Bastiat would be sickened. The parable of the broken window at least had a *broken* window. Now it's devolved to the Parable of the Leaky Window.
Idiots.

Because Cash for Clunkers was just so damn successful and not a bureaucratic nightmare or boondoggle at all.

I think I'll just tell them all to suck my caulk!

Is this an extension of an existing tax credit program, or is this an outright subsidy check?

I got to take a tax credit of about $600 for the new doors I put in. Add that to the savings on oil, and I made out alright.

Of course, you realize that this is going to backfire on them and they'll raise taxes.

People using less energy means lower revenue from energy taxes, means raising taxes somewhere else because government can never do with less.

Well, since we'll be paying for it anyway, I'm sure as hell going to take the money when we insulate this year. I'm tired of others getting everything while I pay.

Of course, they'll probably find a way to make it go to everyone but us, like they did with the housing credit. Jackasses.

Ha! Check out how this went in Australia over the last year or so Amy.

1. Government announces $1600 subsidy for anyone wanting to insulate their house.
2. Existing installers swamped.
3. Dozens of new shonky operators set up and sign up homeowners for 'free' - for most houses the subsidy was enough to cover the full job, of course no quote was ever less than the subsidy even if it would have been less before.
4. Said operators train a bunch of people on one day courses who then go forth to insulate.
5. Huge shortage of insulation so lots imported from China. Naturally a lot of that turns out to be sub-standard.
6. Insulation poorly laid (fibreglass over halogen lights, foil insulation stapled through power cables) resulting in dozens of house fires and 4 directly linked deaths.
7. Government agrees to inspect and replace any suspect jobs, at a greater cost than the original program.

And here's the best one, which you would already be familiar with from Cash for Clunkers

8. All demand in the industry for the next ten years has been pulled forward, with the result that prior existing solid businesses installing insulation are going bankrupt through lack of work.

I had a few come to my door. They didn't seem to understand when I said "Not interested, no one goes into my roof space" (I have old wiring, until I get it replaced it shouldn't be disturbed), always answering "But it's free!"

At least yours is only a half rebate, that will limit the number of people that take it up.

We're more used to our Prime Minister pinching ideas from Obama - we're currently going through a health care 'reform' debate - so it's nice to see the brain drain going the other way for a change.

And Patrick - *groan*. The ultimate compliment for a good pun!

If the energy upgrades save on home energy bills, that's a benefit right there. Aside from Federal subsidies and tax breaks, the State of California has a lot of rebate programs now for solar installs and as far as I can tell it hasn't resulted in a huge number of new shysters on the market. Most of the rebates aren't 100% of the cost and the paperwork is of course godawful. There are also local programs where a city finances a homeowner's solar conversion and the owner pays it back over years in the form of a property tax increase.

The big trend right now is Net Zero Energy homes. This is where an all-solar home is "grid tied" and excess power not used immediately is fed right back into PG&E's power grid and tracked by a 2-way meter. (A grid-tied home doesn't need the usual banks of storage batteries onsite that an off-grid solar home uses.) Then when the home needs power say at night, it draws back from the grid and the meter spins forward again. If the home produces more energy than it consumes in a single year, the owner gets a single energy bill for $zero.

In order to have a NZE home, you NEED to make the home as efficient as possible, including appliances, so that your solar or other renewable energy system doesn't have to be as big. But the benefit? NET ZERO ENERGY BILL FOR THE YEAR.

So quit your whining about subsidies for Home Despot, willya? The free market says you can buy your supplies anywhere you want, no one's forcing you to go to Lowe's.

Sorry vi, but if it were not for some fairly significant subsidies paid for by taxpayers, those fancy solar rebates are net losers, even in sunny California.

Yes, the person who installs them makes out OK. Those paying the bill do not. When it's California paying for California's follies, it's California's business. They would do better financially by building new power plants.

In NY, it's the same scheme with wind power. Do you honestly think the utility companies lose when they are forced to buy power at rates that exceed their cost to produce it? Evidently our legislators do, because they are the ones who approved this boondoggle. It takes a brain to make the connection between their meddling and our above average electic rates.

The sensible things don't need government subsidies. They make economic sense on their own.

MarkD:

The point with the solar financing is most of it is NOT a gift, and it comes from several places, not just the Feds. It's like financing a car, and who you get the loan from could be a bank, the solar company, or a township. It's a LOAN, and the homeowners pay it back. The rebates of which you complain so much give you a specific amount back per watt purchased, and in order to qualify for the higher rebate tiers, the homeowner must prove that his house exceeds CA efficiency codes by 35%. It's not exactly a free giveaway.

(If you lived in CA you'd be pissing and moaning about this energy code, which is a significant burden. But it's been around for 30 years and CA consumes a lot less power today because of it.)

IMO solar is never a "loser" especially for those of us who remember CA's power rate increases in 2000. More power plants? Sure, but let's use less power too. And let's not build more coal-fired plants for chrissakes. Even nuclear would be better, cleaner. And why the hell shouldn't we try to be more efficient? I think our power-consumptive lifestyles leave us as Americans vulnerable to a number of economic factors.

I was going to say that we'd be less susceptible to infrastructure failures or sabotage as well - the grid-tied net zero homes of course would still be screwed, though.

Also, a lot of electric power is lost just in transmission. I didn't know this, but only about half of what's generated in a power plant actually reaches homes for use. The rest is lost in heat at the plant or during transmission over the grid. Even natural gas fuel cells, which aren't fully renewable, are more efficient from this standpoint.

Obama seems to like issues that aren't really helpful to the country.

Its like he's determined to make the books for the most petty decisions in a single term.