GOP Shoots For its Own Foot on CARS

Totally agree. This is a great idea that helps the automotive industry and also reduces our dependency on foreign oil...two things I think Reps would support. By not backing this program, conservatives are proving that they are obstructing for purely political reasons.

I was actually glad to see this program be the subject of an earlier, thread, too. A number of points.

1. The program is being hyped, but is unquestionably popular with the public.

2. The dealers are worried about paperwork and other bureaucratic-bungling problems.

3. Destroying the old automobiles, including engines and powertrains that so benefit the recyclers and parts industry, is an example of an inherent defect in the program. To deliberately destroy an engine to make it unuseable or re-sellable, is _diseased_.

4. Some have whined that foreign automakers have benefited more than the taken-over Detroit dinosaurs and Ford. As a general remark, this is simple denial of reality since at least the 1980s; what planet are those complainers on? More specifically as well, it raises a disturbing (to better people) question if the complainers actually want us to subsidize the taken-over-by-government companies (truly demented!).

5. I've asked aloud, how long this program will last (more important than any near-term expansion of it), namely, will it be sought to be extended so long as there is a proclaimed "need" for it, namely to keep electing and re-electing Democrats as well as to "stimulate" the economy and prop up an industry that is often obsolescent and laden with Dem interest groups (the unions)? Will some want this to be permanent?

6. What other industries or companies would be favored next? Airlines and bus lines and additional Amtrak subsidies to boost travel? What about gambling in Las Vegas? (How may more Dems elected?)

And regarding the most notable defect in the program:

"This is a great idea that helps the automotive industry and also reduces our dependency on foreign oil."

The most glaring defect in the program is the _stupid_ environmental-lunacy obscession with, and _stupid_ requirements related to, fuel efficiency. Intelligent crafters of this kind of program would avoid stupid leftist politics and simply aim at the fundamental issue instead, spurring new vehicles sales _of_all_kinds_, the more total sales, obviously the better.

And what did we see with the wrangling over this program (which is a rare one lately, of mixed success, which even the Dems managed, predictably, to bungle)? Some idiot Dems actually wanted greater fuel efficiency (including at least one fake Republican who is liberal and should be a Democrat, Susan Collins of Maine, a true Dem like Snowe is from there -- lacking the honesty or the opportunism that Specter had to switch now to the Democratic Party openly and honestly).

The world standard for good versus poor efficiency is 23.5 MPG -- if the Dems (including people like Collins) want to raise standards subsequently from the current 22 MPG figure "because the feds can now be more choosy," the logical figure to raise it to is 23.5 MPG, not something stupidly higher. (But with these Dems it is a reasonable concern, and who knows what they'll do, raise it unrealistically high or even implement new progressive efficiency-based incentive payments to further shove people toward their zany political preferences.)

Some of those concerns are valid questions, DLS, and I hope it's a short term program. It shouldn't be a crutch to the industry forever. But it is definitely popular and if Congress is going to flush our money away anyway, at least this does do a little direct good to one industry and gets people cars cheaper, may keep some folks employed, etc.

The arguments about not being able to use the parts in junkyards is, I think, a bit overblown. We have them in my area... "U-Pull It" yards. They have no lack of wrecks.

One last note: The "cash for clunkers" subsidized-purchase program is popular with the public, obviously, in and of itself (a true "cash for clunkers" _complete_replacement_ program might be even more popular, as well as more effective and prudent than a lot of other environmental regulation and such by the feds).

But how much popularity also is there as a "rebound," for it's one stimulative measure, perhaps the only one widely acknowledged to be working as hoped, that actually is _working_, after the numerous other Dem failed stimulus measures (unproductive; pork-laden, typical Dem junk) and other Dem failures? No doubt a small, of any, of that popularity is due to this, but it already has been reported that this, for a change, is a program that actually has been at least somewhat _successful_.

"But it is definitely popular and if Congress is going to flush our money away anyway, at least this does do a little direct good to one industry and gets people cars cheaper, may keep some folks employed, etc."

I suspect it'll be expanded, and I wonder in particular if some will want it to be permanent (if not corrupted to deliberately, only support GM and Chrysler) as well as what other industries might enjoy such programs next (and no doubt some of them are already thinking about this, not waiting for the feds to approach them).

