The internet is abuzz over the White House's threat to veto the Energy Bill, what with Congress failing to hit the Prez' target for alternative fuels (35b gallons by 2017), neglecting to resolve the issue of who controls Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and automotive emissions standards (the Environmental Protection Agency or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) and the unwelcome caveat (at least to coal producing states) that electricity suppliers have to generate 15 percent of their power by 2020 using renewable sources. Meanwhile, The New York Times reports the startling news that legislators have opted for vehicle footprint-based CAFE standards– as opposed to fleet-wide average. As we pointed out back in May, the "sliding scale" footprint-based system is a game changer that completely games the system in Detroit's favor. (As we know footprint calculations would hurt the United Auto Workers, and UAW-supported House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has added union protections to the Energy Bill, it seems likely footprint is a go.) Combine that with ethanol credits and the current methodology used to calculate CAFE mpgs (not the same as sticker mpgs), and the whole 35mpg by 2020 misegos could be nothing more than not a lot more than what we already got. As if you didn't suspect that already.
Find Reviews by Make:
I wish someone would do an analysis of how much it costs taxpayers for Congress and the White House do these little dances where in the end nothing is achieved. Is it really necessary for the government to create fuel efficiency standards anyway? The market should be able to sort out the problem of shrinking supplies. If you are after decreasing green house gases, then tax drivers for the exhaust output of their car and, again, the market will sort it out. Simple.
The automakers are all for the new energy bill, so there must be favorable loopholes breaks, starting with the E85 extension which does jack for fuel economy.
Is the Smart ForTwo doomed under the new footprint rules, or is it small enough to make the cut? And what about the Corvette?
IMO the new CAFE rules aren’t even needed; with or without E85 loopholes. Oil is only going to get more expensive and American are just going to be priced out of less efficient vehicles. Plus ever capricious fashion trends are moving toward smaller more efficient cars anyway.
Government needs to be pared back for many reasons, this being just one of them.
If we actually would read the United States Constitution now and again, and hire leadership who could/would do the same, they, and we, might find that the founders were no dumbells.
What happens if we eliminate all taxation, EXCEPT what the Constitution actually allows for, to run a modest-sized overseer federal government?
Let’s see. Federal Excise Tax. This is a sales tax. Most states have this. Sure, it might raise the price of the basic goods 20% or 25%. So what? Don’t forget, you’re not paying income tax, property tax, ANY other tax. Except.
Import tariffs. The “other” legal means of garnering federal tax money.
What would this do? Well, it would level the playing field. Other countries charge tariffs on imported goods, and in doing so, they allow free competition but also allow for local companies to also flourish (unlike the current situation. Seen any TV’s or clothes made in the US lately? How about electronics? Many so-called Detroit 2.8 cars are from Canada and Mexico, South Korea and other nations.)
This would also mean a hefty tax on the oil imports into the US, raising the price of fuel overall, and easily making it feasible to have US companies actually work out means of alternative fuels. Like maybe wind and solar power and electric cars, for example.
Hey, it’s all possible. We just need the will to fire all the people who refuse to lead us, and replace them with people who will. Oh yes, not only lead us as a nation, but explain what they are doing for everyone as a whole instead of hiding what they are doing for the few, and actually read the US Constitution AND follow it.
This obviously means we cannot re-elect Republicans nor Democrats (except maybe Ron Paul).
I think the CAFE has a pretty good idea going, cars should be mandated for acheiveing 35 mpg per gallon, and realisticly full size trucks with V8’s should be getting at least in the 25- 27 highway…I mean really the old 84-90 vette in it’s hayday was getting better than 25 on the fwy.What I can’t beleive is that the Hummer H2 wasn’t made with a diesel engine , ten miles to the gallon, hell my dodge 4×4 gets that and better and it’s a 3sp 318ci , GM could of had a nice quiet Izsuz motor and respectable mileage for a allwheel drive “Suburban” Heck their Tahoe gets over 21 mpg on the fwy and we’re not at the latest CAFE requirement..
