Energy Bill fails again in Senate by one vote, new vote set for later today
Earlier today, the U.S. Senate voted on the new Energy Bill that was recently passed by the House of Representatives before failing to get enough votes on the Senate floor its first time around. Today the bill again failed to pass in the Senate's hallowed hall by a single vote. The end tally was 59-40, which means Democrats much have changed a few minds since the first vote was 53-42. But all hope is not lost for the Senators who want to get this bill passed. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said that $21.8 billion in new taxes will be removed from the bill and another vote will take place later today. The hope is that by dropping the taxes, the bill will curry favor with at least one more politician who was previously unwilling to vote for it before. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has already confirmed that House would pass a new version of the bill sans the $21.8 million in taxes, which tells you just how much Democrats want this bill to land on the President's desk.
So what gets left behind in order to get the new Energy Bill passed? The Detroit News reports that the revised bill will not include $1 billion in consumer tax credits for buying plug-in hybrids, and will nix a 20% tax credit for people who convert their vehicles into plug-in hybrids. What remains of the bill, however, is its core piece of legislation that will raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020. The White House has repeatedly stated, however, that it plans to veto the bill if it passes both houses of Congress. And the saga continues...
[Source: The Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
bill 2:31PM (12/13/2007)
This is a misnomer. It is not an energy bill - it is a do with less energy bill and do with less efficient energy bill. We have no chance to have clean efficient and affordable energy sources so long as our government continues to muck around like the morons they have demonstrated they are.
Reply
mike 2:34PM (12/13/2007)
Yeah blame the government.....i am sure you believe that automakers have nothing to do with US being dependent on oil, and doing everything humanly posible to stop those who try to solve the problem
bill 2:40PM (12/13/2007)
Mike, I do blame the government for our dependence on foreign oil. When is the last time our government authorized expanding our domestic supply of oil as one means of curtailing the purchase of foreign oil? As for the automakers, they have a nasty habit of selling what people want to buy. It is a disgusting practice that must be stopped.
Jon B 4:31PM (12/13/2007)
"As for the automakers, they have a nasty habit of selling what people want to buy. It is a disgusting practice that must be stopped."
Uhh... have you gone to business school? Isn't that what businesses do, sell what the people want and make a profit while doing it?
If people really cared about the environment then they would rise up and all buy Yaris or Fits or Priuses or whatever, but to tell people that they have to buy these sluggish, uninteresting, low horsepower cars is completely crazy. Tell the people the facts and let them decide, in the meantime, I'll keep driving my Corvette because I don't give a crap and don't think man is to blame for this 'global warming' phase just as much as man was responsible for the cooling of the Earth in the 70's.
Mondo 4:33PM (12/13/2007)
Jon, I think Bill was being facetious.
bill 4:41PM (12/13/2007)
Jon, Mondo is right. I was being facetious. I am facetious much of the time because I can't afford a Corvette. If I could afford a Corvette I would buy a Mitsubishi Evo X. I appreciate your sentiments; and, no, I have not gone to business school. Had I gone to business school I probably could afford a, oh never mind.
Jon B 5:01PM (12/13/2007)
My bad...
John R 2:12PM (12/13/2007)
this is kinda semi-retarded to me. wouldn't make more sense to give tax credits to cars with fuel economy close to 35-40, hybrid or not? the more people are encourge, the more the market shifts in a green direction.
whatever...
Reply
The Other Bob 3:07PM (12/13/2007)
Yes, it would make more sense. Considering hybrids and small cars are unprofitable, a tax credit could allow companies to increase the price and make it affordable and profitable.
CEMan 3:08PM (12/13/2007)
Tax credits only go to big business don't ya know..
Little people PAY taxes...
Speddy 4:46PM (12/13/2007)
Well, who will pick up the tab for all the used batteries (caustic, toxic and hazardous materials)?
Plus many consumers that are buying hybrids like the Prius, are disillusioned at the resulting mileage they are getting versus what they were told. And since the cars are marked up more than a better MPG car (vs Corolla or Civic), the tax credit is a wash or loss to the Fed.
I'd rather see dealerships get levied for their deceptive sales tactics and poor service, then some tax credit of $1000 to some "Green" hippie or senior citizen that drives 10MPH under the limit, during rush hour, in a no-passing lane.
mike 2:28PM (12/13/2007)
I wonder how much did GM Ford and Toyota spen on lobbying
Reply
FThorn 2:29PM (12/13/2007)
Well, free market capitalism, which is what the USofA was built on, would say to remove government regulations altogether, and let the market decide. Not sure where in the constitution it lays out government's role in deciding what you drive.
Reply
CEMan 3:07PM (12/13/2007)
They are not deciiding what you should drive. Have they for the last 25 years? We have had CAFE that long you know.
Try sticking to FACTS and not BS talking points.
CEMan 3:10PM (12/13/2007)
The constitution does not give coportations the same rights as poeple. But, we have that now. No right to an income tax, but we have that now. No right to spy on you, but we have that now.
Mondo 4:31PM (12/13/2007)
Free market breaks down when exposed to negative externalities. Pollution is the classic negative externality. Free markets rely on gov't intervention to prevent negative externalities. It's the same idea behind making restaurants smoke-free.
CEMan 3:04PM (12/13/2007)
This is not quite accurate. What happened is the CLOTURE vote failed to get the needed 60 votes. Then it goes to a floor vote which only needs a simple majority.
The republicans keep blocking cloture on this and coutless other bills. As in 'filibustering'. As in, the poeple who were against the filibuster when in power are now using it to stop floor votes.
I think there is a word for that...
Reply
calebe 3:01PM (12/13/2007)
I love School House Rock
Reply
bill 3:04PM (12/13/2007)
"California and at least 12 other states to impose a 30 percent reduction in tailpipe emissions by 2016 -- a move that would require passenger cars to average 43.7 mpg by 2020." Great! keep voting democrat and watch your rights go poof. But all of this is for your 'own good'.
Reply
Darren 3:07PM (12/13/2007)
Bill
If you want to blame the DEMS, why haven't your resluglicons done a damned thing aobut it in the last ten years? THey have been in power you know.
Could it be that they could care less about you and me? Could it be you have been sold a bill of goods by these corporate whores? I did not buy it but it sounds like you have. Too bad for you dude! Reality bites eh?