• Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

Gov. wants you to scrap your SUV and Muscle Car?

S

snowrdr

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
689
133
43
Reno, NV
I just got this email from Roush Performance, it was from Summit Racing and has the attention of SEMA. This is freakin nuts.





Dear Fellow Enthusiast,

Last month, we sent you an Urgent Legislative Alert from The Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) regarding a proposed “Cash for Clunkers” bill that would threaten our hobby. Thanks to your overwhelming response, this legislation was dropped from the economic stimulus package. Congratulations for standing up for your rights as enthusiasts!

We have just received a follow-up Legislative Alert from SEMA. New legislation (S. 247 and H.R. 520) has been introduced in Congress to create a national vehicle scrappage program which will give U.S. tax dollars to consumers who turn-in their “gas guzzlers” to have them crushed. This program would target vehicles with low fuel economy ratings of any model year. That means sports cars, SUVs, and performance-built vehicles could be crushed in exchange for a monetary reward.

The following information is directly from SEMA. If you would like to contact the lawmaker, follow the instructions in the alert.


Thank you for your time,

Your Friends at Summit Racing Equipment








Our effort to prevent Congress from including a nationwide “Cash for Clunkers” program in the economic stimulus package has been successful – so far. Thousands of SEMA members and SEMA Action Network (SAN) enthusiasts contacted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in opposition to the plan. The Speaker’s Office informed us that your emails, calls and faxes were received and, thanks to your work, Cash for Clunkers was not included in the economic stimulus package introduced in mid-January in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, new legislation (S. 247 and H.R. 520) has been introduced in Congress to create a national vehicle scrappage program which will give U.S. tax dollars to consumers who turn-in their “gas guzzlers” to have them crushed. Lawmakers need to scrap this idea!

Contact Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) Immediately
to Oppose S. 247 and H.R. 520

The so-called “Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act” is Cash for Clunkers with a twist. Instead of focusing exclusively on older cars, this program would target vehicles with low fuel economy ratings of any model year. Participants would receive cash vouchers ranging from $2,500 to $4,500 based on the model year and whether the replacement vehicle was a more fuel-efficient new car or used car (MY 2004 or later). Fuel-efficient is defined as getting at least 25 percent better mileage for the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) target for its class. The bill sponsors want to scrap up to one million cars a year for at least four years.

There is no evidence that the program would achieve the goal of boosting new car sales or increasing fuel mileage. Many states have considered scrappage programs in the past as a way to help clean the air or increase mpg, but abandoned the effort because they simply don’t work. The programs are not cost-effective and do not achieve verifiable air quality or fuel economy benefits, but they do have a devastating impact on the many small businesses that market products and services for the scrapped cars.

Don’t Delay! Please contact Senator Diane Feinstein and Rep. Henry Waxman today to urge their opposition to S. 247 and H.R. 520. For those who responded to our first call for action, we need you again, along with everyone else.

Contact Sen. Dianne Feinstein to oppose S. 247
Click here to send an email: http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe
Call: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954

Contact Henry Waxman to oppose HR 520
Click here to send an email: http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&=view&id=1313&Itemid=1
Call: (202) 225-2927
Fax: (202) 225-2525

Talking Points
Oppose the Use of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars for Accelerated Vehicle Retirement

I am writing to urge lawmakers not to approve an “accelerated vehicle retirement” program. Even on a voluntary basis, the program will hurt thousands of independent repair shops, auto restorers, customizers and their customers across the country that depend on the used car market. These businesses are already very vulnerable in the weak economy.
An accelerated vehicle retirement program is flawed since it does not target the “gross polluter,” an improperly maintained vehicle of any make or model year that has poor fuel mileage and dramatically more emissions due to poor maintenance.
An accelerated vehicle retirement program is flawed because it does not factor-in how many miles-a-year the collected vehicles are currently being driven. U.S. taxpayers will be buying rarely-driven second and third vehicles that have minimal impact on overall fuel economy and air pollution.
Accelerated vehicle retirement won’t generate many new car sales. The cash incentive provided will not be enough to enable a person to buy a new or used vehicle.
Accelerated vehicle retirement will compete with nonprofits that rely on vehicle donations to raise funds, such as the Salvation Army, the Purple Heart and other charities.
Accelerated vehicle retirement threatens to disrupt a large and complex industry which already handles scrappage, repair, remanufacturing and recycling issues. This independent industry provides thousands of American jobs and generates millions of dollars in local, state and federal tax revenues.
Accelerated vehicle retirement ignores better policy options. Taxpayer dollars would be better spent as direct tax incentives to purchase a fuel-efficient new or used car, without a government vehicle crushing program. Congress should also provide tax incentives to upgrade, repair and maintain existing cars, trucks and SUVs. There are many commercially available products and technologies that can substantially improve fuel mileage and lower the emissions.
We hope we can count on you to reject “Accelerated Vehicle Retirement.” Thank you for your consideration on this very important matter.
If you choose to send a note and/or message to Sen. Feinstein and Rep. Waxman please forward a copy of your message to:
E-mail: briand@sema.org
 
