Charlie G
Elio Addict
They've been working on getting the loan since at least 2013, I wonder how many more projects are in the review queue
-
Welcome to Elio Owners! Join today, registration is easy!
You can register using your Google, Facebook, or Twitter account, just click here.
Send Email To Dop To Show Support For Elio Motors Loan.
- Thread starter Jerry Greif
- Start date
Flake Amendment #669: To Cut Remaining Amounts Available for the ATVM Program Credit Subsidy
Summary
Would cut $4.2 billion in budget authority from the energy function (270) and reduce the overall caps by the commensurate amount in accordance with the GAO’s suggestion about rescinding all or part of the remaining $4.2 billion credit subsidy associated with the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program.
Background
On March 4, 2015, GAO reported that “The Department of Energy (DOE) has not yet demonstrated a demand for these loans that would substantially use the remaining [$4.2 billion in] credit subsidy appropriations.” GAO recommended in 2011 that “DOE accelerate its efforts to engage the engineering expertise needed for effective technical oversight and develop sufficient, quantifiable performance measures for its program goals.”
GAO followed that report in 2013, noting that “DOE was not actively considering any applications for using the remaining $16.6 billion in loan authority or $4.2 billion in credit subsidy appropriations….” At the time, DOE officials told GAO that it was unlikely to use the remaining ATVM loan authority “given the current eligibility requirements.” This amendment would follow GAO’s recommendation by cutting the remaining credit-subsidy authority.
Supporting Organizations
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, National Taxpayers Union
http://www.flake.senate.gov/public/...-aims-to-cut-6-3-billion-from-budget-proposal
Summary
Would cut $4.2 billion in budget authority from the energy function (270) and reduce the overall caps by the commensurate amount in accordance with the GAO’s suggestion about rescinding all or part of the remaining $4.2 billion credit subsidy associated with the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program.
Background
On March 4, 2015, GAO reported that “The Department of Energy (DOE) has not yet demonstrated a demand for these loans that would substantially use the remaining [$4.2 billion in] credit subsidy appropriations.” GAO recommended in 2011 that “DOE accelerate its efforts to engage the engineering expertise needed for effective technical oversight and develop sufficient, quantifiable performance measures for its program goals.”
GAO followed that report in 2013, noting that “DOE was not actively considering any applications for using the remaining $16.6 billion in loan authority or $4.2 billion in credit subsidy appropriations….” At the time, DOE officials told GAO that it was unlikely to use the remaining ATVM loan authority “given the current eligibility requirements.” This amendment would follow GAO’s recommendation by cutting the remaining credit-subsidy authority.
Supporting Organizations
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, National Taxpayers Union
http://www.flake.senate.gov/public/...-aims-to-cut-6-3-billion-from-budget-proposal
Last edited by a moderator:
For EM's sake we can hope that, like most things introduced in DC, this will not actually move much past being introduced.
I do enjoy reading the political BS in the way the background section picks and chooses its facts while mostly using outdated information to support the assertion that this program should be killed. This completely ignores the fact that since the 2011 and 2013 GAO reports the program has actually been retooled and then revived. It also ignores the fact that the 2015 GAO report conclusions are based on the information that no loans have been approved since 2011. While this particular information comes from a Republican Senator, we are seeing it presented in a way frequently used by all political parties. It is very common to only present facts which support one side while ignoring other information which does not fit their conclusions and/or goals.
Sounds like all business as usual in D.C. these days...
if you're supporting, arguing a position, why provide ammo to opponents? LOL
This is current: http://www.eliomotors.com/press-rel...-creates-consistent-rules-across-the-country/
Press Release – Federal “Autocycle” Legislation Creates Consistent Rules Across the Country
March 27, 2015
Federal “Autocycle” Legislation Creates Consistent Rules Across the Country, Benefits Consumers by Eliminating Ambiguity From State to State, According to Elio Motors CEO
PS: http://www.eliomotors.com/tech-talk-v61-legislative-strategy/
Press Release – Federal “Autocycle” Legislation Creates Consistent Rules Across the Country
March 27, 2015
Federal “Autocycle” Legislation Creates Consistent Rules Across the Country, Benefits Consumers by Eliminating Ambiguity From State to State, According to Elio Motors CEO
PS: http://www.eliomotors.com/tech-talk-v61-legislative-strategy/
Last edited:
Because YOUR argument becomes more credible if you can address all sides of the issue and still make your side of the argument...ignoring the other side of the issue just makes it look like you're trying to hide something...
engaging in an argument is one thing .... engaging in a discussion is another .... the point of an argument is to win .... the point of a discussion is to exchange info and (hopefully) learn from it
Have you not won the argument if you engage all aspects and still come out on top?
its been my experience that arguments have few winners .... arguments are emotion based and unfortunately facts take on secondary importance