Bio
Publishes Mamalogues® and is a talk radio host. Blogher contributing political editor; also contributes to Mamapop, Imperfect Parent, Momversation, an...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Recent Comments

Is Cash for Clunkers a "Clunker?"

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 5
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

It seemed like a good idea: the Cash Allowance Rebate System (CARS, a.k.a. "Cash for Clunkers") a program aimed at saving the environment by creating a taxpayer-funded program in which people traded in their "clunkers," or perfectly drivable cars with 18 mpg or less into dealerships in exchange for rebates up to $4,500 towards a new, more fuel efficient vehicle. The program was so successful, it blew through its $1 billion dollar funding in a mere seven days, mostly because people like the appearance of free money. Congress hurriedly voted to inject an additional $2 billion into the program on Friday.

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

  • 5
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Beth Terry 5 pts

Where are the tax breaks for people who have chosen not to own cars or to share one car with multiple people?  Where is the incentive for cities to become more bike/pedestrian friendly?  Where is the support for public transit?

I'm just asking.

Beth Terry@fakeplasticfish
www.fakeplasticfish.com ( http://www.fakeplasticfish.com )
( https://twitter.com/fakeplasticfish )
FaceBook ( http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=649272144 )

dnlee5 5 pts

you make some interesting and valid points.  But I still think it is a great idea.  I wish I could have takend advantage of it when I bought my new very fuel efficient car - a Scion Xa.  I was in the market to buy anyway, so having a credit would have been nice.

But from the environmental side, I do wish the program made allowances for some cheaper and greener initiatives.  For example, a credit for retrofitting and upgrading the fuel efficiency and exhaust system of the clunkers.  Coming from a pooer working class family, I too know the trials and triumphs of the clunker as a family car.  Improving the ''drive-ability'' of a car and having no car note is very attractive.

But in the end, the C.A.R.S. program best benefits middle income households, persons at the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder can't afford to take advantage of the program. I think that is a bigger shame. 

CarbaraB 5 pts

www.halfpastkissintime.com ( http://www.halfpastkissintime.com )

A car dealer friend of ours says that the paperwork involved in this is absolutely ridiculous and that they have yet to see a dime from the federal government for cars they have taken. Sounds like a clunker to me.

suburbancompositon 5 pts

My first car was a piece of junk by most standards, a 63 four door corvair, but it got 20 mpg! There are a LOT of old "clunkers" with better gas milage then the new unnessecarily large SUVs. And even with better gas milage then a lot of new sedans.

The environmental factor is outrageous! But when has the government ever cared about that?

A friend of ours drives a large gas guzzling truck, he says the way he sees it he could trade it in, but then he'll still have a car AND someone will be driving his old car, which just puts two cars in the world using gas. And the idea of destroying it! Well that's just that much more stupid!

I think the government thought this through about as much as they thought through the CPSIA!

Read my blog at http://suburbancomposition.blogspot.com

It's about life, a toddler, home preschool, crafts, and more. 

Kay Unchained 5 pts

We debated, initially, whether to participate in the CARS program.  But in the end?  It just wasn't worth it.

1 - $4500 is a decent amount - but it would still require us taking on a large payment, which we can't afford right now.

2 - Our credit sucks - and we're both unemployed.  So getting a loan would have been impossible.

3 - The MPG savings would have been wonderful - one of our vehicles gets 10 (ten) MPG.  The other gets about 15.  (According to the gov't website, they both get 18).  But compared to the payment?  Not enough.

4 - I can't imagine driving around in a teeny little matchbox car.  I'm more concerned about safety than gas mileage.  

5 - We don't agree with the whole principle of the program, so we couldn't allow ourselves to do it.  We're one of those lower to middle class income families, struggling from paycheck to paycheck.  To take a perfectly usable vehicle off the road and destroy it seems pointless.  

So now?  Hubby is still driving his 2000 Dodge Ram (the $4500 wouldn't have even covered what we still owe on it, so that was out).  I'm still driving my 1987 Jeep Cherokee (no, that's not a typo - it really is 22 years old).  And we'll both drive them until they can't be driven anymore.  

Just curious - did you see this video clip? Any opinion on it?  Glad I didn't "ask for more information" like the site prompted me to.  ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqfuZ7hiap0 )