By on May 27, 2021

On Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee advanced the Clean Energy for America Act making a few tweaks from earlier proposals. Changes include raising the federal EV tax rebate ceiling to $12,500 and opening the door for automakers who already exhausted their production quotas.

It’s good news for General Motors, which recently begged the government for just such a handout. But any manufacturer participating in the sale of electric vehicles will find themselves similarly blessed by the updated rules — assuming they make it through the halls of Capitol Hill with the necessary support.

Let’s take a peek behind the curtain to see what the updated proposal entails. 

While the $7,500 tax credit persists, the bill now adds special exemptions depending on how the vehicle is manufactured For example, the government will tack on another $2,500 if final assembly takes place inside the United States and another $2,500 if the factory in question happens to be represented by a union. While the latter inclusion seems concerningly political, there doesn’t appear to be any language stipulating whether not it matters if unionized plants have to be located in the country for the vehicle to be eligible.

It’s also probably one of the biggest reasons why the committee advanced the legislation on a tie split evenly (14-14) along party allegiances. But the rules say the bill only gets the kibosh if it loses the vote, so the deadlock still means it can be sent all the way to the Senate. But some of the particulars might make its pathway there incredibly difficult.

Perhaps the most fiscally irresponsible aspect of the proposal involves ending any caps on vehicle production. Early incarnations of the EV tax credit were intended only to get the ball rolling on alternative energy vehicles, so they would gain public acceptance. But the Clean Energy for America Act will continue issuing credits until electric vehicles become over half of a company’s annual sales. Even then, there will be a phase-out period where rebates would be scaled back over two years — similar to how things work under the current rules.

This is an insane amount of money for any government to effectively hand over to automotive manufacturers with no definitive end date. We have no real way of knowing when EVs will supplant the internal combustion engine as the dominant powertrain. These subsidies could last for decades, extending well beyond the point where electrically driven cars reach financial parity with ICEs. They also won’t be linked to the Biden infrastructure plan, which is striving to create $100 billion in additional rebates for electric cars.

Let’s not forget all this money is supposed to be coming from America’s tax base and there’s literally no way to even begin estimating what the total cost will be.

The Clean Energy for America Act basically throws any notion of there being a free auto market out the window. It incentives the building and purchase of EVs to such a degree that there would be little reason to continue pursuing gasoline or diesel development. Even they were suddenly proven to be better for the environment or consumers than plug-ins, the payout for running with EVs would still be far too big to ignore. I believe the correct term for this is a “planned economy,” as it technically shapes/restrains existing consumer demand in favor of greater capital investments for economic development in a manner that suits government goals.

In fact, the only aspect of the proposal that seems to exercise any financial restraint is the MSRP eligibility limit of $80,000. This is designed to prohibit wealthy individuals from taking advantage of the federal tax credits. However, most high-end electrics currently on the market already come in below the cutoff — including the Porsche Taycan and Tesla Model S.

[Image: Nmorguelan/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

154 Comments on “Senate Finance Committee Approves $12,500 EV Tax Credit Bill...”


  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Everything is wrong with this proposal, including the MSRP limit.

    The reason no MSRP limit was placed on the original 2009 act was that the buyer’s income bears no relationship to the pollution of the car they drive. If the intent is to clean up the air, then the idea was to incentivize all EVs, not just cheaper ones.

    Anyway, the EV market is well-established. This bill is absurd.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      All 2.3% of it in USDM in 2020. I expect the “chip shortage” to allow this number to be increased since it seems to affect them less. The decade of incredibly convenient events continues, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

      https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/02/electric-vehicles-europe-percentage-sales/

    • 0 avatar

      “Everything is wrong with this proposal, including the MSRP limit.”

      May be, but it helps to destroy $.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      SCE To AUX: as a fellow EV advocate, I agree with you. I think that EVs are great vehicles that will sell themselves without subsidies. Test drive an EV and then it’s 3 or 4 cylinder CV lot-mate and the EV is going to win.

      Instead, spend the money to incentive gas stations to add chargers. The most important thing is battery research. It not only helps EVs and all sorts of devices but is very, very. very important for modern defense equipment. Everything from devices carried by soldiers to AEP submarines and both aerial and underwater drones. We need this technology for more than just EVs.

      By the way, if I buy an EV that qualifies, I’ll still take the subsidy along with the oil subsidies I get as well. Yeah, I double dip. Although, I’m working on transforming the energy sector part of my business and financial services is growing.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “ Test drive an EV and then it’s 3 or 4 cylinder CV lot-mate and the EV is going to win.”

        Win what? Which has the shortest range and longest refuel times? Which has the most compromises? Which one is simply a novelty and not a legitimate automobile? Which one costs far more to buy?

        If that’s what’s to be “won” I’ll take the proper 4 cylinder automobile every single day.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          Which has the shortest range and longest refuel times?

          The 3/4 cylinder has the longest fuel times since you can’t fuel it overnight at home and have to take it someplace for fueling.

          A ford ecosport has 345 miles range. While several EVs have longer range than that, I think they still cost more. A Bolt EUV with the typical GM rebates is a bit closer. That’s 247 miles range. If you can survive the 3 cylinder for the 345 miles, then good luck. Otherwise, the vast majority of time you’re living with that miserable ICE drivetrain vs. the silky smooth v-8 like characteristics of an EV all to save 30 minutes off a a vacation trip.

          Which is legitimate. While I think you can make a good argument that a 3 cylinder ecosport isn’t a legitimate automobile, it still passes US regulations somehow, so I guess it’s legitimate, but I guess I agree with the part about those tiny wheels and the size making it a novelty.

