So I really like #dontgo and I really like the continued Republican revolt and I really, really like seeing a coherent Republican policy that has the attention of the American public.

I know that policy is the American Energy Act (HR 6566). I know it's an "all of the above energy solution," but uh, I don't really know what that means. I just know it sounds good.

As a result, I decided to start figuring out what exactly we're fighting for and, more importantly, how much I believed in it. So I skipped Title I for now since it's all about offshore drilling and ANWR, and moved straight down to the next parts. I'd encourage you to give it your own look, especially if you lay claim to the #dontgo movement.

So here's part one of my pitiful attempt to decade legislation-ese into everyday speak. I couldn't find anything else like it in a few Google searches. Scary, right?

TITLE II--CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY
Subtitle A--Tax Incentives for Fuel Efficiency
If you get a new plug-in electric car after December 31, 2008, you get a $3200 tax credit. For every kwh the engine has in excess of 5kwh, you get $200; the maximum "bonus" is $2000. So the maximum tax credit is $5000. [Sec. 30D. a+b] Amusing restrictions include it being brand spanking new ("original use" must begin "with the taxpayer"); it being "made by a manufacturer"; and it "weighing less than 14,000 pounds." On a more serious note, it has to receive a "certificate of conformity under the Clean Air Act." [Sec. 201. Sec. 30D.; d(1)]

But watch out. If an electric car is sold during the phase-out period, you only get a percentage of the tax credit: 50% during the first two calendar quarters of phaseout; 25% during the next two calendar quarters of phaseout; and a nice zero anytime after that. To determine the phaseout period, solve 4x^zqd(14/6kg)*6=ugh. Really, it's the second calendar quarter after the car manufacturer sells "at least 60,000" of those electric suckers for use in the US. [Sec. 201; Sec. 30D; e]

The rule that really intrigues me comes from Sec. 201; Sec 30D; f(2): "RECAPTURE- The Secretary [of Energy] shall, by regulations [yessss!], provide for recapturing the benefit of any credit allowable under subsection (a) [the $3200 + bonus pay] with respect to any property which ceases to be property eligible for such credit." From whom will such benefits be captured? How does an electric car cease to become eligible? Do I have to total it?

By the way, for those of you who thought legislation was sexy, I bring you Sec. 201; Sec 30D; c:
"Credit Made Part of General Business Credit- Section 38(b) of such Code is amended--
(1) by striking `and' each place it appears at the end of any paragraph,
(2) by striking `plus' each place it appears at the end of any paragraph,
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (31) and inserting `, plus', and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
(32) the portion of the new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle credit to which section 30D(c)(1) applies."

All I can think of is this is how the world ends. Not with a bang, but with a "striking 'and' each place it appears at the end of any paragraph."

My Thoughts
I find it a little sad that in doling out tax credits, the amount for an electric car is higher than the amount for a child. But in general, anything that results in less money going to the government and more money staying in peoples' pockets is a good thing to me. Since this fits the bill (harhar), I am okay with it.

Still, I doubt the rationale (if any) behind it. If electric cars really are more energy efficient, I think Americans are rational enough to purchase them on their own. This is why I drive a Honda Civic instead of a Dodge Ram 3500 (black, Laramie style cab in case you're curious). I recognize the nearly limitless joy I would obtain from driving such an amazing vehicle is outweighed by the truly limitless pain I would feel every time I filled the tank. With diesel. Ow.

Subtitle B--Tapping America's Ingenuity and Creativity
There will be a prize. For new and good energy ideas...stuff...things. Because Americans love prizes. Especially when they're in cold, hard cash, baby.

The Secretary of Energy will make sure everyone knows about this prize, "including individuals, universities, communities, and large and small businesses" [Sec. 213(b)]. This is a great example of government at work: they could have just left it at "individuals" since "individuals" make up all the other things on the list. But oh well.

Since we're Republican, we'll make sure this plan is competitively sourced dammit! The Secretary of Energy can form an agreement with a "private, nonprofit entity" to basically run the show. This includes everything from advertising this madness to selecting the criteria by which to select the winners (with the Secretary's seal of approval of course). [Sec. 213(c)] But no way is word getting out about this contest before the Secretary has shaken every federal agency down to make sure the Department of Energy can put its money where its mouth is, i.e. pay out the whole prize [Sec. 213(e)].

Oh, and the Secretary of Energy gets a big ol' $2 million each fiscal year from 2009 to 2020 for the "administrative costs" of running the contest. (I hereby nominate myself and my newly formed non-profit College Costs a Lot of Money to handle this part.) Plus 40 percent of the American Energy Trust Fund (which is 90 percent of 50 percent of money in new offshore drilling federal oil leases--go government math!) can be used "without further appropriation [i.e. action by Congress] to carry out specified provisions of this section." Except then there are no specifications.

But--sweetest deal ever--the award is tax-free [Sec. 217].

My Thoughts
Weak sauce guys. I mean... It sounds good. It's a prize. And people are competing for it. And it uses free market thinking to get a desired outcome. Incentives are good.

Am I the only one who thinks it's, well, a giant waste? The engineering genius who pioneers the next thing in energy is going to be swimming in money. Giant vats of $100 bills kind of swimming. Entreprenuers know this. So I'm ot sure why the government needs to spend $22 million (not adjusting for inflation!) in a vain attempt to hurry along a process that free will, free people, and a free market have already set in motion.

Apathy among young voters occurs for two reasons: (1) lack of engagment with the issues (e.g. "It won't affect me so I don't care") and/or (2) lack of engagement with the process (e.g. "I can't change it so I don't care"). Apathy among young voters about Republican ideology/politicking is a natural by-product (e.g. "Since I can't change it and it won't affect me, I don't want to spend time bucking popular culture.").

That's why I think the story of Sen. Tom Coburn "holding up" the Senate is so damn good. And, if you haven't heard it, read the lead-up here.

It affects you. Sen. Coburn is holding up is a group of 36 bills shoved together in a big package with a vague, nice name. He argues these bills up spending without cutting it elsewhere or--even worse--duplicate existing federal programs. In other words, they're a waste.

So that means even if you wouldn't notice the effect of these bills being signed into law, your bank account sure will. According to Washington Watch, the cost per family will be $64.66--and that's not even counting everything. So if you'd like to use $64.66 in other ways than, say, supporting the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation, this bill affects you.

You can change it. Sure, calling your senators right now would be helpful in contributing to the growth of their spines. (If you'd like to, you can see votes here.) But that's not what I'm talking about.

Youth voters are disengaged with the political process because they don't think one person and one voice can make a difference. (Seriously. Ask an Econ major to do a cost-benefit analysis of voting.) Well, Sen. Coburn presents a great story of one person mucking up everything on principle. Even while taking hits from the media and both sides of the aisle.

It is cool. We like people who do things differently (just not too differently--cough, Britney). We like underdogs and drawing lines in the sand and lone cowboys and rangers and whatever the feminine version of those things is. Sen. Coburn's story delivers on all these counts things and, on top of that, unfolds at a quick enough pace (unlike many government processes) to make it entertaining to follow.

So thumbs up to Sen. Coburn. One small step for the Senate, one giant leap for the interest and attention of youth voters.

Minnesota Public Radio (okay, it's random, but go with me!) wants to know what you think the future of the Republican Party is. Check it out.

"The Republican Party is at a crossroads. An unpopular president is on the way out, and the party's election-year hopes are pinned to a candidate who sometimes strays from the party line.

"With the convention coming up and the GOP seeking the public input on their platform outline, we want to know: Where would you steer the party? And how was your Republican identity shaped? Please share your insights below."

I'll be filling it out and post my answers here. I hope you will too.