CNN Story

 

Oh jesus, that's ridiculous. It sounds like a cheap election year political ploy. This is just a chance for the RNC to put out ads saying, "We wanted to give you $100, but Senator X voted against it. Vote Senator Y and get your free $100 check!"

Maybe if these jerks raised CAFE standards (without exceptions for SUVs) we wouldn't be in this mess now.

 

What's that, like, one week's worth of gas for an Escalade????? For me, its about 2 month's worth.....mmmmm....

 

I don't like it because it does not encourage fuel conservation. Tie the rebates to buying more fuel efficient vehicles, installing solar roofs, etc....

 

We shouldn't even call it a rebate. It's a bribe. It's the same strategy they used for their gigantic tax-cut (we'll give you $300 if you let us gut the nations infrastructure and balloon the deficit).

What if I've ridden my bike all year and haven't used any gas, do I still get a check? If so, it's not a **** rebate!! And how are they going to cover the cost of the rebate? With our own tax money.

 

I completely agree with Chuck. The spirit of the rebate is that this is a short-term crisis that just needs temporary help. In fact, it encourages behavior that only serves to exacerbate our problems! Any financial incentives should be tied to conservatory efforts.

Personally, I think the whole thing is:
A) an election year GOP ploy
B) subtext for reintroducing the ANWR drilling idea, which (frightfully) may stand a better chance due to all this recent fuel fear

 

If they pay for it by raising the top tax rate to 39% to pay for it, fine by me. No tax rate increase, no way.

Bob Wilson

 

The rebate (bribe) would be a lot like peeing on a forest fire.......and by the way, doesn't all or most of the crude that comes from Alaska go to Japan and and Asia??? So what's the point in drilling for more of it if we can't use it here???

 

Dave is absolutely right. Election year ploy, just to give some people in tight races a sound bite in their speeches that will 'hit home' with the voters. Basically, it's an attempt by the Republicans to hijack the whole issue before midterms. One of three things will happen, and the results are really skewed to some lousy possibilities.-

1- It'll pass. Those fanatics (or should I say stubborn, one-track-minded, blinded-by-the-short-term sycophants?) will have finally have found a way to cram the ANWR drilling down the throat of an American public that's firmly against it for many substantial reasons and has been fighting this off with great fortitude and success for five years now. Money we can't afford will be wasted to reimburse people who shouldn't be consuming as much as they do, giving everyone the perverse incentive to increase consumption (depending on how it's structured, either by buying more gas or buying more cars). This would be the worst case scenario.

2- It'll stall. It won't come up for a vote at all. This will be the best case scenario, because it'll lead to the usual round of fingerpointing (they wouldn't let us bring it to a vote! X betrayed the public, Y sabotaged this important plan, Z doesn't want you to have cheaper gas and a check in the mail) which will get lost in the noise, although it still lets the sponsors get lots of free soundbites in an election year about their brilliant plan to give back to their poor constituents in this time of energy crisis by stuffing money in their pockets.

3- It'll fail. The anti-ANWR senators will come through again - they've been fantastic about this so far, but usually not in an election year. This would be a mixed bag- it would prevent the worst measures but probably leave us without the few good ideas in the mix. Although the Democrats have a competing proposal (to repeal rebates for oil companies, improve CAFE standards and suspend the federal gas tax for two months but leave out the rebate and ANWR), it has no chance of passing.

Odds are that if this bill gets voted down, moderates in close races will get burned come November by attack ads characterizing their vote against this as anti-environmental. Either way, it lends fuel to the fire (no pun intended) about what to do about gas prices and the oil industry, and camoflauges the fact that the Republicans consistently fought against other common-sense steps that could actually address the problem, instead of providing window-dressing for it like this would.

 

The rebate creates all the wrong incentives for all the wrong reasons. If anything good is coming from the whole oil price/gasoline price increases is that it is marginally sending the right signals to the market. To be honest gasoline prices should be substantially higher if one takes into account 1) the pollution cost it imposes and 2) the cost of securing the resource from political unstable areas.

The other problem. It is a sham of a mockery and a mockery of a sham. As a bribe it presumes that the american people are cheap
rubes. I don't like being played for a sucker.

Norris