          Far more expensive? I guess cottage grove doesn’t pay it’s dog catcher’s a lot.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            Lol 30 minutes? Come on now. You don’t need to lie (well obviously you do because your entire post is riddled with lies)

            But take the silly F150 Mach E. A ~1700 mile drive is going to take ~35+ hours (an additional 9 hours just to charge) over an F150 diesel which would require one fill up to go the same distance in ~25 hours.

            But you stick to your overpriced fashion accessories. Those of us with cabins and boats that actually need to consider range and recharge times can see what jokes EVs really are.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            EBFlex, you can keep pretending you drive 1750-mile trips every weekend. In the real world, we know you commute 10-40 miles a day just like the rest of us.

            I have a Bolt. It’s a perfect car for mcs’s exercise because it had a very close gas relative, the Chevy Sonic. Compare an early Bolt with a same-year Sonic, and literally the only advantages the Sonic has are price (with the advantage being much less than you’d think) and faster road trips.

            The Bolt is quieter, smoother, more responsive, vastly faster, handles better due to low CoG, has a fraction of the Sonic’s maintenance costs, has almost no maintenance downtime, is roomier inside because the front seats can be farther forward, is more convenient when not on road trips, can heat and cool the cabin with no emissions, and on and on. (It’s also better equipped, but that’s not because it’s an EV.)

            You’ve built up the road trip into such a boogeyman that your idea of an EV no longer has anything to do with reality.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Picking winners and losers guarantees EV’s failure because everything government touches turns to s**t.

    “America’s tax base”

    You misspelled “printing press”.

    “I believe the correct term for this is a “planned economy,” as it technically shapes/restrains existing consumer demand in favor of greater capital investments for economic development in a manner that suits government goals.”

    BINGO

    Premier Biden and his junta along with the Fed Politburo are in full control now, your “votes” ensured that comrades. Welcome to the Soviet Union, Amerika.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      Governments set up the monetary, tax, and regulation structures that the so called “free market” then fills in.
      Name any nation current or historical that has not “planned the economy”.

      “Premier Biden and his junta along with the Fed Politburo are in full control now, your “votes” ensured that comrades. Welcome to the Soviet Union, Amerika.” ? ? ? ? ? ? I sincerely hope that your are being flippant with that hyperbolic statement. Because it is filled with falsehood. Please explain how Biden is “Premier vs President. Please explain exactly what a “Junta” is.

    • 0 avatar
      Snooder

      Lol.

      So when Trump was doing essentially the same thing, but with a much less well planned end goal and an incoherent strategy, that was good. But Biden doing it is the Soviet Union?

      My eyes cannot roll fast enough or hard enough.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        What was the same? What was the previous end game? The junta is implementing the goals of Agenda 2030, reversing policies designed to hurt the PRC economically, in concert with the Fed implementing a mild UBI, and dog knows what else is down the pike.

        @ttacgreg

        A junta is a political and/or military council which rules a country usually after a coup d’etat. Senator Biden’s health does not allow him to effectively govern in his waking hours, there is no doubt a group of people guiding policy either in his name or in his stead. State Media will never, ever investigate or verify this but its pretty obvious out of necessity. Something similar allegedly happened during the Reagan administration as his mental health declined.

        • 0 avatar
          Snooder

          We are talking, essentially, about Tax Cuts and Protectionism.

          The Trump era had lots of Tax Cuts. Which did fuck all for anyone and just shoveled money into the hands of the already wealthy. A pretty shitty end goal if you ask me.

          Trump also attempted to implement some forms of protectionism and “give jobs to Americans”. Except instead of working carefully and moderately with a minor tax cut that encourages a pattern of purchasing, he attempted to bully the rest of the world with ill-advised and not particularly well planned tariffs.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            -duplicate

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “just shoveled money into the hands of the already wealthy. A pretty sh*tty end goal if you ask me.”

            I’m not mcs rich but I got pretty decent windfalls from the Trump cuts and now the Biden admin wants to give me 5 figures off my personal tax bill to buy a 350hp premium sedan so ¯|_(ツ)_/¯

            Seems like financial momentum just runs downhill.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          The previous regime acted far more like a “junta,” openly stealing state funds and trying to clamp down on dissent and reverse state-certified election results, than any other administration in American history. This one is, thankfully, acting much more normal. If your worst disagreement is economic policy, that’s a nice world to be in after the previous wannabe king.

      • 0 avatar
        IH_Fever

        It’s not good no matter what talking head is “elected” and comes up with it. Why is it bad that “trump put kids in cages” but biden has the same setup, nary a peep. Political extremism is the death of our society.

  • avatar
    Luke42

    The fossil fuel industry gets lots of subsidies, but removing them is politically unpopular.

    This evens the playing field.

    [shrug]

    I’ll let the conservatives enjoy their tizzy, but a handout for EV companies cheaper than patrolling to seas to ensure that the oil flows, and/or making rubble bounce in the Middle East for a 3rd time.

    [shrug]

    I’m going to pay my taxes in April of 2022, and then I’m going to go buy an EV.

    Enjoy your anger-fest, guys! I’m getting on with life!

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Society 1900 to present had been powered by petroleum, not only automobiles but farming, manufacturing, construction, plastics and so on. We cannot sustain this society -or this population level- without petroleum. Period. Adding into the complexity, the Federal Reserve Note is predicated on global oil consumption and aside from perhaps the nuclear arsenal is the most powerful weapon D.C. has it its possession. Don’t think for a second they are not willing to pay or sacrifice nearly anything to maintain that power, your arguments regarding reduced defense spending because of the magic of EV are not valid. I invite you to digest this and then ask, why are they pushing EV so hard about 2014 to now? (No, they don’t care about pollution on the macro level. Trillions to reduce pollution a small amount has too poor of ROI, cheaper options for that).

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Oil subsidies:
        “A conservative estimate from Oil Change International puts the U.S. total at around $20.5 billion annually, including $14.7 billion in federal subsidies and $5.8 billion in state-level incentives.Nov. 25, 2020”

        Subsidies are a way of life in big business. Too many believe the myth of “free” markets.

        “America has spent $6.4 trillion on wars in the Middle East and Asia since 2001, a new study says.”

        That works out to some very expensive oil.

        How many deaths per gallon is that?

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Good point Lou, I wonder if the National Security Council is keeping that statistic. My guess is, such a thing is inelastic.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Humans are expendable, stock dividends are not….

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Sad but true.

          • 0 avatar
            Daniel J

            @Lou_BC,

            Yet every article pointed to by the “urbanites” who want to get rid off gas powered cars point to all the “legal tax deductions” as government subsidies for the big oil industry.

            They read these rags who talk about all the tax deductions they get with the headlines saying “big oil gets government subsidies”.

            Most of the big oil “subsidies” are legal tax credits and deductions that many big businesses can get. Others are deductions that businesses in the energy sector get.

            Just look at this article here:

            https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

            Are tax breaks subsidies?

            Can’t have it both ways.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Too Many @Lou…and I served with some of your countrymen over there too. Thing is, nobody cares. One of my deployments was in an election year. I will never forget seeing a list of things that matter to Americans and the wars not making the top 10. People cared about Iraq when the media told them they should care about it. What happened to Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink and campus “Die In’s” after 2009? People were darned sure still going and dying…They just didn’t rate a little segment on “The Fallen ” at the end of the 6 PM news anymore nor pictures of their flag draped coffins at Dover.

          At the end of the day, if anyone gave a rats kiester about dollars and or blood shed for oil, we’d have been energy independent one way or another 15 years ago. They don’t so we aren’t.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Art Vandelay – I worked with a fellow whose son was blown to bits in Afghanistan. His son at least lived long enough to make it home and die surrounded by family.

            People will complain about the price of fuel or the price of sh!t at Walmart, but not say a peep about the senseless loss of life.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “What happened to Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink and campus “Die In’s” after 2009?”

            Well there was a new administration and State Media rarely denigrated it – because at best they are merely entertainment, at worst propaganda. Their contrived silence on the subject implied consent of the ongoing violence.

            @Lou

            Very redpill indeed.

        • 0 avatar
          Yankee

          Lou_BC: Once again you hit the nail on the head. Comments like yours are why I read the comment section at all. I have a lot to lose by EV adoption (over 30 years as a mechanic, and I teach state emissions inspection certification classes as part of my regular job duties), and I can’t wait to be obsolete. I care about the world my kids and yours inhabit. Staying out of the way and letting technology march on is the least I can do. Once the battery bugs are worked out (and they are big ones: precious metal mining, end-of-life considerations, weight, cost, etc.), EVs may go a long way toward making up for the damage caused by the god-awful entitled baby boom generation. Todays cars are estimated to emit 99% less emissions than those in the 1960s, but with 50-90% of urban air pollution and 75% of total US CO emissions still coming out of tailpipes, there is still work to do. Not sure this proposal is the way to do it, but if we don’t do something, big oil will keep it’s thumb firmly on the scale.

    • 0 avatar
      Matt Posky

      I don’t want giant, endless oil subsidies either. Both industries are already flush with cash.

    • 0 avatar
      Rocket

      One doesn’t have to support petroleum subsidies to have a problem with massive EV tax credits. They aren’t equivalent anyway. The EV tax credits primarily benefit the vehicle owner and manufacturer, while petroleum subsidies benefit everyone either directly or indirectly via lower prices on shipping/freight, public transportation, asphalt, plastics and other petrochemicals and more. Until the infrastructure is improved and battery supply issues are solved, nobody should be supporting EV subsidies. If people want to drive an EV, the benefits should be worth the cost of admission to them. The full cost of admission.

      • 0 avatar
        RangerM

        Don’t know what subsidies for petroleum have to do with EVs; since we already subsidize the electric power industry (especially nuclear).

        If we’re going apples-to-apples, we should subsidize all cars, not just EVs.

        • 0 avatar
          Urlik

          Petroleum “subsides” tend to be subsidies given to every industry that invests in the company’s infrastructure. They’re basically just legal tax deductions.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Nope, subsidies are not legal tax deductions.

            A subsidy is a cash grant from the government. Subsidies are direct transfers from the taxpayers to the beneficiaries.

            A tax deduction is a way for a tax payer to keep more of the money they earned.

  • avatar
    ajla

    YAAAAAAASSSS.
    $12,500 tax credit for me to buy a Tesla.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      It would actually only be $10k on a Tesla because they aren’t union made.

      So is the M3 Performance trim worth it or just stick to the LR?

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      It looks like no or only $2500 tax credit for buying a Tesla as more than 50% of the vehicles they sell are EVs. It is unclear if those $2500 additional amounts are supposed to be a bonus only in addition to the $7500 or if it stands on its own.

      So if it is as said and the $2500 ones are stand alone a Tesla would only qualify for one since their plants are non-union.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        The 50% rule looks like it has to do with the phaseout timing not initial eligibility.
        Everywhere I’m seeing states the Teslas would be eligible on the $7500, where are you seeing otherwise?

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      …ajla twirls his mustache, thinking of all the “girl gets orgasm face from my Tesla’s Plaid Mode” videos that could be made…

  • avatar
    stuki

    Yet another handout, of money stolen from productive people, to connected idiots. For engaging in the only thing idiots are capable of engaging in: Ever more idiocy. America the Retarded: If it Doesn’t work, double down! It’s only other people’s money, after all!

