Guess the phrase applied more appropriately to the policy itself.
Conceptually, I never liked the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) for two reasons. First, the program wasn't about getting old cars off the road so much as it was about getting politically undesirable cars off the road. A gently driven 2001 Hummer H1 is technically a "clunker," but a 1994 Toyota Corolla with 200,000 miles doesn't qualify because its fuel economy is too good. The program, in effect, punishes people who have been responsible buyers previously so that it can reward those who purchased vehicles that, environmentally speaking, were less responsible.
Leave it to the Democrats to preach a message of environmental responsibility for decades and then flip the financial bird to the people who have been leading by example.
Secondly, just as with sales tax holidays, all this program does is accelerate spending that would have happened anyway, or was postponed as consumers waited for the government to subsidize their purchase. That's plainly evident given how quickly the program is burning through money. It's not stimulus when someone waits 3-6 months to buy, knowing that a government subsidy is in the works. It's also not stimulus when someone bumps up a purchase by six months because the government is offering them a bribe.
The only purchase remotely resembling stimulus is one made by a buyer who had no intent to purchase without the subsidy. How many of those do you really think exist?
WASHINGTON — New-car shoppers appear to have already snapped up all the $1 billion that Congress appropriated for the “cash for clunkers” program, leading the Transportation Department to tell auto dealers Thursday night to stop offering the rebates.The government suspended the explosively popular cash-for-clunkers program, fearing it would go broke before it could pay what it still owes dealers for a huge backlog of sales, according to congressional offices and a dealer group.
Conceptually, I never liked the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) for two reasons. First, the program wasn't about getting old cars off the road so much as it was about getting politically undesirable cars off the road. A gently driven 2001 Hummer H1 is technically a "clunker," but a 1994 Toyota Corolla with 200,000 miles doesn't qualify because its fuel economy is too good. The program, in effect, punishes people who have been responsible buyers previously so that it can reward those who purchased vehicles that, environmentally speaking, were less responsible.
Leave it to the Democrats to preach a message of environmental responsibility for decades and then flip the financial bird to the people who have been leading by example.
Secondly, just as with sales tax holidays, all this program does is accelerate spending that would have happened anyway, or was postponed as consumers waited for the government to subsidize their purchase. That's plainly evident given how quickly the program is burning through money. It's not stimulus when someone waits 3-6 months to buy, knowing that a government subsidy is in the works. It's also not stimulus when someone bumps up a purchase by six months because the government is offering them a bribe.
The only purchase remotely resembling stimulus is one made by a buyer who had no intent to purchase without the subsidy. How many of those do you really think exist?
6 comments:
The cash for clunkers was such a mistake and shows how Obama just doesn't get it.
1) It encourages people to spend money that they probably didn't have to buy a car they probably didn't need, just keeping them in debt longer.
2) The program blew through a lot of car inventories and now people wont buy again for a long time. So instead of putting UAW workers back to work they will stay unemployed longer as no cars will be purchased.
3) The irony of it all is that in the rush to put even more money into the program,the funds were diverted from Solar and Wind pwer programs already approved in Washington.
The end result is that more internal combustion engines will be aon the road and fewer green enery programs will exist. Way to go Dems!
Well, first of all--a babied Hummer wouldn't be considered a clunker unless it had a value of less than $4500. Admittedly, there probably are not many Hummer drivers who are also Mensus Society, but I still doubt they're dumb enough to take part in the program if their vehicle is worth more than the allowance. (Writing the last part of that sentence did give me considerable pause.)
Second, I would likely be taking the subsidy if I qualified. I have a 12-year-old vehicle that I'm planning to keep for another eight years, but had my original MPG estimate not been 1 MPG above the limit, I would have been pretty motivated to get it off the road and replace it with a Prius. I can't be the only one who fits that category.
I understand that the Hummer I described would be worth more than $3500 or $4500. My point, of course, is that Congress did a poor job of targeting the program if such a vehicle qualifies.
Also, it's novel for Congress to delude itself into thinking that this is a huge environmental contribution. Fact is, the people driving the dirtiest, nastiest, pollution-emitting vehicles are generally people who can't afford to drive anything better. They certainly aren't the kinds of people who typically have a pile of money saved up or can secure the kind of financing necessary to take a new vehicle off the lot.
While I don't often agree with Bill Kristol, he's dead on when he says that this money is going to a "bunch of upper-middle class people who have some cars sitting around from 12 years ago. Now they're just accelerating their purchase to get 4,500 bucks."
With all due respect, he pretty much just described your situation. It's quite likely that if you wanted the Prius you could buy it anyway and simply finance a little extra. People who are on the economic fringe aren't buying Priuses. And how eco-conscious is it for us to scrap a vehicle that you've admitted could have another eight years of life so that you can buy a new car with a government subsidy?
Irwin--"Way to go Dems?" For your information, this program has enjoyed considerable bipartisan support. In fact, the House bill to provide an additional $2 billion in stimulus funds to the program passed by a margin of 316-109. Republicans aren't that far in the minority. Yet.
I have forwarded this link and the comments to flag@whitehouse.gov. The three of you should expect to be contacted shortly. I hope you are happy.
Thanks! I'll look forward to receiving my new flag.
Post a Comment