I have read the proposed bill, and I am especially in tune with this argument:
At 09:48 AM 12/13/01 -0800, Richard Feibusch wrote:
>....
>----- Original Message -----
>....
>7 Section 803 of S. 1766 does not require states to determine the fuel
>efficiency of vehicles being scrapped or that scrapped vehicles are being
>replaced by more fuel-efficient vehicles.
>....
This leave open the distinct posibility that many 15 year old or older
econo-cars could be subsidized to be replaced with less fuel efficient new
cars. Just imagine how many people are just dying to replace their old
junker with a nice new SUV, and the government might pay them to do
it. The only stipulatin on fuel economy is that the "proposed" new
replacement car should get better than average fuel aconomy (better than
the CAFE standard?). And there are two proposed subsidies, one for the
scrappage of the old car, and one for the purchase of a new car. This
allows for (at least) two counter productive opportunities. A.) Some 40
mpg econo-car can be scrapped and replaced with a 28 mpg new car, and the
prior owner can collect both subsidies. B.) Some older car of any fuel
economy range can be scrapped and replaced with a 9 mpg new SUV, and the
prior owner can still collect the first subsidy.
Bummer. IMHO the people most likely to take advantage of this would be in
either of these two situations, so the subsidies would actually be
encouraging the switch to less fuel efficient cars. People with low
efficiency old cars already have an economic incentive to switch to a
higher efficiency car (now or not). It's called Fuel Savings. If they
wouldn't switch just for the fuel savings, it's not likely that the
subsidies would have much affect on these people, other than just to scrap
an old car.
$.02,
Barney Gaylord
|