Posted on 05/14/2011 5:45:17 PM PDT by mnehring
Republicans in the House of Representatives are flocking to support a bill to extend and create a number of taxpayer-funded subsidies for manufacturers and buyers of vehicles powered by natural gas. Nearly eighty House Republicans (and a hundred Democrats) have signed up as sponsors of H. R. 1380, the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act (or NAT GAS Act). Just call it the T. Boone Pickens Earmark Bill.
Many conservative Republicans in the House, particularly a number of new Members with Tea Party connections, have sworn that the fiscal and economic crisis confronting America requires a radical change in federal policies. Out-of-control spending must be stopped; spending earmarks must be abolished; crony capitalists on the prowl for corporate welfare must be sent packing; subsidies for special interests must be abolished; government must stop interfering in the economy and let free markets work.
That big talk doesn’t seem to apply when the spending is being earmarked for a crony capitalist who is one of the biggest contributors to Republican candidates in history–billionaire T. Boone Pickens. Apparently, some subsidies are good if they benefit the right special interests. And government interference in the economy is wonderful if it is done in the name of reducing oil imports.
H. R. 1380 would extend the tax credit of 50 cents per gallon of liquid natural gas (or its equivalent of compressed natural gas) when used for fueling vehicles and provide purchasers of natural gas vehicles with credits ranging from $7,500 to $64,000. The lower end is for passenger cars and the upper end for big trucks. There are also credits for natural gas vehicle manufacturers and for installing natural gas fueling stations.
Why are billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded subsidies needed? According to T. Boone Pickens’s web site, it’s because natural gas vehicles are cheaper to operate than gasoline or diesel vehicles: “Even with higher initial costs (which will disappear as manufacturing ramps up) the life-cycle costs of NGVs [natural gas vehicles] are significantly lower. Fuel costs are at least 15 percent less using natural gas rather than gasoline or diesel.”
So people need to be paid in order to make them want to buy vehicles that will save them money. Yes, that makes sense: I always prefer the more expensive product unless there is a government rebate for the cheaper one. Call it the Boonedoggle bill.
As for getting us off foreign oil, this claim is trotted out to support every payoff to special interests in the energy sector. It’s a claim for which little evidence is ever produced. What will reduce our dependence on foreign oil is producing more of it in this country. What the bill will do is increase demand for natural gas, which will tend to increase prices for natural gas, which means a big payoff for T. Boone Pickens, who has invested heavily in–you’ll never guess–natural gas.
It’s sad to look at the list of conservatives who claim to be principled who have signed up to support the Boonedoggle. Here’s the complete list of Republican sponsors as of today. The chief sponsor is Rep. John Sullivan of Oklahoma. Most surprising and perhaps most disappointing is Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who claims that he votes against everything that isn’t in the Constitution. I seemed to have missed the section of the Constitution that allows taking billions of dollars from taxpayers to give to fatcat billionaires and corporate welfare queens. Call it the Pickens-Your-Pocket bill.
This stampede by conservatives, including several freshmen who identify with the Tea Party, to support the T. Boone Pickens Earmark Bill makes a mockery of their claims to want to cut federal spending, eliminate subsidies to special interests, and get government out of people’s lives. We’re very close to returning to business as usual in Washington.
You can fill it at home. Palm Springs, CA Sun Bus line has been on Natural gas for nearly 20 years, they have sold home conversion kits for at least that long.
A tax credit is not the same thing as a subsidy. I would love to see as many tax credits given as possble. The more money kept out of government hands and in private hands, the better.
Same result, tax money taken from one group and given to another for the purpose of engineering behavior. The only difference is one is front loaded and one is back loaded. The bill also gives pretty much a blank check for grants for R&D.
I agree that there should not be grants, but I don’t think tax credits are bad. You are assuming that the government is going to keep taking the same amount (probably a correct assumption), and then, yes, someone else would have to pay more. But the solution is not to deny tax credits, but to cut spending. Until that is done, the government will just continue to suck up more and more of everyone’s money. So, yes, I do think it is better to keep as much as possible out of the hands of greedy politicians.
Oh, and the bill does have subsidies under the guise of ‘incentive programs’ for manufacturers, Section 202. It makes LNG qualify for the same auto company subsidies as they get for other ‘advanced technology vehicles’.
*sigh* I should have known.
No, never been towed.
There is no gasoline back-up on this truck.
Lack of filling stations is one reason the truck is only driven locally.
The fellow who had the conversion done was required to remove the gasoline tanks by the county in order to be “Smog legal”.
I got the truck when he moved to a state that would not allow it to be registered there, I think his daughter said Texas, might have been Arizona?
I have obtained original gasoline tanks, cannot wait to put them back on and toss the #@&%! Propane system.
The engine is a rebuilt 305 V8, gutless on propane.
I have much stronger running 225 V6’s, on gasoline!
I only bought this truck as it was dirt cheap, no one wanted it without a gasoline capability.
If Nat. Gas will meet your personal performance/hauling needs, you may as well just go electric.
Paul is against the tax code , therefore using it to give a tax credit that will promote an industry , market or activity is in line with his philosophy.
T. Boon Doggle?
Not every thing will be converted to natural gas. Diesel is still the fuel of choice because of its energy content for trains and heavy trucks. For trucks above 3/4 ton, factory options will be limited because of power. AFAIK Ford only did 1/2 ton trucks because of the reduced power from NG.
Small economy cars with high enough mileage on gasoline don’t make sense to convert because of the reduced space for a CNG tank.
Thanks for the heads up.
I will defer to others to speak for themselves but I would observe that several of us (most of us) who are severe critics of the Galveston nutcase have taken a rather consistent attitude of wait and see on Rand Paul who, so far, seems verrrry much more rational than his imbecile father. There is little point in blaming the son for the windtunnelness of his idjit father. If Rand continues to be responsible as a leader and legislator he will be a worthy successor to Jim Bunning and deserves our best wishes.
Here in Nevada, and other states I am sure, the tax folk set up a number to call for the purpose reporting your neighbor for making bio-diesel at home.
They really want those taxes, I’m sure the same number would be used to report a person home fueling with CNG.
With a minor reward offered, that number may be more of a growth industry than the alternate fuels!
The proposed miles driven tax is our reward (punishment) for electric and any other vehicle that avoids the current tax collection structure.
I would not be surprised to see them auditing CNG compressor sales to find buyers to prosecute for tax evasion.
“None of the above” would be the correct answer.
ping
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.
