backtop


Print 95 comment(s) - last by Boingo Twang.. on Mar 7 at 11:06 AM


Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) found that White House advisers had a great deal to do with the writing of the rules

Last week, 30 U.S. senators (29 of which were Democrats) gave President Barack Obama their support for the 54.5 mpg fuel standard by 2025. However, House Republicans still had a bone to pick with these new rules.

The new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) proposal, which was introduced by the Obama administration, the state of California and major automakers, aims to increase the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to 54.5 mpg by 2025 in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the U.S.' dependency on foreign oil.

When the new rules were initially proposed last year, major automakers like Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Chrysler backed it. However, the standard had some strong opposition from the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), who said the new rules would tack an extra $5,000 to the sticker price of new vehicles in 2025, as well as Republicans who worked to block the standard last fall because they believed that it would regulate many new vehicles that sell for under $15,000 entirely out of existence.

Now, despite the rules getting the green light from 30 U.S. senators, House Republicans still have beef with the new rules. More specifically, GOP has been looking into how involved Obama's advisers were in the development of the new 2017-2025 fuel efficiency standards.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said he investigated Obama's advisers' involvement last August when speaking to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler.

"Your response seemed to imply that the Executive Office of the President was not significantly involved in the development of these fuel economy/greenhouse gas emissions standards," Issa wrote to Ruemmler.

As it turns out, Issa's investigation discovered that there was indeed substantial participation in the development of the new standards by the White House's Office of Management and Budget, Domestic Policy Council, National Economic Council and Council of Economic Quality.

Ron Bloom, a White House adviser under the Obama administration, spent weeks trying to negotiate with automakers for support regarding the 54.5 mpg by 2025 standard. Bloom also spoke with lobbyists daily in July 2011, ad former White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley met with Ford CEO Alan Mulally.

A finalized version of the rules is due this summer.

Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Bama is a charlatan
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/2/2012 10:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually forcing taxpayers to subsidize wars (where people actually die) is criminal.

Citizens tax dollars being used to fund the military has been in place since the dawn of taxes. I think its fair to say, ALL citizens have no problem with this.
quote:
Letting past white collar crimes off the hook (wall street destruction of the economy) is borderline criminal.

You mean, those white collar workers that were doing what they were told do as mandated by the Democratic Controlled Senate and President (Clinton & CRA, Barney Frank and Fannie, etc...). I'm always amused at the idea that "white collar" excludes liberals, despite those very same companies you despise practically funding Obama's campaign.
quote:
Forcing taxpayers to subsidize the oil industry is rather immoral

Oil companies aren't subsidized. They're given tax breaks. Put the huffingtonpost down!
quote:
Contrary to what some in politics and the media have said, the oil and natural gas industry currently enjoys no unique tax credits or deductions. Since its inception, the US tax code has allowed corporate tax payers the ability to recover costs and to be taxed only on net income. These cost recovery mechanisms, also known in policy circles as “tax expenditures”, should in no way be confused with “subsidies”, i.e., direct government spending.


RE: Bama is a charlatan
By lagomorpha on 3/2/2012 10:13:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Citizens tax dollars being used to fund the military has been in place since the dawn of taxes. I think its fair to say, ALL citizens have no problem with this.


The United States actually took quite a long time to implement a significant standing army for various reasons. The navy was funded in peace times through taxes because you can't really recruit ships of the line at a moment's notice, and eventually the policy did change because the equipment and training needed to fight a 20th century war is a bit different than what was needed in simpler times.


RE: Bama is a charlatan
By nick2000 on 3/2/2012 1:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You mean, those white collar workers that were doing what they were told do as mandated by the Democratic Controlled Senate and President (Clinton & CRA, Barney Frank and Fannie, etc...).


Actually, these guys did not create the crisis, it is the unregulated companies. However, it is true that they did not hinder it either. Besides, the notion that a small group of people who could not afford mortgages took down the entire economy is laughable. Too small to fail?

quote:
Oil companies aren't subsidized. They're given tax breaks.

No difference since the result is the same.

For comparison sake, the mortgage deductions (or tax breaks) are a subsidy to encourage private home ownership.

quote:
Put the huffingtonpost down!

I have never read the huffington post. Interesting that you say that. I can think by myself without getting indoctrinated. It does not seem to be the case for everybody apparently because this statement itself would mean that you get your own talking points from somewhere and expect others to do the same...


RE: Bama is a charlatan
By thurston2 on 3/3/2012 5:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
A link to more info on energy subsidies. Energy subsidies can include tax breaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

There I go again twisting the truth by providing the reader with information.


RE: Bama is a charlatan
By thurston2 on 3/3/2012 5:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Put the huffingtonpost down!


Another favorite is MSNBC. I've never read Huffington Post or watched MSNBC.


RE: Bama is a charlatan
By thurston2 on 3/3/2012 5:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Put the huffingtonpost down!


Another favorite is MSNBC. I've never read Huffington Post or watched MSNBC.


RE: Bama is a charlatan
By thurston2 on 3/3/2012 4:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think its fair to say, ALL citizens have no problem with this.


I'm a citizen, I have a problem with it.


RE: Bama is a charlatan
By Boingo Twang on 3/7/2012 11:06:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Citizens tax dollars being used to fund the military has been in place since the dawn of taxes. I think its fair to say, ALL citizens have no problem with this.


Where does the constitution say we must spend trillions to have armed forces that project power all over the world? I'd be happy with one that just protected our own country's borders and ocean areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki