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 Spy: Chevy Volt caught on set of Transformers 2
Spy Shot: Production interior of Chevy Volt (maybe)
Rumormill: Lexus LF-A... Stillborn?
Ford reveals 2010 Mustang badge
REPORT: Chrysler may sell Dodge Viper rather than kill it
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Nissan Murano
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Dodge Journey R/T
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Jeep Compass Sport 4x2
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Porsche Carrera S
First Drive: 2009 Honda Fit Sport
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
John R @ Dec 13th 2007 2:12PM
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...
The Other Bob @ Dec 13th 2007 3:07PM
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 @ Dec 13th 2007 3:08PM
Tax credits only go to big business don't ya know..
Little people PAY taxes...
Speddy @ Dec 13th 2007 4:46PM
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 @ Dec 13th 2007 2:28PM
I wonder how much did GM Ford and Toyota spen on lobbying
FThorn @ Dec 13th 2007 2:29PM
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.
CEMan @ Dec 13th 2007 3:07PM
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 @ Dec 13th 2007 3:10PM
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 @ Dec 13th 2007 4:31PM
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.
bill @ Dec 13th 2007 2:31PM
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.
mike @ Dec 13th 2007 2:34PM
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 @ Dec 13th 2007 2:40PM
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 @ Dec 13th 2007 4:31PM
"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 @ Dec 13th 2007 4:33PM
Jon, I think Bill was being facetious.
bill @ Dec 13th 2007 4:41PM
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 @ Dec 13th 2007 5:01PM
My bad...
calebe @ Dec 13th 2007 3:01PM
I love School House Rock
CEMan @ Dec 13th 2007 3:04PM
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...
bill @ Dec 13th 2007 3:04PM
"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'.
Darren @ Dec 13th 2007 3:07PM
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?