Tag: Oil

Amusing

Fuel Tax Could Be Replaced With a By-the-mile Road Tax

Lets’ see… with this tax people who live in rural areas (Red States) will be taxed excessively as many have to drive numerous miles to go to work and to buy groceries or any kind of supplies.

Legislation like this along with all the changes we have see over the last several months are readying this once great country for a Second American Revolution. We have fought to make this country free and we will have to do so again. Just a word of advice to all that cherish freedom and still love this country; keep your guns ready and tell Obama he can keep his “Change”.

The year is 2020 and the gasoline tax is history. In its place you get a monthly tax bill based on each mile you drove — tracked by a Global Positioning System device in your car and uploaded to a billing center.

What once was science fiction is being field-tested by the University of Iowa to iron out the wrinkles should a by-the-mile road tax ever be enacted.

Besides the technological advances making such a tax possible, the idea is getting a hard push from a growing number of transportation experts and officials. That is because the traditional by-the-gallon fuel tax, struggling to keep up with road building and maintenance demands, could fall even farther behind as vehicles’ gas mileage rises and more alternative-fuel vehicles come on line.

The idea of shifting to a by-the-mile tax has been discussed for years, but it now appears to be getting more serious attention. A federal commission, after a two-year study, concluded earlier this year that the road tax was the “best path forward” to keep revenues flowing to highway and transportation projects, and could be an important new tool to help manage traffic and relieve congestion.

The decision by the 15-member National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission was unanimous, which surprised Robert Atkinson, the group’s chairman. But he said it became clear as the commission’s work progressed that a road tax on miles traveled was the best option.

“If you’re committed to the system being improved then it was a no-brainer,” he said.

The commission pegged 2020 as the year for the federal fuel tax, currently 18.5 cents a gallon, to be phased out and replaced by a road tax. One estimate of a road tax that would cover the current federal and state fuel taxes is 1 to 2 cents per mile for cars and light trucks.

The commission said work needed to start soon to prepare for a road tax. But more work has already been done than most people probably realize.

Oregon did a field test in 2007, concluding it was possible to collect a road tax. The University of Iowa’s Public Policy Center — with support from the Federal Highway Administration and 15 states, including Kansas and Missouri — began work a decade ago on how a road tax could be deployed.

Now the University of Iowa, with the help of a $16 million federal grant, is beginning the field test that will eventually include 2,700 vehicles in six states. The vehicles equipped with computers and GPS devices will keep track of the miles traveled and send the data through wireless technology to a billing center that will compute “simulated” tax bills.

“There is a lot of work nationally going on that is beneath the surface,” said Pete Rahn, director of the Missouri Department of Transportation.

Missouri, like the federal government and other states, has been watching revenues from the gas tax decline. Last year that revenue was down more than 3 percent, and so far this year it has declined a similar amount. The state’s highway budget was about to “hit the rocks,” he said, but federal stimulus funds gave it some breathing room.

Even when the economy recovers, the gas tax will remain under pressure.

“The Chevrolet Volt won’t pay a penny of fuel tax,” Rahn said of the electric car that will make its debut next year.

Rahn, past president of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, said some states have considered implementing a road tax without waiting for the federal government to act, but a national system would probably work best.

Source…

Amusing

House passes “Cash for Clunkers” Bill to Boost Car Sales

First it’s the carrot, then it’s the stick. STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY. JUST DRILL FOR OIL… problem solved!

The House on Tuesday approved a “cash for clunkers” bill that aims to boost new auto sales by allowing consumers to turn in their gas-guzzling cars and trucks for vouchers worth up to $4,500 toward more fuel-efficient vehicles.

President Barack Obama has encouraged Congress to approve consumer incentives for new car purchases as part of the government’s work to restructure General Motors and Chrysler. The House approved the bill 298-119.

Supporters pushed for the measure to stimulate car sales and increase the fleet of fuel-efficient vehicles on the nation’s highways. The auto industry has sought the incentives after months of poor auto sales. In May, overall sales were 34 percent lower than a year ago.

“Stimulating sales is the only way to get the auto industry back on its feet,” said Rep. Donald Manzullo, R-Ill.

General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC have received billions of dollars in government aid and the entire auto industry has watched car sales plummet during the past year. In May, overall sales were 34 percent lower than a year ago.

“Our industry has been stuck in neutral and really has not started to move,” said Larry Kull, president of Marlton, N.J.-based Burns Kull Automotive Group, which includes General Motors, Honda and Toyota dealerships.

The vehicle scrappage bill has been under negotiations for months as lawmakers try to find a solution that boosts car sales while providing some environmental benefits. Proponents have pointed to similar programs in Europe that have enhanced auto sales.
Opponents said the bill failed to include incentives for used vehicles and represented an artificial incentive for the industry.

“It’s defying the laws of economics and saying we can manufacture enough of a demand to keep the auto industry afloat,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

Separately, House and Senate appropriators were discussing providing $1 billion to a supplemental war funding bill for the “cash for clunkers” program, which aims to generate about 1 million new auto sales. Since the yearlong vehicle program is expected to cost $4 billion, lawmakers would attempt to find the additional money later this year.

Under the House bill, car owners could get a voucher worth $3,500 if they traded in a vehicle getting 18 miles per gallon or less for one getting at least 22 miles per gallon. The value of the voucher would grow to $4,500 if the mileage of the new car is 10 mpg higher than the old vehicle. The miles per gallon figures are listed on the window sticker.

Owners of sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks or minivans that get 18 mpg or less could receive a voucher for $3,500 if their new truck or SUV is at least 2 mpg higher than their old vehicle. The voucher would increase to $4,500 if the mileage of the new truck or SUV is at least 5 mpg higher than the older vehicle. Consumers could also receive vouchers for leased vehicles.

Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, the bill’s chief sponsor, said the bill showed that “the multiple goals of helping consumers purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, improving our environment and boosting auto sales can be achieved.” Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., has backed a similar version in the Senate, which has the support of automakers and their unions.

The bill would direct dealers to ensure that the older vehicles are crushed or shredded to get the clunkers off the road. It was intended to help replace older vehicles — built in model year 1984 or later — and would not make financial sense for consumers owning an older car with a trade-in value greater than $3,500 or $4,500.
The U.S. industry is expected to generate about 9.5 million vehicles sales in 2009, compared to more than 13 million in 2008 and more than 16 million in 2007.
Auto analysts questioned whether it would be enough of an incentive for many consumers burdened by debt or financially stressed by the troubled economy.

“That is the major sticking point for Americans: How do you finance your vehicle? How do you pay for it?” said Rebecca Lindland, an auto industry analyst for the consulting firm IHS Global Insight.

A group of senators led by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein were pushing an alternative version that would require consumers to trade up for more fuel-efficient cars and trucks to qualify. They complained that even a 2009 Hummer H3T, which gets 14 mpg in city driving and 18 mpg on the highway, could qualify for the incentives under the House bill.

Under Feinstein’s plan, a passenger car owner’s trade-in would need to get 17 mpg or less to qualify and only new passenger cars getting at least 24 mpg would be eligible. Owners could receive a $2,500 voucher for a new car that gets at least 7 mpg more than their old car. The voucher would increase to $3,500 for new cars with a 10 mpg improvement and $4,500 for new cars with a 13 mpg increase in fuel efficiency.

Source…

Amusing

Nukes Are OK For Iran, But Not For Us?

As usual, Liberal inconsistency reveals that their true motivation is the destruction America.

Nuclear Power: If Iran has “legitimate energy concerns” that make its nuclear plants OK, doesn’t the energy-starved U.S.? Why doesn’t Iran, with the second-largest proven oil reserves, just build some refineries?

Normally, a nation with significant oil resources that decides to develop nuclear power would and should be praised for its prudence. Nuclear power is an emission-free domestic form of energy that is good for the environment and the economy.

Except when it’s a country that builds missiles instead of refineries and pledges to wipe a neighbor off the face of the earth.

Iran says it’s developing nuclear power to generate electricity while it waits for the 12th Imam and the apocalypse to arrive. To hasten the process, however, it is using its nuclear knowledge to amass fissile material necessary to build a bomb. It’s developing missiles to deliver that bomb, presumably somewhere in the heart of downtown Tel Aviv.

Our new administration is trying to talk them out of it, and the Iranians are quite willing to drag out the conversation as long as it takes to develop their nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it.

“Although I don’t want to put artificial timetables on that process,” President Obama has said, “we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we’ve actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious.”

Unfortunately, Iran by the end of the year should have enough weapons-grade material to make a bomb, if it doesn’t have enough already. One thing we can measure is the increasing number of centrifuges they have spinning. They are not designed to keep the lights on in Tehran.

It would seem to us that encouraging Iranian use of nuclear energy in any context is the last thing we should be doing. In a BBC interview broadcast on Tuesday, President Obama said:

“Without going into specifics, what I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region.”

This echoes remarks made in Prague last month, when the president said his administration would “support Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections” if Iran gives up its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

But it hasn’t, and the race is already on. Iran state television interpreted these remarks as recognizing “the rights of the Iranian nation,” by which it means its right to develop nuclear power unencumbered.

That Iran is not serious about peaceful nuclear energy is shown by its refusal to build the refinery capacity needed to eliminate its dependence on imported gasoline. That money instead has gone to buying more centrifuges and expanding nuclear facilities. If Iran’s energy aspirations were legitimate, it would be building refineries and not bombs.

The irony here is that at the same time we are encouraging Iran to exploit the peaceful uses of nuclear power, we are discouraging its use here at home. We have legitimate energy aspirations as well, and one of them is reducing our dependence on imported oil from countries that do not have our interests at heart.

We let billions flow overseas and domestic oil resources from the Chukchi Sea to ANWR to Western oil shale to the Gulf of Mexico go unexploited. We have one thing in common with Iran: We’re not pushing refinery construction here either.

We prattle on about nuclear power being costly and nuclear waste being a danger without a safe place to store it even as we shut down Yucca Mountain, a perfectly safe place to store it. We place all sorts of regulatory and environmental impediments in its way.

Why is nuclear power a viable energy source for Iran but not for America?

Source…

Amusing

Ethanol’s Grocery Bill

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that using food for fuel is an incredibly stupid idea.

The Obama Administration is pushing a big expansion in ethanol, including a mandate to increase the share of the corn-based fuel required in gasoline to 15% from 10%. Apparently no one in the Administration has read a pair of new studies, one from its own EPA, that expose ethanol as a bad deal for consumers with little environmental benefit.

The biofuels industry already receives a 45 cent tax credit for every gallon of ethanol produced, or about $3 billion a year. Meanwhile, import tariffs of 54 cents a gallon and an ad valorem tariff of four to seven cents a gallon keep out sugar-based ethanol from Brazil and the Caribbean. The federal 10% blending requirement insures a market for ethanol whether consumers want it or not — a market Congress has mandated will double to 20.5 billion gallons in 2015.

The Congressional Budget Office reported last month that Americans pay another surcharge for ethanol in higher food prices. CBO estimates that from April 2007 to April 2008 “the increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices.” Ethanol raises food prices because millions of acres of farmland and three billion bushels of corn were diverted to ethanol from food production. Americans spend about $1.1 trillion a year on food, so in 2007 the ethanol subsidy cost families between $5.5 billion and $8.8 billion in higher grocery bills.

A second study — by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality — explains that the reduction in CO2 emissions from burning ethanol are minimal and maybe negative. Making ethanol requires new land from clearing forest and grasslands that would otherwise sequester carbon emissions. “As with petroleum based fuels,” the report concludes: “GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions are associated with the conversion and combustion of bio-fuels and every year they are produced GHG emissions could be released through time if new acres are needed to produce corn or other crops for biofuels.”

The EPA study also explores a series of alternative scenarios over 30 to 100 years. In some cases ethanol leads to a net reduction in carbon relative to using gasoline. But many other long-term scenarios observe a net increase in CO2 relative to burning fossil fuels. Ethanol produced in a “basic natural gas fired dry mill” will over a 30-year horizon produce “a 5% increase in GHG emissions compared to petroleum gasoline.” When ethanol is produced with coal burning mills, the process “significantly worsens the lifecycle GHG impact of ethanol” creating 34% more greenhouse gases than gasoline does over 30 years.

Both CBO and EPA find that in theory cellulosic ethanol — from wood chips, grasses and biowaste — would reduce carbon emissions. However, as CBO emphasizes, “current technologies for producing cellulosic ethanol are not commercially viable.” The ethanol lobby is attempting a giant bait-and-switch: Keep claiming that cellulosic ethanol is just around the corner, even as it knows the only current technology to meet federal mandates is corn ethanol (or sugar, if it didn’t face an import tariff).

As public policy, ethanol is like the joke about the baseball prospect who is a poor hitter but a bad fielder. It doesn’t reduce CO2 but it does cost more. Imagine how many subsidies the Beltway would throw at ethanol if the fuel actually had any benefits.

Source…

Amusing

OBAMA = O-BOW-MA!

Barack Obama paid his respects to two very different monarchs. Watch the American President give a slight head nod to the UK’s Queen Elizabeth, and then practically touch the toes of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah.

Ed Anger says, Obama = O-BOW-ma!

I’m madder than a spitting camel at our new Communist-in-Chief!

First he goes to England, gives the Queen records of his own speeches, and lets his wife hug the old broad! (Like I said last week: at least Michelle didn’t try to give the Queen the fist bump!)

But then it got worse. The Teleprompter Kid met some A-rab king and bowed down to the guy! He didn’t bow to the Queen, did he? OK, the Queen doesn’t have billions of gallons of oil on her land, unless you count the vats of grease they cook their food in. But Sarah Palin has billions of dollars of oil on HER land and Obama would rather eat raw moose meat than bow to Sarah!

The A-rabs should be bowing to US! They use our army because they don’t have their own since the Israelis wrecked their old one. The A-rabs are good at chopping each other’s heads off for stealing a falafel, but they couldn’t win a fight with Jerry Seinfeld?

All A-rabs do all day is put on their weird Snuggie outfits and go shopping for diamonds and Cadillacs. The only smart thing about A-rabs is they don’t let their women drive, and if you’ve ever been in a Wal-Mart parking lot, you know that’s a good idea!

That’s who Obama bowed down to? If you can’t be bothered bowing down to the offspring of a bunch of homely, hemophiliac Krauts, why curtsy to the grandson of some illiterate desert bandit wearing a tea towel?

That’s what were getting for the next four years, my fellow Americans!
When the spacemen land in DC, expect Obama to kiss their little green feet!

Source…

Load More