IBJOpinion

HICKS: Clunkers popularity went beyond consumers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Mike Hicks

I have always viewed cynicism as a form of deep moral cowardice—particularly in public policy where choices matter and the opportunity to make a difference is often determined by stubborn and righteous persistence.

The Cash for Clunkers program has seriously challenged my high-mindedness. It is time for a bit of soul searching.

In order to promote full disclosure, I admit to supporting a much more scaled-down fiscal stimulus plan. In some, limited ways, the fiscal stimulus plan worked. In others, it failed. I will write more on that later. But it seems that after the stimulus was passed, the banks were safely bailed out, and the domestic auto industry was supplied with a huge gift, Congress descended into true madness.

To a cynic, the clunkers program was cynical excellence writ large. Given the weariness of the American taxpayer to recent spending, the $4 billion price tag looked like chump change. This protected those who supported it from persistent criticism that they are now receiving on health care, which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is at least 350 times more expensive. Who would waste ink on a scant $4 billion, especially for a car sale?

It was popular with voters who owned clunkers. How could it not be? The largesse of government spending $4,500 per trade-in has a guaranteed voting bloc. The great chronicler of early Americans, Alexis de Tocqueville, worried that the undoing of the American experiment would be the realization by vapid masses that Congress could vote them money. Here was the French nobleman’s predictions come true in a plan to eliminate the 1989 Chrysler LeBaron. How deliciously ironic is our folly.

Congress really won big here because the beneficiaries of this $4 billion bounty were not limited to consumers. Environmentalists could rejoice that perhaps a million clunkers could be resigned to the dump. At the rate of this program, we could meet the Kyoto Protocol standards for a mere $3.7 trillion more in subsidies to car owners. That makes cash for clunkers a serious competitor to cap and trade.

Folks who sell cars benefited and it was a rare respite. But given the reluctance of the Department of Transportation to release data, I’m going to guess it was Toyota and Honda who danced to the bank. The program also gave many American businesses the reminder that dealing with a federal bureaucracy makes a root canal seem an uplifting, almost joyful experience.

One group was left out. Among the parade of Camaros and the ghastly last seven 1983 GM model-year cars still running, were some classics. A GM roadster, an elegant Volvo and perhaps even that memory-packed 1975 Dodge Dart I that sold for $300 and a tank of gas in 1987 were unceremoniously destroyed.

Now, more than ever, we need a classic-car enthusiast bailout package. Though he is a Republican, given his political and cultural significance, Clint Eastwood should be Classic Car Czar.•

__________

Hicks is director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at cber@bsu.edu.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT