The “Clunkers for Cash” program never made sense in the first place, at least as it was enacted. The alleged environmental “benefits” were largely bogus, the taxpayer subsidy was much too generous and its benefits were too narrowly targeted to the automaking industry and to those Americans in a financial position to think about buying a new car or, given the program design, a new truck or SUV.Hey CB? How's the Jay-hatin' these days?
Here is a perfect example of why I don't write very often about Jay. Most of the time I agree with him (like this time) and it's awfully hard to find creative ways to say "yep, he's right". And, unlike my morning constitution known as Wooten, Jay, dare I say, frequently goes full bore contrarian against type. And that tickles me a bit.
Awfully tough to peg him with the liberal tag when he calls environmental benefits bogus and a tax subsidy too large. What next? Saying unions overreach their purpose?
5 comments:
I'm a liberal, but even I think the environmental claims are dubious. You can trade in your '93 Acura Legend for an '09 Chevy Colorado, which gets 18-24 mpg. Seriously, WTF?
I never really thought it was about the environmental aspect, though obviously getting people to make their next automotive purchase a vehicle with better fuel economy is not a bad thing.
But, I thought it was an easy way to stimulate auto sales. Actually as an economic stimulus program it has a double beneft (incentivizes people to spend money and benefits bankrupt automakers), so it's one of the better stimulus ideas.
Having said that, it has been rolled out in disastrous fashion and the uncertainty surrounding it really has diminished its potential benefits.
But Jen. You are also a contrarian liberal, Ms, I Don't Want To Wear Seatbelts.
I've heard the incentive argument and it is a bit compelling. But the fact is it will create a sales bubble and there's a good possibility that once the government flow stops (and it will, if not this month then the next) will see staggering drops in sales...again...and we will likely be right back where we were. This is repeating the "we need to give money to GM to avoid bankruptcy" only to have them declare bankruptcy six months later and yet the world didn't end scenario. Only on a smaller scale.
Correction.
I always wear my seatbelt because I flew through a windshield when I was 16; however, I don't believe that the government should be able to pull people over because they're exercising their right to be stupid.
Sara has a point. But at it's heart, it's an indirect bailout for the auto industry, encourages consumerism and adds to the debt load of those who partake. And unlike mortgage restructuring, it's a one-time stimulus.
Post a Comment