I'll also note that related to much-earlier (initial) criticism of the stimulus measures as contrasted with what even Dems had listed as most effective ("bang for the buck") is the amount of money misspent on bad "stimulus" measures as well as on other things like the bank bailout. While this program (Cash for Clunkers) can be attacked reasonably, not only is it, at least, working, but note how little ("only" one billion dollars so far; likely to be raised by two or three billion) money has been spent on this versus on other things.

The point is not the utility of the program, though it seems to have some. Nor is the point whether one philosophically believes in using such a program to achieve public policy goals. Nor is the point whether it is a government intrusion in the private sector (BTW, we do that all the time - $14B oil exploration tax credit?). The point is political and perceptual. When a program is "perceived" as successful, don't take it away, don't bad mouth it and don't come out against it (ever hear of the homeowner interest tax deduction to help Americans buy homes?). There's plenty to criticize without going after something that's popular and "perceived" as working, and there is a price to be paid at the polls if you do.

DLS my comment had nothing to do with the environment. From a conservative standpoint, any increase in fuel economy is good for America. The less oil that we must purchase for the Middle East, the better!

Mixed feelings here. It's an expensive program that has been administered pretty poorly, and the government severely misjudged how much it would be used. On the other hand it's wildly popular.

From a small government/fiscal responsibility perspective the GOP should vote against it. From a political perspective they should support it. Since the program will be extended no matter what the GOP does it's probably pointless for them to fall on their swords for this one.

pretty much my take on it, Goat, and as poorly planned and administered as it may have been, it does make some small contribution to goals that are fairly widely supported. And, again... they're going to blow your money anyway. There's far worse things.

This is a popular program among those who qualify and get the rebate. As far as everyone else, it’s someone getting free tax money out of their pocket.

On top of that, the liberal position of destroying perfectly good cars that poor people would love to have to drive to an imaginary job is a surefire looser.

Punishing those who bought fuel efficient cars previously and rewarding those who bought gas hogs only makes sense to Democrats.

Now that they are distorting the market, all of the purchasing will be pushed up while the incentives are in place. Once they end, the market will have a depression while consumption catches up with supply. This will occur in 2010 – about as stupid a move as possible for Democrats in congress.

Democrats have now shown they can’t administer a new program on a small scale without total chaos and tremendous expense. Not a good sign for healthcare.

If the GOP is shooting itself in the foot, the Democrats are shooting themselves in the head. One is a wound – the other fatal.

The car dealers are moving their inventory; Ford and others have benefitted from it; sure, they complain about the "paperwork," and the red tape, if any,but don't we always?

Are will still spending 2 billion a month in Iraq?

We are buying fuel efficient cars here so we don't have send soldiers to die over there.

Anyway, apparently the program will only be extended until this Friday.

Unlike most of the people who have posted an opinion on this topic, I've actually taken advantage of the program and can describe what it has meant specifically for me, hopefully without a political slant. For background’s sake, I'm squarely in the middle class - combined household income around 80k, have a mortgage and two car payments between my wife and I. I'll try to describe my experience without insulting anyone.

I had a 1986 Dodge D50 Power Ram Sport 4 wheel-drive pickup, a small truck manufactured by Dodge but with a Mitsubishi engine, one that is widely regarded as "moody", at best. I bought it from my Stepfather when he purchased his new truck, and it came to me in 2003 as a one-owner, always-garaged, fully functional truck with 105 thousand original miles. That being said, I live in Phoenix. And the A/C was gone. Enough said. And the thing leaked... power steering fluid, engine oil, windshield wiper fluid for God's sake. Two years ago I had to put a new carburetor on to pass emissions... $800. And it was still a terrible every day vehicle... 18 mpg at most, GUTLESS, leaky... and no a/c. Miserable. I wanted to sell it but, seriously, who wants to buy this... thing? Someone looking for a beater for $500, (or less) maybe. So it stayed in my garage, leaking fluids and collecting insurance payments.

I also had a 2006 Mazda 6. Pretty good car... I purchased it brand new when I was engaged to be married and had practically no debt. Flash to 3 weeks after I bought the car and my engagement fell through... half my income gone. Bills to pay on my own... gas prices going up, debt being accumulated... $366/month car payment becoming a drag. And it's rated at a combined 24 mpg or so. Not that great.