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Full disclosure – I’ve benefited from the 2009 act twice, in leasing a 12 Leaf and then leasing a 19 Ioniq EV. In each case, the mfr took the $7500 so the transaction made no difference on my taxes.

      While philosophically against subsidies, I also won’t leave money on the table.

      Whether one supported or opposed the 2009 act, it (arguably) worked. Tesla, Nissan, GM, and others have put a lot of EVs on the road with no (tailpipe) emissions. This is presumably a good thing – mission accomplished, if that was the goal.

      But now, this new bill offers an unlimited pool of money that distorts the market permanently, rather than temporarily.

      It moves us from wine coolers to double IPA to heavy stout, up to bourbon and moonshine. We’ll never be able to sober up from the cash flow paid for by our grandchildren.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        I’d like to see the high Arctic freeze solid again. It’s cheaper than a war with Russia over the trillions in resources sealed under the ice cap.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          @Lou:

          It’s no wonder why Russia is a dead-set climate change denier, and threw every ounce of weight they could behind the climate change deniers here. They have little to lose and everything to gain…not just the resources under the ice cap, but the polar navigation lanes, and Lord knows how much more arable land that can be opened up under all that Siberian permafrost. They stand to be a HUGE winner if the climate changes dramatically. Just follow the money…

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Russia’s done an analysis of global warming and it’s all plus signs. Agriculture will expand and overall productivity will expand. You then factor the opening up of the Arctic to mining/drilling and ocean shipping. Canada would see a net gain but we aren’t prepared for that scenario.

            Any country closer to the equator will suffer. 1/2 of the USA or more will be under water or desert.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            “arable land that can be opened up under all that Siberian permafrost”

            permafrost is not over but under. In the summer you have at least 10 inches of soil, then starts the permafrost.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Lou

            What was the time frame the Russians used?

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          Cold weather sucks. Shorts and t-shirt forever!!

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @28-Cars-Later – I didn’t see a time frame mentioned in what I read but they are currently building military bases all over their side of the Arctic.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I’ve read that as well, it started around 2012 or thereabouts. They even went as far as sending a sub to the ocean floor under the artic and planting a Russian Federation flag.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Oh, spare me…someone who gets a tax credit from buying a EV is a “connected idiot”? Pass me my smelling salts, dear, I feel faint.

      The government has been using direct and indirect support for stuff it wants consumers to buy for Lord knows how long. Hell, stuki got a tax credit if he has a mortgage. I’d go with the “did he turn that tax credit down” line, but it’s not the really pertinent question, which is: “how many jobs got created by stuki taking out a mortgage on his house?” Answer: lots of them (mine included, to be fair). Folks got paid to build the house. Folks got paid to furnish the house. Folks got paid to fix the house. Folks got paid to facilitate the buying process on the house. And on and on. The government wants that all stuff to happen, and for people to get paid for doing it. How Marxist…

      When government does this, it’s not some gigantic Orwellian plot to end Western civilization as we know it – it does it because it knows there’s money to be made from it. That’s exactly the reason why this is being done – it sees an opportunity to create a new product that Americans will get paychecks from producing, selling, servicing, and insuring. More still will get paychecks from creating all the infrastructure we need to juice up those cars.

      THAT is what this is about, folks.

      • 0 avatar
        Snooder

        This.

        With an added dash of “if we don’t do it, China will”.

        Cause thats what people keep forgetting here. If we allow the idiots who run the Big 3 to ignore EVs forever, we will eventually run into a situation where we actually want them, but China has an effective monopoly. At least for now we have the advantage thanks to Tesla. Let’s not fuckint squander it.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      Please explain to me how society benefits when our government/society allows for example, extreme wealth polarization. Exactly how does Jeff Bezo being worth 200 billion helping you personally?

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        The ability for him to be worth 200 billion spurs him to take risks (How long was Amazon unprofitable?) and do things and innovate which in turn, makes my life easier via those innovations.

        I used to have to drive to K-Mart or Wal-Mart to buy overpriced crap made in another country. Now it is slightly less overpriced and comes to my door!

        But seriously, what does Jeff Bezos’ net worth have to do with anyone’s happiness other than his ex wife’s.

        What would be an appropriate cut of that 200 billion?

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          What kind people these Bezos and Gates are that their wives leave them with all their money?

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            slavuta,

            “What kind people these Bezos and Gates are that their wives leave them with all their money?”

            Does anyone really need to answer that for you? They are great philanthropists who care deeply about every last one of us and have no thought of personal gain.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “The ability for him to be worth 200 billion spurs him to take risks”

          Umm…no, not really.

          If you “risk” 10 of your 200 billion on a venture, is that proportionally much of a “risk”?

      • 0 avatar
        ktm

        One Billionaire who has helped to benefit society (though he is an ass):
        Elon Musk

        Tesla helped to drive the wide-spread adoptance of EVs
        Space-X
        Starlink

        Think he could have done all of that without being a billionaire?

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    As a wise guest on CNBC once said…

    “China has central planning by engineers, mathematicians, and scientists and the US has central planning by lawyers. Both are undesirable, but by definition we lose.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      Or worse, zero central planning and 100% power grab by amateurs like reality show TV stars.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      May be the role of the president should be creating these panels of engineers, mathematicians, and scientists and follow their advise, while let lawmakers deal with humanitarian side of life?

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        President Camacho of the movie Idiocracy was a better president than Trump, because Camacho was willing to seek out experts and utilize their talents.

        Trump said he knows more than the generals.

        Thankfully, Trump is history — just like every other presedential candidate who was decisively rejected by the electorate.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Well, the reaction here is predictable…tax credits are somewhere between “end of Western Civilization as we know it” and “spawn of Satan.”

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      How about a tax credit to avoid “Idiocracy” in thirty years?

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Government funded education would be one way to solve “idiocracy”. One needs to view education as a form of infrastructure which is the bedrock foundation needed to keep a country competitive.
        An educated populace is a national security necessity more valuable than computer chips, oil or whatever else soldiers are sent to die for.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I cannot speak for your country, but an educated populace is precisely what the oligarchy and their Congress critters does not want.

          • 0 avatar
            Snooder

            “an educated populace is precisely what the oligarchy and their Congress critters does not want.”

            Speak for the Republicans.

            Democrats actually DO give a shit about education. If only because a large chunk of their constituents and base are teachers.

            The thing is that Dems generally want to throw education at everyone but aren’t good at paying for it. While Republicans would prefer not to only save pennies and have poor people stay ignorant as shit, but ALSO for some reason have decided that culture and learning is anti-American.

            There is a reason why the people walking around vocally anti-science these days are mostly Republicans. Its weird and unfortunate, and I don’t know when the crazies took over the party, but we gotta acknowledge it if we’re gonna do something about it.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Chief Justice John Roberts gave away the Republicans’ game on education with his majority opinion in last year’s case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.

            He and the (then) 4 other conservative justices ruled that if a state provided any support to private schools through a government program then religious schools had to be included in the program.

            The background here is that, in the wake of Brown v. Board in the late 1950s and early 1960s, white parents fled integration en masse by starting a bunch of new private, whites-only religious academies connected to their (then) well-funded churches. Segregationist state governments tried to support these new academies, but both the federal Department of Education and the IRS came down hard on schools that would not admit nonwhites. The result was integration in poorer areas and richer whites fleeing to exclusive suburbs that enforced wealth requirements and de facto segregation through extravagant land use.

            Now, with the Republican base largely made up of white people who are too poor to live in those wealthy suburbs, Roberts wants to bring the old religious academies back, gutting Brown v. Board and creating two separate state-sponsored systems of education, one de facto whites-only and the other for everyone else. Obviously neither system will be remotely as strong as a unified, integrated system. It is more important to Republicans to maintain segregation and white supremacy than it is to improve education.

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            28-Cars-Later,

            “educated populace”

            Are you talking about real educated people, or just the over stuffed with technical knowledge glorified technicians that pass for educated people in this day and age? The tyrannical type don’t like real education — it scares and confuses them. Technical types they don’t mind because they can build toys for the rich and unworthy.

        • 0 avatar
          indi500fan

          Total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools in the United States in 2016–17 amounted to $739 billion, or $14,439 per public school student enrolled in the fall (in constant 2018–19 dollars).

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I wasn’t aware education was as simple as writing a check. I guess curriculum, instruction, tutoring and family involvement don’t have any bearing.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          So my question @Lou would be why is it that we spend more per pupil than anyone else in the world yet have middling results? I don’t mind spending more if that is in fact the solution, but shouldn’t those making the decisions in Public Education have to answer some tough questions first? What are other countries that are spending less but getting better results doing that we arent?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            I was referred more to post secondary education like college or trades but I was unaware of how inefficient (sh!tty) the US public system truly is.
            I do find that some of it is the sense of entitlement many have even in school. Immigrants across the board tend to do much better in school that so called “natural born” citizens because they value the education. That’s a statistical fact in Canada and I would suspect it applies to the US as well.

          • 0 avatar
            Snooder

            Racism. The answer is, honestly, racism.

            You get a vastly different education in a wealthy public school in an upper middle class suburb than you do in a perpetually underfunded inner city school. And its not always just on a pure dollar amounts basis. A decent amount it is simply the legacy of policies implemented back in the 60s and the continued effect of rich people being mostly white and therefore shaping education policy in ways that help people who look like them at the expense of everyone else.

            There was a rather good podcast series by the folks who do Serial called “Nice White Parents” that explores the phenomenon pretty well.

            https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            The more you use a word, the less it means.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “The more you use a word, the less it means.”

            Only if applied incorrectly or as part of a lie.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Not necessarily. Take the work f***, does it really have the same depth of connotation than it did in your youth, Lou?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @28 – I guess so…Kinda like “stop the steal”, “rigged election”, “witch hunt”, and “fake news”….

            ;)

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            @Snooder I taught in one of those schools you describe. It was in the 49th ranked state at the time. We were funded as well as any other school in the district and our facility was in fact exactly the same as the school in the wealthiest part of the district.

            I taught 2 classes that were 4 kids and a resource officer because they were “violent offenders” but the justice system had decided not to give up on them and lock them away, but it still had some concern for my safety as one of those kids had pistol whipped someone nearly to death (I am OK with this…I don’t pretend to be able to identify with the crapshow that kid came up in).

            I will say, I taught those kids British and American Lit the same as I taught every other class and followed the same lessons every other school in the district did and my kids were in the ballpark on all the standardized tests despite their challenges.

            If there is racisim, which there is, it isn’t in the schools…it is in the fact that we have locked up a ton of kids that now aren’t in school. The teachers and administration in those schools are working their tails off for little to no reward. Throw a generation of inner city kids in prison for selling drugs to the kids from affluent neighborhoods (remember crack sweeping through black neighborhoods was a law enforcement issue while heroin sweeping through suburbia is a “public health crisis”) and the result is both racist and predictable.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        I’m all in, 28.

  • avatar
    Lynchenstein

    So the federal government wants to give us money to buy EVs because they don’t use gas (because gas is bad for the environment), and the state governments want to tax EVs separately because they don’t use gas (gas prices include a road maintenance tax).

    Why don’t the feds just give part of the $ of the EV incentive to states and keep the EV buyers out of it? One would think that would involve far less paperwork and bureaucracy and cost less overall.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

      Now you’re being logical.

      Let’s call out the 800-pound elephant in the room – the GOP supports this because two words.

