A couple of things have surprised me about this program; this morning while on air speaking to Skip Weber of George Weber Chevrolet (a local dealership owner here in St. Louis) Weber explained how the program has provided a short, artificial boost in business. They're actually trying to bypass using the program dollars by accepting trade-ins on their own rather than take the taxpayer dollars for it. Interesting. 

There are several things that I don't like about the Cash for Clunkers program:

1) It is another example of the government overstepping its authority and manipulating the private sector by artificially depressing prices.

2) It's a false inflation of business as the surge will likely dry up once the taxpayer dollars run out.

3) The government failed to keep its promise that the "Program runs through Nov 1, 2009 or when the funds are exhausted, whichever comes first" which begs the question as to whether or not Cash for Clunkers will receive a third infusion of taxpayer dollars to stay alive.

4) There isn't anything "green" about destroying cars which can get people from their homes to their jobs. The Cash for Clunkers program mandates that the engines - the most expensive part of an automobile - must be destroyed to be compliant with the program. The NHTSA says that this is done to prevent fraud, to stop trade-ins from finding their way back to the highways. The consequence of this mandate is that fewer vehicles will be donated to charity and there will be fewer vehicles available for lower-income families to buy. My mother was a poor single mom - the only car she could afford when I was a kid would have been a clunker by today's definition, a car simply to get her to and from work.

Prices for those engine parts will increase, thus making it harder for lower-income earners to even fix the older cars they have. When their car finally dies, sure, one less gas-guzzler on the road, but one more family possibly facing unemployment because the adult can't get to work.

5. Maura Judkis writes:

The environmental idea behind the bill is that it takes old, inefficient vehicles off of the road. But some environmentalists are actually opposed to the bill because it takes functioning cars off of the road before their time is up, and does not permit the vouchers to go towards used vehicles, even if they are more fuel-efficient.

Precisely. I also don't see how adding "clunkers" to landfills is green. 

6. It's too easy to spend the rebate on a muscle car.

7. Instead of getting full value out of the "clunker's" engine, the program requires the destruction of it, basically frittering money away.

8. The effect on the used-car industry. I've never purchased a brand new vehicle in my life because a) I can't justify the depreciation just from driving it off the lot and b) I'm middle class, I clip coupons, and we're on a budget. This program strangles the very industry my family (and millions of others) relies on when looking to get a new-to-us car.

9. The maximum $4,500 rebate is equal or near-equal the vehicle's depreciation once driven off the lot.

10. This is a penance to the auto industry, and a late one at that. If the idea was to jump-start sales, why not do it, say, before the big bailouts?

11. The government, via the taxpayer, is covering the warranties for all new GM and Chrysler vehicles at the moment. So if you purchase a GM or Chrysler via Cash for Clunkers, the taxpayer is not only giving you dolla bills to buy your car; the taxpayer is also paying for your warranty, too.

12. This plays into the hands, too conveniently, I feel, of the whole hybrid/electric car industry. Honestly? I think electric cars and hybrids suck. When I'm rolling down the highway and my kids are sippin on juice in the backseat, I want them in a safe car made out of heavy metal - not some Flintstone-powered clown car that I feel I could physically lift up over my head.

(I've been in wrecks - bad ones, one time as a kid my family and I spun across a major interstate during rush hour after being battered by a semi and were splayed out in the median. I was so thankful for that giant, solid, car.)

Sister Toldjah attests to my car concerns and notes the mixed reviews ultra-fuel efficient vehicles such as hybrids have received:

Exactly, but the purpose of CforC is to get those cars off the road – period – in the name of helping to “save the environment”, but there are a lot of people out there, especially right now, who could better afford a “previously owned automobile” like the ones that are being “given back” under the CforC program than the more allegedly “environmentally sound” hybrid vehicles. Heck, even if I wanted to buy one – and I don’t, because I don’t think most of them are especially safe for both passengers, pedestrians, and first responders at the scene of an accident – I couldn’t afford to. The Ford Fusion Hybrid is close to $30K, and the more “economical” hybrids like the Honda Insight have gotten decidedly mixed to bad reviews in terms of comfort, handling, speed, safety, and the upkeep expense.

13. This doesn't bode well for the other "clunkers" this administration wants to fix.

Althouse asks:

Is this just some oddball quirk of a program, or should we see it as a sign that all those other programs loaded with money and big ideas are fatally ill-designed?

While I like consumer habits to change on their own and not because lo, the government commandeth it; it seems to me that the best recourse would be to let those automobiles phase themselves out naturally while providing some sort of incentive - tax credits, perhaps - to dealers, auto owners, to put towards the purchase of more fuel efficient, American-made vehicles. We don't have to always be penalized with a tax if we don't do this, a fee if we don't do that; some positive motivation would go a long way.

The common misconception about conservatives is that we're not "pro-environment," which couldn't be further from the truth. I come from a farming family who steadfastly believe that what you take from the earth you return. I was raised knowing that it's a responsibility of humanity - even laid forth in Genesis - to be a good steward of the environment. This, perhaps is my biggest criticism of cap-and-trade (also Greenpeace's - I cannot believe they and I are agreeing on an issue, even in part), aside from my other concern: massive job loss.