So here we are in 2009. I have a truck I don't use, a car payment that is too high... and a new wife who works 45 miles away from our house (yes, a different engagement/marriage. A lot can happen in two years... don't judge me). What we really needed was a commuter that had better mileage than either my Mazda or her Subaru Forester (her car before our marriage.. also rated around 22-24mpg combined). But trying to trade either of our cars with little or no equity or trying to trade in my truck (yeah, right) would have been pointless, most likely resulting in us still having the POS Dodge and a car payment just as high as our current payments. So it’s almost as though the CARS program was written specifically for me. The thought of getting $4500 trade-in value for my pickup, and being able to trade in my Mazda for the tiny bit of equity I had, being applied towards the sale price of a brand-spanking-new Honda Fit practically had me salivating.

So I did it. As soon as my local Honda dealer gave me the go-ahead, I showed up with a printout of my insurance records, my registration, a copy of the web page indicating my 1986 Dodge had a combined fuel economy rating of 18 mpg, and a price quote from the Costco Auto Program. I arrived at 1:00 p.m. and had the Honda Fit in my garage by 5:00 p.m. My car payment is now $100 less a month, I have a car that is averaging close to 40 mpg on the highway (with very conservative driving habits, of course), and I don't have to look at my POS Dodge taking up half of my garage (and liability insurance payments) anymore. More money in my pocket (more money to spend, if you buy into that philosophy), less fuel being consumed, and fewer emissions in the air. Win, win, win.

If I remember correctly, the CARS.gov website has specifically stated from day one that the program would either run until November or until the funds were exhausted. People crowing about all of the "confusion" of the program or how it has been "poorly administered" are repeating talking points and are just plain wrong. How is it that a program that works too well and runs out of funds quicker than anticipated is defined as a failure? Would I have done this deal anyway without the added incentive from the government? NO. It would have been foolish. Hearing people make the argument that it's just summer car deals from the rich or middle class that would have been made anyway makes me laugh out loud, and then makes me kinda angry. They have no idea what they're babbling about. The program, whether or not you agree with how it's being paid for, or with the political affiliation of the author, or with the ultimate goals of the program itself... whatever... worked. And it worked well.

That being said, I can understand why there’s opposition to further funding. I mean, hey… it was a billion dollars, and it’s gone. Sorry. But if another 2 billion is approved, that means more ordinary Americans like myself will get a well-deserved break. How can I be opposed to that? I can’t. I’m not. Period.

Thanks for the personal testimony Jack. It helps to put it into perspective over the bobbleheaded cut and paste read-it-on-the internet "expertise".

I know some will refuse to look at a link from Heritage, but I thought this was interesting in that the author predicted that the program would cost more than intended (based on looking at a similar program in Germany, which cost 3-4 times what was originally budgeted- which sounds rather familiar now, doesn't it?)

It also gives several good con side points on this type of program. One, improving gas mileage of the fleet doesn't necessarily lead to reduced oil consumption/emissions because people tend to drive more (I think this has been documented after the CAFE standards were raised in the 70s, if I'm not mistaken.) Two, this is more a subsidy for our newly owned auto companies than a real stimulus, because we're just shifting buyers to new cars vs. used cars. That's a zero sum game, most likely, not a creation of actual demand.

At any rate, politically you may be right Jazz, but I don't think that's so clear cut either. The program is popular among those who benefit from it but that'll still be under a million people, and the GOP might end up hurting it's standing among voters if it appears to be pandering to support what amounts to another bailout, even if some consumers do see some direct benefit from this particular bailout.

As a person that bought two fuel efficient cars a couple of years ago...I'm glad our tax dollars went towards help Jack get out of his POS Dodge.

" One, improving gas mileage of the fleet doesn't necessarily lead to reduced oil consumption/emissions because people tend to drive more "

I love phrases like "doesn't necessarily"...lets you say almost anything you want.

The 'doesn't necessarily' in that comment was followed by a reference to actual data, shannon, although I admit that I didn't take the time to look up a link to cite it.

I just did a little googling (you can look up 'CAFE standards rebound effect' if you want to find more) and found this article and

this one which partially rebuts it (saying the rebound effect is real but doesn't negate as much of the positive fuel reduction as the critics claim that it does. I think I also remember that the guys at Brookings argue against CAFE based on the rebound effect too.

Well jack it's a good story but if I understand it right the government gave you $4500 for a piece of crap truck you weren't driving anyway. Forgive me if I don't get warm fuzzies.

From an emissions standpoint the swap was essentially the Mazda 6 for the Honda Fit, not bad but not the truck vs Honda swap you make it sound like. The Honda Fit is rated 35 MPG on the highway and the Mazda 6 is rated 25 MPG. So now you have a little more money in your pocket and the rest of us will have a little less.