      Corporate welfare.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Unions bad!

    Agreed, let’s get rid of police unions and eliminate their power to block reform.

    Oh no, no, no, THAT union is good.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      LOL, you’re right, but the “look for the union label” stuff in the bill isn’t kosher. I’ll settle for American jobs, not just union ones.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Unions have been demonized since the end of WW2. Anything remotely socialist is bad for business…well, that’s the theory.
      I think Democrats learned their lesson.
      Part of the reason they lost last time was due to Hitlery Clinton’s view of “deplorables” (Many being union members). Add to that as being seen not just as a puppet to the elites but an elite.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      I’m down with that. Public Sector unions are probably the worst of all of them honestly.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    @Matt:

    “The Clean Energy for America Act basically throws any notion of there being a free auto market out the window. It incentives the building and purchase of EVs to such a degree that there would be little reason to continue pursuing gasoline or diesel development.”

    Nonsense. Vehicle development is driven by consumer demand, not government demand. If the government were able to dictate what cars consumers buy, the bestselling vehicle the last 10 years would have been a Chevy Bolt or Volt. History wrote itself a bit differently, didn’t it?

    The success or failure of EVs is in the hands of consumers. Automakers can build as many subsidized EVs as they want, but if consumers don’t want them, that will be that.

    The real question here isn’t whether subsidies are bad, or whether EVs are bad – it’s who’s going to make money on EVs. It can be foreign companies, or it can be domestic ones. If we want it to be domestic ones, then government prime-pumping makes all kinds of sense – indeed, said prime pumping is the reason why most of the technology used to create and distribute what I’m typing came to be in the first place. And last I checked, the fact that it was American companies who came up with all this stuff has paid off pretty damn handsomely for the country.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Didn’t they already prime the pump though? I feel like you’re talking as if it is 2009 not 2021. Tesla is a worldwide leader in BEVs. Ford has an electric F-Series and an electric fake Mustang. GM brought back Hummer for electric utility vehicles. I’m not against a *little* sweetness to get people across the finish line but this plan does seem more agressive than needed.

      If anything instead of subsidizing the vehicles they should be putting that money towards charging infrastructure.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        The infrastructure stuff is coming from a different bill.

        I agree with you, $12500 seems a bit much, but for a lot of folks, a $0 tax credit is too much. Of course, these same folks get all kinds of tax credits for things that have nothing to do with EVs, but that’s another story.

        The piece of this bill that pricks up my ears is the credit for buying an American-made product.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    Well I guess I’m getting a Lightning.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      That’s a big change from a Fiesta ST, LOL…

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        I typically have a toy I end up dailying and a truck. Currently the truck is a 15 F150 Super Crew XLT that is paid for and has given me zero trouble. I keep getting “we want to buy your truck” crap from dealerships that is shockingly close to what I paid for it in the first place for a 60k mile 6 year old truck. If the prices that have been bantered around end up being close on the Lightning, that and uncle Sam putting 12k on the hood (I pay enough that I’d get the full credit) would be tough to ignore. It is a moot point anyway right now since actually building anything is the trick.

        I don’t depend on it so simply trading it and locking in both prices would be doable even if it took some time to take delivery. Where gas is at dailying it vs. the Corvette would further dent the all in cost.

        It is certainly food for thought if they insist on doing this crap.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      Enjoy your horrid range and inability to actually use it as a truck.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Thanks @EBFlex! I’m sure I will if I go that route. I can’t remember the last time I took my truck 200 miles though since we aren’t really doing the camping thing anymore after our last move. I forgot though, if I can’t go 700 miles with 8,000 pounds out back it is worthless.

        I could get by with a Ridgeline or something, but no 12 grand on the hood and I have to fill them up with an increasingly more expensive commodity. Might be time to look at the wife’s car too though the subsidy on that would be less since it would be either non union (Tesla) or Mexican Assembled (Mach-E).

        At least with the EV subsidies I actually get a car out of the deal unlike when the bailouts happened where the automakers got a bunch of my taxes and I got the bill.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      I’d buy a Lightning. I’d park it next to the F350 Tremor I also like. LOL

      OH….Look… it’s what’s his name?

      Mention “buying a Ford” and it’s like saying Beetlejuice 3 times. LOL

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    This is what happens when you have a fundamentally flawed product. It needs government incentives to make it viable.

    EVs, in their current form, are complete non-starters. Range is way too short, recharge times are laughably long, and they are much less efficient than ICE vehicles. The F150 Mach E is a perfect example of a product that is just awful at its mission.

    Hopefully this EV credit fails but with the empty suit we have running the country and his band of alt-liberal lawmakers it will pass because why not right? Doesn’t matter where the money comes from just print more.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      This from the guy who uses his computer and the Internet – both created with government incentives – to be a silly troll?

      (rimshot)

      Since you’re doing a comedy act, be sure to mention that your waitress works hard and to leave her a generous tip, and that you’re here through Friday.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @FreedMike…well, EV’s, Democrats, and Fords have been mentioned.

        Beetlejuice… Beetlejuice…Beetlejuice

        Unions, socialism, Russia, etc. Have also been mentioned, Where’s slavuto? I guess troll farm operatives must get vacation days too. LOL

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        You aren’t wrong @Freedmike, but they didn’t create them to spur business or anything either…they were both created to fight wars. A big war is the one thing that focuses us after all historically.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “ This from the guy who uses his computer and the Internet – both created with government incentives”

        So amazing. Just making up “facts” to prove…..what again?

        It’s a shame the truth bothers you so much but making things up is not exactly the best way to go about proving whatever it is you’re trying to prove.

    • 0 avatar
      swester

      That’s funny – my two EVs have been exceptional vehicles.