O

Ollie

ACCOUNT CLOSED
Mar 16, 2004
5,396
498
83
Colorado
Grab your bags, we're going for a trip.
just a couple weeks, imagine what it will be like 4 years from now.
 

redlineguy

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
May 11, 2004
12,280
2,114
113
55
CT
I just hope all the people that voted for him are happy.
 
D
Nov 26, 2007
327
31
28
Innisfail, Alberta
Maybe I'm not as smart as I should be.
How much energy and resources does it take to make a new car versus just driving an older car that uses a few more gallons of gas? How many years down the road is the break even point?
 
T
Nov 26, 2007
1,078
243
63
63
Prince George, BC
www.cap-it.com
We had a cash for clunkers deal here in BC to get rid of older cars that emit higher polution levels than new cars. It was limited to certain model years and every one that I did, was an absolute POS. It 's great for all those old beater caravan mini vans etc. I wouldn't worry about collectible cars being taken off the road for cash. Someone would still have to be dumb enough to let them haul it away.
 
O

Ollie

ACCOUNT CLOSED
Mar 16, 2004
5,396
498
83
Colorado
Maybe I'm not as smart as I should be.
How much energy and resources does it take to make a new car versus just driving an older car that uses a few more gallons of gas? How many years down the road is the break even point?

You have to understand.
It's not about conserving resources.
It's about the green movement.
If they can get some older cars off the road and force you to buy new green cars (at 20 - 50% more) they will have succeeded.
 
T
Nov 26, 2007
1,573
335
83
coeur dalene, idaho
ollie

why is that a bad thing. People buying stuff. That is what makes this economy go around. You get that pos out of your yard that neighbors have been complaing about. Your new vehicle lets you not give as much money to opec.

Where is this bad? If you don't want to give up your old beater, don't take it in.

tim
 
B
Jul 6, 2001
1,590
163
63
Watrous, SK
ollie

why is that a bad thing. People buying stuff. That is what makes this economy go around. You get that pos out of your yard that neighbors have been complaing about. Your new vehicle lets you not give as much money to opec.

Where is this bad? If you don't want to give up your old beater, don't take it in.

tim

I agree Tim.

No, I'm not a liberal, or an Obama supporter by any means. I just think people are taking this the wrong way.
 
B
Jul 6, 2001
1,590
163
63
Watrous, SK
We had a cash for clunkers deal here in BC to get rid of older cars that emit higher polution levels than new cars. It was limited to certain model years and every one that I did, was an absolute POS. It 's great for all those old beater caravan mini vans etc. I wouldn't worry about collectible cars being taken off the road for cash. Someone would still have to be dumb enough to let them haul it away.

Exactly
 
W
Nov 27, 2007
2,489
926
113
You have to understand.
It's not about conserving resources.
It's about the green movement.
If they can get some older cars off the road and force you to buy new green cars (at 20 - 50% more) they will have succeeded.

Plus they might actually get paid back a little of the loan they gave...
 
S

snowrdr

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
689
133
43
Reno, NV
Well, I see this has spured some debate that is interesting. Sure to those who say clean your yard out, tough you can do that today and not charge the taxpayers to do it. SEMA is spot on with this issue. This is the tip of the iceberg, whats next? What are they going to propose cash for 2009 and older snowmobiles next? This bill as well as the CAFE standards are horrible and the green movement pushing their weight around in the midst of a down economy. California has been toying around with a bill that would effect classic cars and prohibit them from the road because of emission standards and that issue is still not dead yet. What is this world coming to. I guess the great American past time of cars and collecting cars and enjoying cars has come to pass.
 

SAWYER

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Jan 12, 2006
6,096
296
83
42
Kingston Idaho
Maybe I'm not as smart as I should be.
How much energy and resources does it take to make a new car versus just driving an older car that uses a few more gallons of gas? How many years down the road is the break even point?

exactly what i was thinking
 
P
Anyone with anything decent that is willing to sell it for $4500 is an idiot that didn't deserve the car or truck in th first place. I mean if anyone with a sweet Challenger or Cuda wants to take advantage of this offer I'll give you $5000 for it.




takers???
 
Premium Features