This legislation, as explained by President Obama, proposes to curb carbon emissions and reduce energy usage by increasing the price of energy as the motivation to use less. There are several things wrong with this proposal, things which make it impossible for me to support:

1) The legislation approaches the problem of carbon emissions completely wrong. Back in the 90s, my uncle was one of several lobbyists who worked to push forth legislation that provided tax incentives to farmers who used organic means of cultivation. Instead of penalizing farmers, who were already struggling as it was, they would be rewarded for using less chemicals on the land. The plan worked - and has worked in states where implemented. Positive reinforcement works time and time again.

2) There are currently no incentives for businesses to reduce emissions, just penalties. This in turn positions the legislation and the party supporting it as being hostile to business, even if they really aren't. The bill also has no guarantees that these businesses won't simply relocate or ship jobs overseas as a way to get around purchasing credits or paying penalties; there is no guarantee that they won't emit less if they relocate - but it is certain that they won't curb their emissions if they do.

3) The bill proposes to shift dependence from coal - a resource of which we have an abundance, says the U.S. Department of Energy, which is why the energy bills of the United States are so much lower compared to other parts of the world - to energies which are not yet capable of sustaining the market demand, explained Dan Kish, Senior Vice-President for Policy at the Institute for Energy Research, on my radio show last week. It costs more to produce less energy with regards to win and solar. The mistake made by some against conservatives is that by stating this, we're speaking against wind and solar power which is factually incorrect. I would love to have various forms of energy. I would love to have a decreased dependence on foreign countries for oil, et al., I would love to create more jobs in the green industry- but not at the sake of denying scientific fact where energy is concerned. We are not yet at that point to make a major shift.

4) According to Kish, we have already cut emissions by 70-75% without this exponentially-increased governmental oversight. More can be done, sure, but we're working off the false premise that changes are not already underway. Instead of cracking down on companies and risking job losses with no environmental benefit, why not craft a bill to reward them for reductions? Kish and others have also noted that our newer coal plants burn incredibly cleaner than older plants; why not retrofit older plants and make them more efficent? The cost to do this would seem to be less than the proposed cost incurred by this legislation. Says Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation:

For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.

But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600.

Of course, by giving incentives to instead of penalizing businesses, the government would greatly reduce the billions its expected to rake in from this legislation to offset stimulus spending.

5) I am open to all theories, so long as they are founded in fact and not politics, i.e. the EPA report that was suppressed. Such controversy should not exist when undertaking the biggest tax in American history based on the findings of such reports. Pat Austin, of So It Goes in Shreveport, discusses the suppressed EPA report:

The fact that the EPA suppressed a 98 page report by EPA senior research analyst Alan Carlin, some assume under pressure by the Obama administration, that draws serious questions about climate change.

6) I do not want elected officials - from EITHER party - who would stand to benefit from the passage of this or any legislation involved with getting it to a vote, i.e. Nancy Pelosi and Missouri Rep. Russ Carnahan.

7) The estimated job loss as a result of cap-and-trade is projected at 81,000 machinery jobs alone; by 2035 there will be 263,000 fewer machinery jobs. That's just in that particular industry. The ratio of jobs created with Waxman - Markey is grossly disproportionate to the amount of jobs which will be lost. It's analogous to saying that we need another hurricane to roar through the Florida panhandle in order to create some construction jobs. Well, sure, we'll have some construction jobs, but what of the other sectors? They will be ravaged. For further insight, listen to Warren Buffett give testament to this, or these Missouri small business owners whose jaws hit the floor when they realized what would happen to their energy bills under cap-and-trade. Austin also notes:

The Heritage Foundation predicts that this bill will "destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs."

What happenes when you increase the cost of doing business? The price
of the product increases. Benefits are cut and jobs are lost as companies shift to reign in spiked costs. You discover that your dollar doesn't stretch as far as it once did. The effects are widespread. 

8) There's more in Waxman - Markey than most people realize. Pundit and Pundette examines how this bill attempts to micromanage citizens via a post from Austin:

And how will this bill affect you? It has regulations on every single aspect of your daily life. There are light bulb restrictions (no more than 60 watts in your candelabra); in fact there's a whole section that deals with lamps. If you decide to build a new home, it must meet new and specific energy requirements. If you decide to sell your existing home, a federal inspector must inspect your home, determine it's energy rating, and if your home is found to be unacceptable then you must retrofit and make changes before you will be able to sell.

There's an entire section on planting trees including guidelines on "scientific based measurements outlining the species and minimum distance required between trees planted...in addition to the minimum required distance to be maintained between such trees and building foundations, air conditioning units, driveways and walkways...". Do we really need the federal government telling us where we can plant trees?

There's a section dealing with outdoor lighting in which you are given instructions about landscape lights, lights in your swimming pool, lights on artwork and other architectural lighting. The federal government is going to tell you what wattage that light can be and how many you can have. In some cases the lights must be capable of producing two different light levels (100 and 60 watt).

There are new government regulations for water dispensers, hot tubs and other appliances. They're going to regulate water usage, and regulate wood stoves. Any wood stove that does not meet regulation must be "destroyed and recycled."

9) This bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation in recent years because it's the biggest tax hike in the country and congress, breaking all promises, again, didn't even read it. A 300-page addendum was dumped on their desks the night before the vote. Kim Priestap takes issue with how the bill isn't even technically a bill yet:

This is unbelievable. The House voted on a bill that is not even a bill yet. It’s still in the development stages.

This is why I and so many are against the Waxman - Markey cap-and-trade bill. There is a better way to go about it that puts the environment and jobs first, politics second, all without further tanking our economy. The results are too important with which to trifle. Whoever does it? BRAVO.