      But I guess they are “complete non-starters”?

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        I mean anyone can drink the koolaid.

        But that’s cool that you like to stick close to home and done mind long recharge times. Those of us who tow boats on a regular basis to a cabin see these EVs for what they are…complete novelties that are nowhere close to replacing a proper ICE vehicle. The compromises are far too many but the big ones are horrid range and far too long recharge times. Once those two major issues get corrected, then EVs may be viable. But until then they are the laughingstock of the automotive industry. And manufactures that commit to EVs like Ford has are equally laughable.

        EVs are wildly destructive to the planet, depend on a very limited commodity that we don’t have enough of, and are very inefficient. The TFL videos towing with their garbage Model X provide all the information you need to come to the reasonable conclusion that EVs are nothing more than an overpriced fashion accessory.

  • avatar
    jack4x

    A lot of people in here assuming this will become law when all it did was advance out of committee.

    A 14-14 party line vote doesn’t bode well for getting 60 votes in the full Senate.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      If they can’t (or won’t) pass it through reconciliation, then yes, I don’t think it will get 60 votes.

      • 0 avatar
        jack4x

        I certainly don’t know all the arcane rules for reconciliation bills, but I thought they had to at least pretend to be revenue neutral over the next 10 years and I can’t see how a fairly open-ended credit like this would qualify. Maybe it gets bundled with something and cancels it out, who knows.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      It is almost like that union bit is a poison pill to ensure it doesn’t get 60 votes. I’m not sure you get red state democrats either with this bill. Certainly Joe Manchin seems far from certain.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    GM is run by whores. It has nothing to do with the gender of the people – it’s their whorish actions.

    In case anyone misunderstands what I’m saying, Bill Long, Rory Gamble and John Bozzella are also whores. Bigly.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      Let’s talk whores. Somewhere along the line 10-15 years ago there was some kind of telecommunications bill that would benefit some set of big Tech Corps billions. Senator John McCain was opposed to the bill until that group of companies or one of its lobbies donated some $550,000 to his campaign fund or whatever. (maybe we could call it his corruption piggy bank?) After a little thinking about the situation considering the billions that these interests are going to gain from this, McCain settled for a mere 550,000 bucks to flip ?? His vote was literally worth multiple millions. &550K????? WHAT A CHEAP WHORE!!
      Those collective six hundred and some people in DC at the top of the Federal Government are collectively cheap whores in our current mildly disguised system of bribery and corruption.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        “Let’s talk whores.”
        “there was some kind of telecommunications bill”

        Well, that was a let down.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        I lived in New York when Elliott Spitzer got tossed out on his kiester as Governor because his name was in a Madame’s black book.

        Special Elections there being only a step above California recalls meant that in addition to that “The Rent is TOO [email protected] HIGH!” guy running, the Madame who’s black book contained his name also ran.

        Her premise was that all of the Politicians in Albany were, well, members of the oldest profession and as such she had the experience to manage them.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Sounds like Jane Psaki selling her integrity on the panel of briefing room

      • 0 avatar
        JD-Shifty

        How would you describe Sean Spicer?

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          I never listened to Sean when he was at WH. But Kayleigh McEnany was a superstar, well prepared and simply amazing.

          Now Sean is at Newsmax. I watch some clips. He is ok. But often, when he talks about Russia, I mean, I don’t know if he writes the script, but it is often just pile of crap. They simply don’t know about Russia, or they don’t even care to know as long as they say what they need to say.

          Psaki is a special one. You know when they say, “you don’t know what you’re talking about” https://youtu.be/_bg9X0eNFds

          But in Russia they love her. She is Orthodox.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Orthodox…?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “Orthodox means correct belief or right thinking”

            Is @slavuto paying her a compliment?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I assume its a reference to religion since there are a few with “orthodox” in the name.

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            slavuta,

            “But Kayleigh McEnany was a superstar, well prepared and simply amazing.”

            She sure was. Absolutely astonishingly competent at the job. She never let that room full of hyenas rattle her one bit. And, she never stooped to unprofessional behavior (can’t say the same for the reporters…).

  • avatar
    ttacgreg

    Simply repealing the 2017 tax cut for the Corps and zillionaires would go a considerable distance in covering these new deficit contributing measures. IMHO, in the long run, investing the middle class and infrastructure will do far more of that fabled “paying for themselves” any deficit and debt increasing tax cut since the Reagan era ever has or will.

  • avatar

    What’s the problem? America is rich. I would suggest Uncle Joe to subsidize Chinese EV makers too. China is poor, America is rich. And Europe too, they don’t have money even for own self defense.

  • avatar
    brn

    Free money? Sign me up!

    Who’s paying for this?

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      Me. And I support this policy.

      EVs are better overall for the USA.

      If we replaced half our vehicles with EVs, we can save our oil for later AND reduce the need for US military intervention around the world. This should save us money in both the short-term and the long-term, while also providing a strategic benefit to the United States in the coming decades.

      Oh, and it’s better for the environment and the climate, too.

      I’ll pay taxes for that.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Hybrids perhaps, but not the plug in EV. The electric grid cannot sustain 138 million EVs and everything else.

        “How many registered motor vehicles are there in the U.S.? Some 276 million vehicles were registered here in 2019. The figures include passenger cars, motorcycles, trucks, buses, and other vehicles.”

        https://www.statista.com/statistics/183505/number-of-vehicles-in-the-united-states-since-1990/
        #:~:text=How%20many%20registered
        %20motor%20vehicles,12%20million%20units%20in%202019.

  • avatar
    tylanner

    Yummy yummy in my tummy….my next car will be an EV….this about seals it.

    Essentially this tells the industry to build cutting edge cars, build them here and pay your line workers 100k+ per year with great benefits.