I think CAFE is a good idea just poorly executed. There needs to be a push towards more fuel efficient cars. I mean what would be the end result? Less Chelsea tractors (UK slang for “soccer moms”* taking their children to school and shops. Chelsea is a very rich district in London) on the road, cleaner air and less dependence on foreign oil. Sounds good to me.
What seems to be the problem is no-one can decide how to pull it off. 35mpg? 40mpg? 45mpg? What is reasonable? If there’s no incentive towards fuel sipping cars, then everyone will stay in their SUV’s and clog up the roads. God, I hate those type of people!
How your government draw up the plans for CAFE is another issue. It sounds like you’ve all got more fundamental problems with them!
* = It’s not “soccer”! It’s FOOTBALL!!!!!!
“What happens if we eliminate all taxation, EXCEPT what the Constitution actually allows for”
Just to clarify, the Constitution as amended does in fact provide the authority for the federal government to impose income taxes.
Amendment 16 – Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Regarding the “footprint” allowances, I understand that each manufacturer still has to meet a fleetwide average of 35 mpg, so they can’t just make big vehicles.
And about the 35 mpg itself, does anyone realize this is calculated under the “old old” method, that is, pre-1985? Just this model year, the mileage ratings shown on window stickers dropped by 2 or 3 mpg (more for hybrids). Back in 1985, city mileage as posted on window stickers was arbitrarily dropped by 10% and highway mileage by 22%.
But the procedures for calculating the CAFE standards haven’t changed. So if we do the math, starting with the 35 mpg, subtract 3 mpg, then deduct 15.4% (the 55/45 city/hwy weighted average of 10% and 22%).
Result: a resounding 27.1 mpg, and this doesn’t even account for the E85 “extra credit” sham!
But this all could be a moot point because I read that W may veto the whole thing!
Go Glenn, GO!
jthorner, I believe Glenn was talking about looking at the Constitution before the 16th Amendment. For some strange reason, it seems to me that we passed a lot of poorly written amendments after the first ten. Even the second is perplexing, but after the first ten, many of them were poorly constructed drafts of really bad ideas.
The CAFE thing is a joke. One of the main reasons we have such heavy cars is because of OTHER regulations and interference. One of the main reasons the domestics are in the situation they are in is CAFE in the first place. The government needs to get out of the car business altogether.
“I believe Glenn was talking about looking at the Constitution before the 16th Amendment.”
Then he should of said so. Many folks like to say that income taxes are illegal under the constitution, which is only the case if you ignore the amendments. In fact, federal income taxes are completely legal in the US.
Don’t misunderstand me, I would prefer not having federal income taxes, but the 16th amendment is very clear on this point and is part of the constitution. My opinion or anyone else’s on the wisdom of the various amendments doesn’t change the fact that they are just as much part of the constitution as is the original version. Said original constitution explicitly laid out the method by which the constitution could be changed through ammendments going forward.
The alternative to CAFE is to do nothing. A gasoline tax is political suicide. Is it half assed? Certainly. But there is no other way to accomplish the stated goals.
On another note, the second amendment is completely clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It would be illogical to plop in a state right in the middle of a bill to protect individual rights. As for amendments after the first 10, I would argue that almost all the ones which stand today are excellent. I mean those amendments to end slavery, give women and 18yr olds the vote and protect civil rights were really terrible right?
CAFE rules are, from a practical and economic viewpoint, dumb compared to a tax. But given the current congressional ‘leadership’, what can you do?
Cynics everywhere should note that the bill postpones hard/costly choices. Expect changes and outright reversals by future congresses/legislation if/when things start to sting consumer choice or the auto industry.
On the other hand, I sympathize with many here who think CAFE is a good method to reduce excess SUV numbers. But a stupid idea is still a stupid idea.
I’d prefer better licensing and regulation of drivers of heavy vehicles – but given the public’s attitude of ‘anyone with a pulse deserves a to drive any vehicle they want’ – it ain’t gonna happen.
For all of you that are for a gas tax, why don’t you just take your check books out, write the checks payable to “Waste and pork” and be done with it.
