â??Cash for clunkersâ?? has sent lots of gas-guzzlers to the scrap yard and helped car dealers move the metal.
But as Congress considers adding $2 billion to the initial $1 billion earmarked for the program, both the political right and left are raising criticisms.
Conservatives say the cost is running up the deficit instead of helping the economy, and they question the basic premise of offering money to inspire purchases.
Environmentalists complain improvements in fuel efficiency arenâ??t large enough (an average of 25.4 mpg for vehicles bought with the rebates), and that people shouldnâ??t be rewarded for having driven inefficient vehicles. And, they ask, why pay for the program with funds set aside for renewable energy?
How do you feel about â??clunkers?â?? Anything you like about it? Dislikes?
But as Congress considers adding $2 billion to the initial $1 billion earmarked for the program, both the political right and left are raising criticisms.
Conservatives say the cost is running up the deficit instead of helping the economy, and they question the basic premise of offering money to inspire purchases.
Environmentalists complain improvements in fuel efficiency arenâ??t large enough (an average of 25.4 mpg for vehicles bought with the rebates), and that people shouldnâ??t be rewarded for having driven inefficient vehicles. And, they ask, why pay for the program with funds set aside for renewable energy?
How do you feel about â??clunkers?â?? Anything you like about it? Dislikes?
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
11 Comments
Add Comment
I totally agree with disapproving citizen - only it's called wealth REdistribution. What's the difference between this program and the sub-prime loan mess that started our economy into the morass we're in? HELLO, MCFLY!!! ANYBODY HOME???
Alexis de Tocqueville
get their rebates default on their loans and ask to be bailed out.
Um...wasn't this the basic premise of the Bush tax rebates? Give people money and they'll spend it, keeping the economy afloat? C'mon, conservatives, either you like this idea (you REALLY liked it a couple of years ago) or you don't. You can't hate the idea just because the opposing party is making it happen. This way a specific sector of the economy is getting the money they need, jobs are being retained and manufacturing is stimulated, not to mention that progress, admittedly small but still there, is being made to lessen the use of a vital nonrenewable (and environmentally hazardous) natural resource. What's not to like?
And to the issue of people not being able to handle the monthly payments...why wasn't this issue raised by conservatives during the housing bubble? Oh, yeah, car loans aren't packaged and sold like mortgage loans, and don't result in investors earning any money off them.
Tax rebates go to just about everyone. Cash for clunkers is very specific and excludes the vast majority of people.(i.e. strategic wealth re-distribution). The economic stimulatin you mention....is artificial. What happens when everyone buys cars now..... no one will be buying cars for several months after most likely because they are already bought. So the car industry is back to a slump. Tax payer money was used to help people get cars. And if you read the requirements the amount of fuel savings this is really stimulating is almost null. BILLIONS of dollars should be able to create renewable energy plants that will have a lasting effect if fuel consumption decreases are the real goal...and not just pandering to largely apathetic population who just thinks...gee the government is doing things for us. Everyone on here raise your hand if you qualify for Cash handouts for Clunkers? Anyone? JM though it's clear the goals you value are worthy, but like most people you need to really look at the deeper results in the situation and not just take the surface appearance of the program. I am sure you have some great thoughts of much better ways to spend BILLIONS of dollars? Send people to college maybe?
For the clunkers program, taxpayer money is going to those that selectively qualify for the rebate. Namely, they have a clunker that is worth less than $4500. Many of those using the clunker program would've been purchasing a car within the next 6 months anyway. So this will become a classic example of the government screwing up the invisible hand of supply and demand (Macroeconomics 101). The clunkers program is robbing from Peter (future demand) to pay Paul (current demand). Get it?
Hmm...I wonder how many windmill farms could've been constructed with $3 billion? How many carbon emmissions could've been saved via alternative energy sources with $3 billion versus the clunkers program? How's that HOPE and CHANGE working out?