Editor note: This graph assumes that the average miles driven per year for each vehicle is 13,000.Posted on 08/01/2009 9:10:52 PM PDT by It hits the fan
It's been in the headlines everywhere. The Cash for Clunkers program has been wildly successful. So much so that in 4 days the American people blew through a billion dollars. Just like that. Talk about your stimulus. But hey, when we are talking about giving free money to people that can already probably afford a new vehicle, the smoke and mirrors of this "success" seem to drift away and crack rather quickly.
Immediately the House seized upon this "crisis" to demonstrate to the American public that they really care and almost immediately approved another 2 billion dollars for the program. Nothing like a little pork pandering before they head to recess. It's not their money after all, it is ours that they are giving away. So why should they worry?
But fortunately in the Senate, where they actually deliberate before voting, this Cash for Clunkers program is running into problems. Most notably, John McCain has come out against any re-authorization of free taxpayer money. He claims that he will block it. And while the rumor is that he will lead a filibuster, I haven't heard those words come out of his mouth. Yet.
McCain to filibuster "Cash for Clunkers" bill; Trouble for Reid with Dems, too
Within a few weeks we will see that this process was abused by speculators and people who took advantage of what is basically a huge government subsidy of corporations that they already own. "I can't imagine that any taxpayer of America would have thought that the TARP, the financial recovery money, would be used now to subsidize the sale of automobiles in America."And McCain is right. This is a huge taxpayer subsidy for corporations we already own. Kind of ridiculous if you ask me. Sort of like Obama stating that he is willing to let the American people buy stock in
And this spend fest couldn't come at a worse time. Especially when so many ordinary Americans are just trying to get by day to day while their costs escalate, their incomes stagnate and their jobs dissipate. Just what we need, more debt when we already can't pay what we owe now. Ah, the Chinese American nightmare dream, Obama style.
As courageous and principled as McCain is, he isn't the only problem Harry Reid has to deal with next week. Claire McCaskill agreed completely with John McCain. Yes, that's what I said.
But that's not the end of Reid's woes. Now this in a Twitter posting from Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-MO, who was very wary of the government bailouts that passed earlier this year, though she supported them. McCaskill, an active tweeter, today said, "We simply cannot afford any more taxpayr $ to extend cash for clunkers. Idea was to prime the pump, not subsidize auto purchases forever."And it seems that several other prominent Senators also oppose the House's rush toMcCaskill echoed McCain, who said, "It's really an incredible process that we've gone through where recovery money that is supposed to be used in order to keep people in their homes and help the economy recovery. We're now again bailing out the automobile corporations, two of which we own. It's remarkable."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, back in January, introduced her own "Cash for Clunkers" bill, an alternative that required more fuel efficient trade-in's than would later be approved by Congress -- and was extended today by the House.Now as much as I despise this giveaway to a limited sector of our economy and citizenry, if I were to make a choice in how to go about it I would choose the method proposed by Feinstein, Collins and Schumer. Because the economic benefit of her proposal is more widely distributed and it goes farther in benefiting the environment.Feinstein was joined by Sens. Susan Collins, R-ME, and Chuck Schumer, D-NY.
After the President pushed for a clunkers bill earlier this year, though, House Democrats hastily crafted a bill that was much friendlier to the beleagured American auto industry, particularly those who sell trucks. And after today's vote in the House, the plan gets $2 billion more to continue.
Together with Collins, Feinstein released the following ominous statement last night, "We will not support any bill that does not meet these goals. We will insist than any extension of the program requires that the minimum fuel economy improvement for newly purchased vehicles be at least two miles per gallon higher than it is under the enacted Clunkers program. It is also important to include lower-income consumers who are disadvantaged under the current program. So, we would also include a voucher for the purchase of fuel efficient used vehicles." (emphasis by me because it needs to be)
Let's take a look at the science.
Cash for Clunkers Bill Could Be a Clunker
Scrapping an old car for a new one doesn’t guarantee a lower carbon footprint even if the new car gets better fuel economy. The reason: manufacturing and delivering the new car consumes energy, and producing that energy involves greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted to produce a new car has been estimated to range from about 3.5 to 12.5 tons, or an average of about 6.7 tons.Hmmm... betcha didn't know that. Purchasing a new car leads to higher CO2 emissions, significantly. And just how long does it take for you to make up the emissions created from the purchase? That depends on the fuel economy of the new vehicle you purchase. Take a look at the graph below that was created when Feinstein first proposed a Cash for Clunkers program with teeth back in January that was squashed by Harry Reid.So buying a new car means an extra 6.7 tons of CO2 emissions — you wouldn’t have emitted all that pollution had you just kept your old car. Assuming your new car is more fuel efficient than your old car, you offset or work off that 6.7 tons down by driving your new car. But that doesn’t happen immediately. You have to drive and keep on driving until the amount of CO2 you save from driving the new car instead of the old car equals the 6.7 tons needed to manufacture your new car.
