I don't have a problem with that, but where it becomes a problem is when govt. forces people to buy vehicles they don't want, like these little 50 mpg ****box/deathtrap rollerskates. If people want to buy a huge SUV that sucks gas and they can pay for it, more power to them. And besides, folks, it's a fad. As people want them to be "more car-like," they are slowly turning back into cars, like the FX45 or the aforementioned Highlander, the Honda Pilot, Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute, Nissan Murano and others. So eventually they will evolve back into more efficent cars. The body-on-frame jobs are for people like my father, who hauls a 28 foot saltwater boat around. IF we could simply go after the oil we have, like in the ANWR, a frozen wasteland of no value save the oil beneath it, we could reduce our dependency. We will always have plenty of oil, but if and when it does run out (they've said for 40 years we only had 20 years of oil left and somehow, that just hasn't rung true), the glory of our free market system will be forced to develop something. The internal combustion engine will be around for awhile.
Definitely, Sec 179 is an example of real economic stimulus derived directly from tax policy... I guess it's more of question of why the government would target oversize SUVs and yet not provide the same kind of tax incentives for the manufacture or purchase of more efficient and arguably more responsible (in terms of public safety) vehicles. This study shows that regular car owners have been subsidizing SUVs high costs for years... http://www.conning.com/irpstore/PressReleases/030915.asp
