Congress wants our cars!!!!

[amalventano1@home.com (Allyn)]

So from how that looks, it appears you can only turn in a registered, running car, voluntarily, for
$$, and even more $$ if you turn around and buy a new car.
Sounds decent, but not for any of us listers.
Al

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Haygood" <scirious@hotmail.com>
To: "Nate Mellom" <bronson@inwave.com>; "Scirocco List" <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Congress wants our cars!!!!


> Not a Hoax.  I found it on the doccet at www.senate.gov  by doing a search
> for "retire motor vehicles" in the 107th congress's calendar.
>
> Now I DON'T see that they are REQUIRING ALL old cars to be scrapped, so they
> aren't coming after us.  I do think it is redicuous and will lead to
> financial hardship for a lot of misguided people, as well as a shortage of
> parts for older cars.  Car salesmen and ad execs spend their whole careers
> trying to convince people that old cars are bad and that they can easily
> afford new ones.  My experience as a car salesman shows me that MANY MANY
> people who think they can afford new cars in the lond term can not.  Giving
> them an extra bit of downpayment will just make them more likely to get
> themselves locked in to high interest long-term payments they can't get out
> of.  I saw it happen all the time.  Now, I'm not saying we have to prevent
> people from doing this, but I don't want to pay my tax dollars to exacerbate
> the problem.  The fact that perfectly good cars would be destroyed (and only
> good ones, if you read the bill) is the main problem.  Keep in mind that
> somewhere in the background are people suggesting that this will stimulate
> the economy by creating more jobs for car builders.  It will only do so by
> increasing the tax burden on everyone, while making GM, Ford and the like
> richer.  This is no public service.
>
> Also, I think the sample letters are flawed in suggesting that many of these
> cars are extra cars and not used often.  Those of us who have extra cars are
> almost exclusively car enthusiasts who would never scrap a runner anyway.
> I'm sure the bulk of the cars turned in will be old, beat up daily drivers.
> We are talking about 15 year old cars, that's 1987 or older.   If these cars
> are a serious polution problem, then they will be busted by smoke belcher
> laws in most places anyway.  Saving a mile-per-gallon is simply not worth
> much.  As noted earlier, and given that engines in new cars are vastly more
> powerful (on average) and not often much more efficient than older cars, I
> just don't see the point.  Pile on the fuel lost to old cars traded for new
> SUV's and its a losing battle all the way around.
>
>
> Now the car has to be running and registered to be scrapped, so that also
> narrows its impact - down to the most unreasonable of cases.  My biggest
> gripe is that this would be a big chunk of my tax dollars being used to
> destroy something I probably want preserved.  Also consider the fact that
> the average new car is probably no more efficient than  new ones by virtue
> of the fact that so many new "cars" are SUV's.  Why do I get the feeling
> that if I read all of the bills in the senate I would be increasingly
> depressed and dissapointed at what these morons are considering.
>
>
> Suggestion... Write your congressman, but read the entire thing first.  If
> they get a swarm of letters saying "you can't take my car from me!!!" the
> letters will have no impact because that's not what is happening here.  The
> sample letters sent earlier refer to things like "complete" destruction of
> all older cars.  That's not my understanding of the bill, though I have yet
> to read it all (I will).  This is a cash incentive for voluntary scrapping,
> if I understand it correctly.
>
> Heres are some excerpts copied from that site:
>
>                     (1) requires that all passenger automobiles and
> light-duty trucks turned in be scrapped;
>
>     (2) requires that all passenger automobiles and light-duty trucks turned
> in be currently registered in the State in order to be eligible;
>
>     (3) requires that all passenger automobiles and light-duty trucks turned
> in be operational at the time that they are turned in;
>
>     (4) restricts automobile owners (except not-for-profit organizations)
> from turning in more than one passenger automobile and one light-duty truck
> in a 12-month period;
>
>     (5) provides an appropriate payment to the person recycling the scrapped
> passenger
> automobile or light-duty truck for each turned-in passenger automobile or
> light-duty truck;
>
>
>     (6) provides a minimum payment to the automobile owner for each
> passenger automobile and light-duty truck turned in; and
>
>     (7) provides, in addition to the payment under paragraph (6), an
> additional credit that may be redeemed by the owner of the turned-in
> passenger automobile or light-duty truck at the time of purchase of new
> fuel-efficient automobile.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l