Wisconsin politicians are whining that the rules for the CARS rebates are "not fair" to Wisconsin residents. One of the myriad requirements for the rebate is that the auto being traded has been insured for the past twelve months.
Wisconsin does not require drivers to carry auto insurance*.
One can only assume that this particular provision was added to the legislation to insure that old junkers - cars that have been sitting in Bubba's front yard for years, rusting out - cannot be towed onto the lot and granted the rebate. After all, the CARS program was established in the all-holy name of "climate change", with a stated goal of reducing emissions. Turning in a car that doesn't run does nothing to accomplish that goal.
One could also assume that the majority of the uninsured vehicles on the roads here are older cars, of comparatively little value (although that may not necessarily be a valid assumption - there are a lot of stupid people out there). In that sense, then, the requirement that the car be insured for a year prior to trade hurts the very cause it was meant to aid; those older cars are not eligible and will remain on the road.
I have only one question for Feingold, et al - did you read the bill before you passed it?
Apparently not, or this wouldn't be an issue.
*This finally changes 6/1/10, not soon enough to keep me from resenting years' worth of uninsured motorist coverage for which I've paid. Shall we place bets on whether or not my premium will actually go down?
The Wisconsin Auto & Truck Dealers Assoc. lawyer is quoted near the end of the linked article, calling the glut of paperwork the government is dealing with on the rebates as a "pig in a python". Heh.