received this from summit racing

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

 

Ugh, government.

 

B. Hussein Obama just 2 days ago overturned GWB's edict that states may now implement thier own emmisions levels. Would this mean that a car made for, say, Alabama couldn't be registered in, say California if you moved there?

 

Seriously, if you send anything to either of these two, I can only imagine they would have even more resolve to make this happen...but good luck



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

 

I think it's a good idea. People aren't going top turn in old cars that are collectible in any way shape or form. This would get shitty cars from the late 80's and early 90's that are just rusting away and polluting more than they should. It would also give people more money to spend to stimulate the economy.

And the government isn't taking your car, they are offering to buy it from you well above the market value in most cases.

 

People are already dumping old cars due to mechanical failures and rust. In Missouri they stopped doing emissions tests on cars made before 1996 because there was no proof that these older cars were contributing heavily to pollution, because so few were left on the road anyway. The passing of time alone would retire these vehicles.

As a taxpayer, I don't want to be paying four times the value of an old beater that already has a foot in the grave.

 

Yes. This is already the case here in Mass. No new vehicles may be brought in to the state unless they are certified emissions compliant with ma. regs. Only used vehicles with over 7000 miles may be brought in if you move here. Selling a non compliant out of state car to a ma. resident is illegal.
We have the same regs. as California.(it will only get worse now)

 

^ Now that topic I completely disagree with. Allowing individual states to set their own emissons standards is completely insane. As someone who works for an OEM, the thought of potentially having to satisfy requirements for 50 states is terrifying. The costs would be huge and certainly passed on to the customer.