So if we take the House proposal to throw another two billion dollars at a program that merely insists that the improved mileage be only 4 mpg. (the minimum improvement to qualify for free money) where does that leave us? As the graph plainly demonstrates, if one junks a vehicle that gets 18 mpg. to buy one that gets 22 mpg., it will take 6 years to make up for the CO2 emissions created by the new car in the first place. In the first place! So no environmental benefit is achieved. NONE!
Now some of you that read this blog might come away with the impression that I am some right-wing bible and gun toting hack. I am none of the above. Because I really do think that some environmental adjustment is in order. And I fully support Senator Feinstein's original Cash for Clunkers proposal that required any free money given out by the government be for vehicles that exceed the 27.5 mpg. government standard by 25%.
THAT is environmental progress.
I leave you with a video of one of my favorite songs from one of the best singers in the Universe. The title says it all. And if we don't jump ship we are all going to drown in a mountain of Chinese owned debt.
And the worst thing is that they are taking running vehicles, and in some cases they run very well, and destroying the engines.
ZOT!
When the first billion ran out, the Democrats were frantic trying to get Republicans to co-sponsor additional funds. What does that tell you?
It tells me that the Democrats know that massive fraud is going to be exposed and they want the cover of “bipartisanship” to be available - lucky for the Democrats that some 70+ Republicans are absolute fools, they took the bait!
Yes, they are junking perfectly good vehicles in a practical demonstration of the broken window fallacy. I think that the main object is to try to prevent Chrysler and GM from going down quickly and embarassing the Dims.
All you had to do up until this evening to get $4500 was to buy a car that EPA says averages at least 18 mph and to trade in against it one that gets 5 mpg less. So, you could buy a 4,800 lb Ford Flex, for example, in some luxury configuration and trade them an old truck or van and have the taxpayers pay for your power leather seats, multiple moonroofs, 12 speaker Sony sound system, etc.
Amazing that the public is falling for this, I personally think it’s a scam of the highest order. Just think: the taxes of working people, many who are unable to buy a good care for their own use, are going to pay for this. And they are probably the very same ones who voted for the 0. It sometimes seems that a new ignorance is revealed every day in my poor country. How did we get so STUPID?
Here’s a lovely picture. Millions of families obligating themselves to $600/month car payments for the next 5 years, most of whom were already on the edge of the cliff economically.
Fast forward 6 months to a year. Millions of repossessed cars return to pile up on the lots of the dealers who made the clunker deals and destroyed good trade-ins. Auto financiers who made the loans now have billions of dollars of defaulted contracts on file. You know, like the zero-interest mortgage disaster. Good times.
That’s one megapixel in the bigger picture. Then you’ve got the auto wrecking industry in shambles due to a glut in scrap inventory, used car dealers ruined, low income car buyers out of options, small auto repair shops running out of work, and the federal govt just threw another buncha billions into the air.
We deserve to be overtaken by an enemy. We’re like drunkards playing Russian Roulette.
Frankly, I believe this C4C program has tremendous value in the sense that it has the potential to show in plain and simple terms just how badly bollixed up massive gov’t programs can get. A “health care reform” package has this trifurcation (is that a word?) of meaning among 1: actual treatment 2: insurance coverage and 3: quality of care. In the eleven-second attention span of the average American, this stuff cannot be explained, never mind that 80% of people have some weird example of something that completely tweaks out their “thinking”, even as they vote for what’s good for them instead of thinking about what’s good for the country.
This program, figuring on $1 billion divided by avg $4K per car rebate, represents 250K cars. Just plain cars. Everybody knows what a car is, I think that’s a safe assumption. Now imagine a program way more than one thousand times as complicated for 330 MM people. And medical care isn’t exactly like going to a car dealer, making a deal and driving off with a new car. Sure, many medical problems are one-time office visits that are cured or successfully medicated right away, but certainly massive numbers require multiple visits, to two or three specialists, and etc; etc.
Completely forgetting any principled objections to the gov’t taking over such a large swath of the economy and becoming dictators of behavior, how anyone can think the gov’t can carry this out without losing at least 20,000-50,000 people who will fall through the cracks in the changeover is utterly beyond me.
I do believe that is being done. It's just to easy to show the Gov't ignorance on this.
I still want to know how much of the initial billion went to incentives to buyers, and how much went to pay for the bureaucracy to run it.
agreed hopefuly the true conservatives up on the hill will stop this insanity
Let also be sure there no used cars left under $4500 for lower income people
“How did we get so STUPID?”
Answer: government education and the left dominated media.
Destroying the cars beckons back to the great depression when they slaughtered hogs as a way to increase prices. I suspect Government Motors absolutely wants these perfectly good cars destroyed as a way to reduce the supply of “competition” (i.e, used cars).
Have any of the bureaucratic idiots given any thought to human nature? Don't they understand that when people get higher mileage or lower gas prices, they will drive more miles. They will go places they wouldn't otherwise and more frequently to others!
Now, since I've decided to keep my gas guzzler, I don't want to be discriminated against and expect a check for $4,500 in my mail box. In addition, I'm not in need to purchase a new residence and therefore don't wish to be discriminated against and expect a check for $8,000 in my mailbox. Being concerned about the budget deficits, I wish to contribute to cost cutting and would accept the two payments on one check, made payable in Euros!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.