What really amazes me is the fuel economy thing coming up, yet again, only to be defeated, again. The arguments are fantastical:
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., a co-sponsor of the auto fuel economy proposal, said it would have reduced oil use by 2 million barrels a day — more than could be taken from ANWR — by 2020. He said it was “a bunch of nonsense” that the increased fuel economy would cost the auto industry jobs, force consumers to buy smaller cars or reduce automobile safety, as opponents claimed.
“We don’t need to micromanage our auto manufactures,” countered Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich.
So, already sub-par American automakers that are hanging on by a thread would not have to make any cutbacks if they could no longer produce Americans' beloved SUVs, because consumers will not have to stop driving them -- they will just magically begin producing Suburbans that get 36mpg because that's what GM has always been able to do, but mysteriously has not yet done.
(mind you, that's a Republican spouting the gibberish, not a Democrat, before this issue gets buried in silly leftie-rightie insult trading.)
In the end I'm more concerned about the
$ 81 billion screwing than the $ 12 billion. You want to talk about a conspiracy, let's measure the likelihood that this measure being passed on the same day as a widely-covered bill that is subject of massive public interest (the energy policy bill) is just, you know, a scheduling coincidence.
Phaedrus
