in gas stations. Why should they incur the additional cost to actually drill and pump it from our own reserves, when as much oil as they need is available from tankers coming from the Middle East? And our government is making sure that continues to happen.

So going back to Richie's original criticism of the electric car rebate program, I still think the idea of using government money to influence the behavior of consumers and private sector companies is a good thing. The problem is they way we have been spending U.S. taxpayer's money--hundreds of billions for the military to run around the Middle East with little recognizable purpose other than to "maintain regional stability" to assure that the oil keeps flowing thru the Suez Canal and ultimately into our gas tanks--is government intervention in the free market that is a whole lot more offensive than a piddly rebate program.

Like a lot of things, our government has this all bass-ackwards, just like a lot of things they do.

Our military actions adds $2.00 a gallon to the price of gas? You've got to stop devouring all the propaganda from the anti-oil activist web-sites which are the only sites I could find that state this subjective and unsubstantiated statistic. I'd like a provable direct link from one to the other before I buy that conclusion.

The "piddly rebate program", as you call it, is coming from the same over-bloated government that spending funds my great-great grandchildren will still be paying for.

The Government has NO MONEY. It only has what it forcibly takes out of our pockets. Now it wants to give people that money to buy cars they forced the automaker to produce for a populace that does not really want them. All to prop up a private business and a friendly Union which it has already given preference to over the stockholders in that now Government subsidized (read taxpayer subsidized) corporation.

All U.S. Refineries are working above capacity, so of course we're importing refined product into this country. What other choice do they have when the same Devolutionist Activists (formerly known as Environmentalists) and their lawyers working with an activist judiciary in conjunction with like minded anti-capitalist politicians block any plan to build and upgrade the current refineries and derail plans to drill for domestic oil. They're going to fill the wants and needs of the consumer any way they can.

If the "Free Market" is going to run efficiently, all the government has to do is GET OUT OF THE WAY.

Richie: The bill was not written specifically for the Volt. The Nissan Leaf qualifies for rebate money. In the past, MANY cars qualified for tax credits and some of those have been phased out because so many cars have been sold. The list goes on and on - the Prius being the most popular but we also have the Fusion and Escape hybrids from Ford (with the C-Max and Edge hybrids coming). Some of the technology from GM's older "mild hybrid" cars is ending up in many more cars (like 'start stop' technology). Toyota also has the Camry and Highlander hybrids. Honda has had theirs. Chrysler DID have a good development program but that was trashed in bankruptcy and is being retooled. Never mind the fact that we also have Teslas on the road with Fiskers on the way.

The public DOES now want these cars. That's why there is a waiting list for them.

4 cylinder gas models and diesels that get every bit as good mileage using an existing infrastructure. The incentives, if there has to be any in the first place, should include all technologies that provide less need for oil based fuels.

As gasoline prices increase above $4 we Americans get very pro active for something to be done. And when it goes back to $2 we go catatonic, fat and happy and satisfied with nothing being accomplished other than a price reduction. Consumption continues and will continue to grow. Just look at what we accomplished in the last forty years...we doubled the amount of foreign oil needed.

Incent the development of the new technology and at the same time exploit the technology we know so well.

btk

Originally Posted by djplong

ay.The public DOES now want these cars. That's why there is a waiting list for them.

If you're right about that, we don't need this rebate program. Thank you for finally agreeing with me.

It they're good products that people want, they'll sell themselves.