The issue I have with Goat's comment comes from this line:
"So now you have a little more money in your pocket and the rest of us will have a little less."

Not really. It's tax money. It's already being taken, and if they don't spend it on Cash for Clunkers, they would have spent it on preserving the habitat of the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse or solving the puzzling mystery of why men don't like to wear condoms. It's not like they passed CARS and immediately sent out a bill to everyone in the country for an extra three bucks to cover it.

As to Jack's story, I like it. My only question would be, why were you still paying insurance on the truck? If you were driving the Mazda and the new wife came equipped with her own car, why not just take the truck off the road entirely (on paper) until you could find something to do with it? Doesn't sound like you have driving age children yet, so what was the need to have the truck on the road at all?

But still, glad it worked out ok for you. If my share of paying for Jack's rebate on his new Honda was roughly .00001 cents, then I'm ok with pitching in for that.

Thinking about this some more, since the Mazda was not destroyed and will be re-sold there was no overall benefit to the US from an emissions standpoint. The only benefit would be from stimulating a car sale. While Jack acted perfectly legally and got a good deal, the outcome was not what the CARS program was intended to accomplish.

Wow, who would have imagined that giving away free money would be a popular program?

Mr. Obama should create and implement a program to give every American man, woman, and child one million dollars, I can personally guarantee that the economy will be plenty stimulated!

I don't care if anyone gets warm fuzzys or not... I'm just providing you with some personal data that gives some perspective from an average user of the CARS program, not trying to shove a political perspective down your throat. To address a couple of points:

I kept insurance on the truck for the times I needed a truck (not my best sentence, but that's the best way I could describe it), i.e. moving my new wife (then girlfriend) from her apartment to my house, dump runs, dog hauling to the park, etc. I didn't drive it during the summer, obviously, but on the occasions I needed a truck, it still ran so... there it is. When I got into a position where I needed cash or a better commuter more than I needed a truck, trying to sell it for $500 wouldn't have done much good.

If you don't understand how a car rated at 31 mpg combined (and is getting 35+ mpg during a long commute) results in less fuel consumed and fewer emissions than a car that was rated at 24 mpg combined... I can't help you. And probably no one can.

A smaller but nevertheless meaningfully related issue is that even wiser heads like Nolan Finley here in Detroit metro have a soft spot for compromising themselves over "Detroit" from time to time (the same is true in my experience, for example, with Frank Beckmann) and now Finley is on record as saying that perhaps the program should be changed so as to deliberately favor if not mandate GM-Chrysler (or maybe Ford, too, as a token addition) vehicles be purchased. (It's a shame he would sell out his morality that way, but it's a quick with those around here, who at times remain stuck in the 1960s or earlier insofar as Detroit iron goes.)

Yep, you got me. I'm only averaging 10 mpg more on the highway. Busted.

Oh, and also an average middle-class American gets a break on purchasing a newer, more fuel efficient car, as well as a bit of a break in insurance premiums. A salesperson who lives in my community made some commission. A car dealer that's based in my community makes a sale. A terribly inefficient, unreliable truck is taken off the road. The program itself worked efficiently and without any sort of red-tape related delay. And for good measure there's more money in the pocket of a consumer (that would be me) on a monthly basis to (presumably) purchase goods and services.

And none of these reasons point to any sort of success in the program? It's a complete and abject failure? Seriously?

I guess I'm just not hearing enough from people who have actually taken advantage of the program... has anyone heard of a place to provide feedback related to CARS? I mean, actually using CARS, not just a place to vent an opinion one way or the other?

jack you got a good deal for yourself and I would have done the same thing. I'm just not convinced it was a good deal for the country. The goal is to get gas-hogs off the road and replace them with more efficient cars. Since you were driving mostly the Mazda 6 the net effect is as if you would have traded in the Mazda for the Honda. The Mazda will be re-sold so somebody else will be driving it. The truck will be destroyed but it wasn't being driven much anyway. Yes it was 'taken off the road" but the way you make it sound is it was hardly on the road to begin with.

The program worked well for you but there have been many reports of it not working so well and dealers left holding the bag unsure if they were getting paid by the government. I'm sure the program has worked as intended many times, whether it is worth billions of taxpayer dollars who knows.

So your criticism is that the Republicans went the way they philosophically believe even if it is unpopular and politically disadvantageous. Wasn't there a book ghost written for John Kennedy on that?--"Profiles in Courage."