Want a better idea? Get the government to offer up tax incentives for vehicles that get better than . To keep it interesting and to cut down on the whining, bump that mileage figure up 3%/year.
You’d give consumers the incentive to buy the more fuel frugal cars, you’d give car makers incentive to get creative with new technology, and it would hopefully cut down on the pro tax noise pollutants screeching, “tax me more, tax me more!!!”.
Everybody’s a winner!!
A gas tax can be implemented in a revenue neutral manner. For example, a tax cut of X could be implemented where X is the average amount of additional fuel tax a person driving an average vehicle would pay per year. People who drive less or drive more efficient vehicles would find more money in their pockets and those who drive less efficient cars would be discouraged from purchasing another in the future.
As for incentives, how do you propose to pay for them?
The alternative to CAFE is to do nothing. A gasoline tax is political suicide. Is it half assed? Certainly. But there is no other way to accomplish the stated goals.
Cancelling CAFE altogether might not be such a bad idea. The current and proposed CAFE rules promote inefficient vehicles by giving light trucks and huge vehicles partial exemptions.
A gasoline tax may indeed be political suicide, but high prices are coming sooner or later. As others have noted, we could phase out some other taxes while phasing in an a carbon emissions tax.
“Efficient vehicles” is not a goal! Really. Goals are things like “less carbon emissions” and “less use of foreign oil.” CAFE doesn’t do anything to change driving behavior. Driving 1/2 as far achieves those goals just as well as vehicles that are twice as efficient. Merely having more efficient vehicles might actually produce a Jevons Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) and thus work counter to the goals. I’ll save more comment for tomorrow, which I suspect will have an article more suited to this paragraph.
jthorner,
I assumed Glenn is not an idiot, so I assume he knows about the 16th amendment. If you want an interesting bit of history you can look into how our Congress made that mistake. It is a story that repeats all to often in many of our present laws.
KBW,
Please reread the 2nd Amendment. Had they written it that way, we would be constantly trying to fight off an Amendment to change that Amendment. Instead, we have the present battle over what THE clause means.
Without getting out a copy, and going over all the history of all the amendments, I will just say as an example which you mentioned, the freeing of the slaves. Great idea, bad execution. That amendment, has been used for other purposes and reinterpreted several times by several courts.
Please reread the 2nd Amendment. Had they written it that way, we would be constantly trying to fight off an Amendment to change that Amendment. Instead, we have the present battle over what THE clause means.
The meaning of languages changes. The original meaning is clear as day to anyone who knows the historical context. Well regulated means well functioning, the militia at the time is basically all males of military age. It literally means that a well functioning body of armed men is necessary to the security of a free state, and that the rights of the people to own arms shall not be infringed. The problem is that people wish to circumvent it without attempting to pass an amendment. The supreme court has now decided to hear DC vs. Parker, we may get an answer to this in the next few weeks.
Without getting out a copy, and going over all the history of all the amendments, I will just say as an example which you mentioned, the freeing of the slaves. Great idea, bad execution. That amendment, has been used for other purposes and reinterpreted several times by several courts.
That’s completely false. The entire amendment is as follows
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
How much more clear can the amendment be? How would you implement it? It literally just says that slavery shall be banned within the US. The only recent case where it has even come up is a case involving forced labor and illegal immigrants, and in that context I think its entirely appropriate.
“The meaning of languages changes. The original meaning is clear as day to anyone who knows the historical context.”
Well, I guess you settled it then?
Sorry, but had they left out the militia clause it would still be clear. Since they put it in, it never was. Should have been left out. Lawyers were even worse then than now. They should have known.
OTOH, you are right about the 13th. I was thinking about the 14th. They all get clumped together. It’s clear as mud. It has been the center piece of so many Supreme Court disputes that arguing that it is clear is silly. If it were so clear, why does it always end up being argued?
IMO, the legislatures do a really lousy job of writing these things. Everyone one of them thinks that surely we ALL know what they mean. As if every law on the books didn’t suffer from the same malady.