Polluting vehicles still in state's cross hairs (CA)

SACRAMENTO – California plans to accelerate its ongoing campaign to sweep more dirty cars off the streets while Congress duels over high-profile “cash for clunkers” legislation.

In Sacramento, the Air Resources Board this month is expected to approve a $30 million expansion of a program that pays motorists $1,000 to turn over their heavy-polluting vehicles for dismantling.

The goal is to scrap 15,000 vehicles on top of the more than 18,000 crushed on average each fiscal year.

In Washington, two competing $4 billion measures are being driven more by a desire to spark flagging auto sales than an interest in curbing smog.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is leading the push for one of the bills that aim to lure customers to showrooms by offering vouchers of up to $4,500 to exchange gas-guzzlers for higher-mileage vehicles.

The government vouchers combined with anxious dealers mean budget-minded buyers could come out winners. It's unclear whether motorists could take advantage of both the proposed state and federal programs.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/still-no-cash-for-clunkers/

This cash for clunkers is full of problems and unintended consequences:

1.) Economist, Freakonomics author and New York Times blogger Steven Levitt writes, “People who drive clunkers are generally not in the market for new cars. Presumably their replacement car will be a used car. The increased demand for used cars will lead to higher prices for used cars, which will push some buyers towards a new car, but the likely impact on new cars would be small.”

2.) This program would distort the used car market in a couple of ways. If the idea is to get older cars off the road, the supply of used cars will be reduced at a time when demand has been increasing. This will raise the sticker prices of used cars for people who can barely afford them in the first place. Because the program would scrap a relatively small percentage of used cars and parts, the effect may be marginal, but it’s still a market-distorting policy.

3.) This bill would put every charity car donation program in the nation out of business since the amount of the voucher would be much greater than the tax deduction.Simply do a Google search of “Donating Cars for Charity” to see how many organizations this would affect.

4.) The environmental benefits are questionable. Maybe a few more miles-per-gallon improvement will emit less carbon dioxide per mile, but increased fuel efficiency often leads to more driving because people know they’re getting more miles to the gallon. Furthermore, the excitement of buying and driving a new car entices people to drive more. New cars are “[...] typically driven between 15,000 and 18,000 miles a year in its first three years of ownership, while a car owned for 10 years is driven between 5,000 and 6,000 miles a year and a 15-year-old car is driven only 2,000 miles on average.” There are also the pollution costs of actually building a car and the disposal of a car to be considered, rather than just the pollution caused by driving the vehicle.

5.) Proponents of the bill point to Germany’s boost in car sales as a reason to enact the program in the United States, but Germany’s incentive structure for buying new cars is much different ours. Gas prices in Germany are $5.50 per gallon, forcing people to switch to smaller cars. Their government also put in place other tax breaks and incentives on top of their cash for clunkers provision. And it may not have as big an impact on stimulating Germany’s economy as previously thought; the program instead simply shifted spending: “Retailers, for instance, say the bonus is shifting spending patterns rather than creating demand. Higher February car sales coincided with falling turnover at consumer electronics stores. Stefan Genth, managing director of the HDE retailers’ federation, slammed the bonus last week, saying it was ‘sucking out spending’ from the retail sector.”

6.) Clearly this won’t be a costless program – it’s estimated to be $4 billion in taxpayer money from the $787 billion stimulus bill. Chump change, right? But if the program in Germany does provide any forecast, it will cost more. In Germany’s case, the program has become three times more expensive than what they initially budgeted.

This is a good example of economic Frederic Bastiat’s broken window fallacy, except that instead of breaking windows to “stimulate the economy”, we’re destroying perfectly good cars. Meanwhile, we’re asking consumers to purchase cars they might not be able to afford and incur more debt. Sounds strangely reminiscent of the home mortgage crisis, don’t you think?

I work with illegal aliens and they buy the clunkers. They go downtown and buy a fake registration and they are good to go. It was reported that half the cars on Wilshire Blvd were uninsured, with insurance being mandatory in California you can bet that a good portion of these cars were not legally registered.

Every time I see a car pulled over by the police I look to see if it is a Mexican driver, it never is.

The LAPD has a camera that can instantly read a license plate and determine if that car is legally registered. If they used this camera all the cars on Wilshire Blvd would be legal and there would be a lot of Mexicans walking.

So, why does the state of California have two standards, one of citizens and one for illegals?

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.