What People Think
 |
 |
48% For, 52% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
S. 357, The Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act
Revision History 
Below is the revision history of this article.
(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)
No revisions found.
Savings per :
Learn More
Trackback URL: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/trackback/110_SN_357.html
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
liberty
How does mandating businesses do something that government has decided is correct save me money??
Frank
All the gov't has to do to improve fuel economy is stop subsidizing the petroleum industry. Per-dollar fuel taxes should be at least twice as high as they are now. That would drive consumers to seek relief through improved-mpg vehicles and deter wasteful usage.
Bruce
I agree with Liberty, I question the calculation that says this legislation would save money. I would save money if I bought a cheap economy car, true. I will save less if the government forces it on me and the automotive industry.
Frank - do you know what subsidize means? That is when the government pays part of the bill. They do not do that for petroleum, as you yourself point out the current fuel taxes. Several alternative fuels, hybrids, etc. however ARE subsidized.
Forno
I looked at the Congressional Budget analysis that's linked above. I think it's what they use to make these estimates. And it says that gas taxes would go down by a lot because less gas would be sold - that's where the savings come from. But it doesn't say what the costs are that would be imposed on auto manufacturers, which obviously go right to auto buyers. So there are savings, but they come at an unknown cost.