  • avatar
    IH_Fever

    More freebies! Just keep giving away money, it’s not like those who earned it deserve it. Whether it’s oil, ag, or auto, we just subsidize industries based on the flavor of the month government idea. Send a bunch of “aid” to rathole countries who hate us so we can get oil instead of drilling at home. Plant thousands of acres of corn so we can make crap gasoline, and pay farmers not to farm. Give everyone money to go buy an EV, never mind our electric infrastructure sucks and at present EVs are a niche market. Frame it all in the name of “saving the planet” to hide the fact that you’re playing favorites, buying votes, and skimming off the top. Pretty much sums up both sides of the political spectrum. Some of us are sick of funding it.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “it’s not like those who earned it deserve it”

      FWIW, a nonrefundable tax credit means the people receiving it did earn the money in the first place.

      • 0 avatar
        Snooder

        Right?

        If you’re in favor of tax cuts, well this is a tax cut.

        • 0 avatar
          IH_Fever

          A tax cut for who? The small subset of the population who’d buy an EV? One of many subsets the government has deemed “special?” Tell you what, send me back my % of that $12500 that was taken out of my pay just this year, and let me decide how to spend it. If the automakers can’t build and price an EV that I want to buy without government incentive, that’s their problem. Why should any of my money be going to them or the person who wants one?

          • 0 avatar
            Snooder

            Thats the beauty of this. If you do a good thing and buy an EV, you get a nice cut on your taxes. If you decide that you don’t wanna, then nothing changes for you.

            And it’s a relatively small portion of the overall tax revenue that it won’t imbalance the budget. Win win all around.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            @Snooder, the problem with this is that there are a lot of people who live in low cost of living areas that certainly could afford to buy a new EV but won’t get the full amount at $7500 let alone $12500. This discriminates against people because they didn’t choose to live on the coasts or one of the big inland cities.

          • 0 avatar
            IH_Fever

            Ok, so the government gets to decide what’s a “good” thing for me to do, otherwise I don’t get preferential treatment? That’s the problem in a nutshell, what’s “good” is not the government’s business, and many of us are tired of funding everyone else based on whatever “feels good.”

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @IH_Fever

            Somewhere, an independent thought alarm is going off.

  • avatar
    tonycd

    “The Clean Energy for America Act basically throws any notion of there being a free auto market out the window.”

    First, when was there ever a “free market” for automotive fuels? Oil companies are one of the most heavily taxpayer-subsidized, law-trampling industries in America and the world.

    Second, isn’t your choice of photo a bit editorially slanted? Using tax and subsidy policy to shape behavior is as old as cigarette taxes. Why not the same level of outrage every time the government, say, slaps a tariff on imported trucks?

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I doubt that I will buy an EV anytime soon so this means little to me. The most important part of wider EV adoption will be the expanding of charging stations and lower cost batteries with quicker charging times. For me most of the EVs are high priced luxury vehicles with the exception of the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt. True the F150 Lightning will start in the low 30s but few will be available at that price as few Mustang Mach Es are available at the low price as few Teslas are available at the lower price. Maybe as more EVs are available and the chip shortage subsidies there will be more affordable EVs available.

  • avatar
    chuckrs

    Electric cars require batteries. Batteries require cobalt. 70% of the worlds cobalt comes from The Democratic Republic of the Congo. Some of it is mined under conditions that would make even the Chinese blush, if they weren’t in it in a big way.

    The DRC and predecessors have been cursed from the time it was called The Belgian Congo, personally owned by King Leopold II. (No, really). Then, it was the ruthless exploitation of natural rubber, the stuff wrapping the wheels of early cars, ICE, steam and EV alike. See King Leopold’s Ghost and Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness; the former for history and the latter for the colonialism. Fast forward to the latter part of the 20th century and it was Blood Diamonds. Now, its cobalt. Battery cars are not all unicorns and skittles. Someone, somewhere, always pays the piper. It’s not EV owners.

    • 0 avatar
      Alex Mackinnon

      It’s time to look north then. Canada is going to be putting a lot into battery metals in the near future.

      Have a look at this:

      https://www.firstcobalt.com/

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Honestly I’d love to replace my hybrid SUV with a full EV. Neither the right product nor the right L3 network is quite in place yet (although a used Model S is kind of tempting, Tesla is just too fly-by-night). But if this tax credit is in place when there is a Hyundai Palisade EV or a Chevy Mega Bolt for me to buy, it might be enough to get me to pull the trigger.

  • avatar
    Old_WRX

    slavuta,

    Please don’t tell me they bought Joey B’s money printing press.

  • avatar

    Electric cars, especially Tesla vehicles are definitely superior to Gas powered cars. There’s a reason why Tesla sales have been DOUBLING every single year for the past 10 years. I can easily see Tesla going from 500K sales last year to over a Million sales this year WITH OR WITHOUT this incentive. As for reaching parity, there’s already parity when the Tesla Model 3 costs less to own over 5 years than a Toyota Camry. Why? No need to worry about Gas every day, Oil Changes every 3 months, Brakes every year and so on and so forth. This rebate is unnecessary and it’s unlikely that Tesla will be able to more than double annual sales. What they really should do is end subsidies to Oil companies and refineries. End subsidies for Ethanol and other fuel additives.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • BlueEr03: A two-door convertible and you want comfort over lightweight. I’m shocked that the one true answer...
  • ToolGuy: …also good at basketball.
  • ToolGuy: Der Fabrikleiter gibt Anweisungen.
  • tane94: I’d suggest a Mini S hardtop or convertible. You get a BMW turbo four with the S, and if buying the...
  • tane94: I’d suggest a Mini S hardtop or convertible. You get a BMW turbo four with the S, and if buying the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber