Posted on 07/26/2006 4:35:24 AM PDT by Brilliant
WASHINGTON -- House lawmakers, sensing that fuel prices will be a top voter concern in the fall elections, are rushing out two energy bills that would fund projects to develop alternative fuels or ease reliance on imported oil.
With only about 25 legislative days remaining before Congress adjourns, the chances of either bill passing Congress are slim. House Republicans said they will try to pass theirs in September. Democrats say that their bill will be used to rally voters for elections...
House Republicans are renewing a push to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas exploration. They say the government would receive billions of dollars in royalty payments and bonus bids from companies that want to drill in ANWR that could finance an "Energy Independence Trust Fund." The fund would provide tax credits to help reduce the risks of companies that build plants to make cellulosic ethanol or liquid fuels derived from the nation's abundant coal reserves.
Rep. Devin Nunes (R., Calif.), a lead sponsor of the bill, said that over a decade or more, ANWR could generate as much as $40 billion in federal payments...
Meanwhile, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D., Md.), the second-ranking Democrat in the House, unveiled a bill to spend billions of dollars in the next 10 years to develop cellulosic ethanol and a national ethanol distribution system; expand municipal rapid-transit systems; and give U.S. auto makers grants...
Rep. Hoyer described the measure as a program "akin to the Manhattan Project" that developed the atom bomb in World War II. The measure calls for a national commission to develop proposals... As yet, Mr. Hoyer said, the Democrats haven't worked out how they would finance the measure.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
or drilling offshore or any other kind of drilling. OUr "leadership" in congress is driving the bus off the cliff with everyone on board.
2) All well and good, but if a truck can't do the job it is as useful as a teat on a boar. That means you need a bigger truck, and that means more fuel used. Fuel prices are killing the SUV now. Look for people to purchase more economical vehicles in their next purchase cycle, and some have already traded in the SUV on something more economical.
3)Pretty regressive tax, imo. The people who can least afford the newest technology will be hardest hit--and their income taxes won't be reduced much, if at all (because they make too little). People who don;t make a lot still have to get to work, and many do not live where there is public transportation (think small-town America).
4)Let the market do that. If there is a profit to be made,it will be.
5)Already happening. MTBE is on the way out because the liability waivers were not renewed. It is a hot potato.
6) I agree fully, at least reduce the number of boutique blends.
Lawyers like theologians love to hear themselves talk. The energy shortages to come(and already here)are not going to be solved by pols running off at the mouth. Doers DO, losers TALK. If congress had to compete in the open marketplace they'd have been OUT of business 50 years ago...
Consumption taxes are regressive, but perhaps there is a way to mitigate that.
Frannkly, I am in favor of repealing income taxes and enact the FAIRTAX.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.