A billion dollars gets soaked up like water into a sponge, in four days, and then Congress appropriates still more billions of bucks to get people to buy new cars by paying them more than their junkers are worth? Fantastic. And I do mean that in its true sense.
How many more billions of dollars are going to run down the Cash for Clunkers drain?
Wouldn’t it have made more sense to use that money to build a decent public transportation system for one major city or one geographic region that doesn’t have one? Since almost no major US cities have anything that resembles viable public transport, surely it wouldn’t have been difficult to find a place to build one.
And if we want to get the gas-guzzling, emissions-belching junk off the road, there’s a simple way to do it: don’t let people register them. It wouldn’t take umpty-umpteen billion dollars to pass a law saying a car that’s X number of years old and that gets less than Y miles per gallon cannot be driven on the public roads. And no exceptions for “historic” vehicles. Then fine the bejayzus out of people who leave them rusting on private property or beside public thoroughfares. This would force owners to turn them in for salvage. Then those who can’t afford to buy a new junker could ride the lightrail, high-speed trains, and buses our taxpayer billions would be freed up to build.
It’d put a lot more people to work than a batallion of car salesmen, too.
I hear what you’re saying, I do.
But if they passed a law preventing registering these cars now, in the midst of the economic crisis so many are facing, it would break many families to have a vehicle that they could not drive nor replace.
Besides, most of America does not have light rail systems, nor bus routes that adequately cover the urban areas, let alone the suburbs and rural communities. And building the infrastructure to provide these services would cost trillions, not billions. Using the C for C money to help one area would be great for that one community, but leave so many others stranded.
It’s not a great plan – we know that. But it is stimulating an industry that was so stagnant and troubled it threatened to bring down the economy of our entire country. It’s not just car salesmen that benefit- it’s factory workers and parts suppliers and truckers and all of the industries supported by the auto industry.
It is a band aid, to be sure, and a costly one at that. But at least these guzzlers will be off the road.
@BeThisWay: True, it would be tough on people who are trying to drive a vehicle into the ground. But if folks realized gas guzzlers would have a limited life expectancy and fuel-efficient cars did not, then they would replace them with less noxious vehicles. And if a large number of people had no car because they couldn’t replace old junkers, the government would be forced to build decent public transportation. Building a transport system in just ONE area of the country would be a huge step forward toward getting a nationwide system in place. The longer we drag along with the status quo, the longer we’re going to an increasingly rickety status quo. And you know…if a massive transport construction effort took place, then all those factories and parts suppliers and truckers and industries would be supported by a new industry.
True.
But what about in the meantime? The working poor and recently unemployed are already strapped for cash – just trying to find a way to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. They have no money to pay for a new or a new-to-them vehicle. And how would they get to work, or find a job? The tenuous thread many families are hanging by would snap, and there would be millions more in the most dire of straits.
I DO think that adding transport systems is vital. I just don’t think we have to accomplish it while devastatinpeople who own gas guzzlers – many of whom would replace them with more gas-efficient vehicles if they could.
We also need to remember that not everyone who owns a gas guzzler is driving one for status or image. Like my friend with five children under five, who needs the room for five car seats.
The guzzlers traded in through the program are for the most part destroyed, meaning they won’t be contributing to the problem any longer. Of course my frugality meter is upset about the waste of money, but I understand it’s for the greater good. 🙂
@ Be This Way: Well, to come down off my devil’s-advocate soapbox (where I sorta was…), what you say is true. I for one don’t drive a 10-year-old, 18-mpg vehicle because I so love pouring money into Costco’s gas pumps. The minivan served a specific purpose, and, though that purpose has now ended, I still appreciate having enough room to haul supplies around. And I do recognize that poor folks drive aging gas-guzzlers for the plain reason that they can’t afford anything better. I’m among them now: I planned to buy a car when this one reached 10, but now I can’t. The car I own today will be the last car I ever own. I’ll have to drive it until it falls apart and just hope that by then some alternative exists.
{sigh} I’m afraid no matter what happens, the tenuous thread is about to snap. We are, IMHO, looking at an accelerating rate of Third-Worldization in this country, in which the rich get richer with a vengeance, and the rest of us are going to end up sifting through the garbage dump for food, clothing, and furniture. Should we be screwing poor people so as to get adequate public transportation in this country? Certainly not. But y’know…as a practical matter the poor and the (soon to be former) middle-class are gunna be screwed, anyway. One thing’s for sure: the Richistani won’t be riding lightrail, trains, and buses. But the rest of us are going to need those things.