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: Want to save some money?
By corduroygt on 3/2/2012 9:59:17 AM , Rating: 2
Ding! Pretty much hit the nail on the head. Obama is going around telling everyone how he has increased domestic oil production and selling it as though we directly benefit. The fact is, its all getting exported. At home, demand for domestic oil is actually down so nothing about Obama's narrative makes any sense. If demand is down, and production is up, you'd expect to see lower prices.

But I thought you republicans opposed government meddling in business and all their regulations?

RE: Want to save some money?
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/2/2012 10:28:54 AM , Rating: 2
Is that a Bill Maher talking point or John Stewart? Republicans are not opposed to regulations; They're opposed to regulations that stifle production and serves no added benefit or security. Big difference, but nice attempt anyway. If you need examples, I'll be happy to do the google'ing for you.

RE: Want to save some money?
By nick2000 on 3/2/2012 2:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
Politicians only oppose regulations they do not like and push for other regulations. Sometimes it has to do with reproduction or re-production.

It comes more from who pays the bill (corporations, big donors, etc...) and who votes (religious groups, etc...) than any real opinion it seems. Since you are mentioning Republicans, Mitt Romney is a good example these days it seems since nobody can essentially determine what he is really for. Ron Paul seems to be a lot more reliable on that front.

RE: Want to save some money?
By corduroygt on 3/2/2012 3:06:13 PM , Rating: 3
Just like all these abortion legislations that Republicans are pushing all over the country? Exactly what added benefit or security do they provide? How did Bush's ban on stem cell research benefit the country?

RE: Want to save some money?
By EricMartello on 3/4/2012 3:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
Just like all these abortion legislations that Republicans are pushing all over the country? Exactly what added benefit or security do they provide? How did Bush's ban on stem cell research benefit the country?

Those points of contention haven't driven up the costs of the fundamentals people need - like food and energy, and we're talking about energy here not social issues.

In fact, idiotic "green energy" initiatives based on pseudo-science and zero evidence have driven up both of those costs for all Americans. The whole corn ethanol thing drove up prices of food, requiring additional additives to gas that may or may not have any benefit increases the price of gas, providing taxpayer-backed loans and incentives to "green" companies that have yet to provide a viable product or a profit wastes money better spent on infrastructure maintenance and improvement.

How did any of Obama's policies benefit the country?

"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki