'Cash for Clunkers' Bill a Clunker after All

  • Bookmark and Share

The “Cash For Clunkers” bill that became law on June 24, “has a lot of squeaks and rattles” according to Business Week, but the main stream media has ignored these and instead praised and promoted it.

The law was meant to promote smaller, more fuel efficient cars by subsidizing dealers to buy back gas guzzlers so that drivers could buy environmentally friendly cars. It fails in practice, according to the July 13 & 20, 2009 issue of the magazine, and may even do the exact opposite of its purpose.

“The problem with the law is that it is both underfunded and too narrow to generate a spike in showroom traffic,” David Welch wrote in the July 13&20 edition of Business Week, “Plus, the law makes little sense for most passenger-car owners.”

That’s not how ABC’s “World News Sunday” portrayed the idea on June 14, before the bill even passed. The network compared it to a similar law in Texas, one that according to David Muir “has been a smashing success.”

“Advocates say it will clean up the environment and help the struggling auto industry,” Ryan Owens reported as he interviewed proponents of the plan. He didn’t interview anyone opposed to the bill.

The only people he credited with disagreeing with the bill were mechanics or repair shop owners, who profit off of old cars, and environmentalists, who see the bill as too weak. Nowhere did he mention any of the bill’s shortcomings.

According to Business Week, however, there were plenty. Welch explained that most cars do not qualify for the program because of the miles per gallon they get, and those that do qualify are worth more than the government is subsidizing dealers: “If a consumer can sell the old car for more than what the government will pay, there’s no reason to take advantage of the bill, says [John] Wolkonowicz.”

NBC Nightly News gave the law positive coverage July 8 when anchor Brian Williams led into the segment using a pro-environment introduction. “We like to say that all fuel efficient cars are better to own because they save you money on gas in the long run and they're kinder to the environment. What no one ever mentions is not having the money to buy a new car. Well, the federal government has a program out, sounds like a late-night cable TV come-on, it's been called cash for clunkers and it’s real...”

The segment featured plenty of praise for the program. “In the environment we’re in right now, a program like this is heaven sent,” Benny Dominguez from AutoNation stated. “People are really excited about it because it seems like found money to the consumers,” Chip Snyder from Maroone Chevrolet gushed.

Only one person was featured disagreeing with the law and that was from the left. His reasons were because he felt the law, which was supposed to help the environment, really only benefited car dealers.

CBS Evening News also assumed the law’s success on July 1 when Anthony Mason reported, “Auto sales are also expected to get a boost when the government’s ‘cash for clunkers’ plan kicks in later this month, offering cash incentives to car buyers who turn in old gas guzzlers.”

Reuters joined in the praise on July 9. Tim Gaynor reported, “It has been broadly welcomed by auto dealers across the country.”

Gaynor attempted to strengthen his argument by quoting Scott Gruwell, sales director of Courtesy Chevrolet: “‘It's a wonderful program. It helps out the environment, it helps out the customer, and it gives a jump to the automobile industry when it needs it the most,’”

The article then quoted Phil Reed, senior consumer advice editor at Edmunds.com: “‘If you need a car, or are close to needing a car ... This is shaping up to be a good time to do it,’” while at the same time recognizing that the details of the plan will not be finalized until the end of July.

The only opposition to the law that Gaynor recognized was by a veteran sales manager at a dealership in Los Angeles, Mark Near, who acknowledged that only a select group will qualify for the program. However, Near also praised the bill, since, “simply getting potential customers through the door is a plus in itself in difficult times.”

On the other side of the story, Welch remarked that, “People driving cars that ancient often buy used, and even with a $4,500 discount, they probably won’t want to take on new-car payments during a time of economic hardship.”

Despite this, CBS financial contributor Ray Martin praised the law on the June 25 Early Show: “you can get up to forty-five hundred dollars for it even if it’s only worth a hundred dollars, even if it’s worth nothing.” Following Martin’s lead, Harry Smith both praised this law, saying “it’s great for the auto industry,” and gushing over the “green part of this.”

The law may not be as green as supporters think. “Paradoxically, the bill may help the Big Three sell more gas-guzzling pickups,” Welch pointed out as he explained. “The government only requires that a consumer buy a new pickup that gets 18 mpg or better or a heavy-duty work truck that gets 15 mpg or more-hardly the kind of performance that will help wean America off foreign oil.”

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The details of this bill

The details of this bill would be comical if the tax-payers weren't funding this boondoggle too.

It never ends with congress-critters, especially the looney leftists.

My greatest wish is they would be paid to stay the hell out of DC.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

It never ends with

It never ends with congress-critters, especially the looney leftists.

Except the co-sponsors of the bill are Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.  I guess this time you can blame both sides.

The other part I agree with.  This should not be a taxpayer funded bill.  Of course I'm a bit jealous that I traded in a guzzler for a MINI just last year.  Oh well. 

Collins and Schumer ARE on the same side.

Collins and Schumer ARE on the same side.

SoL... Precisely. Doubli

SoL...

Precisely.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Yeah, same side of this

Yeah, same side of this bill, not the same party though.  I love how anytime a Republican votes alongside a Dem, you all start with the "well he/she isn't a real Republican."  

Cap-And-Trade

It's on the back burner.

RAS: 54% oppose cash for clunkers, they oppose the policy! 

JDW

DAILY WAVE

When people fear their government there is tyranny.

When government fears the people there is liberty.

Perhaps I should think

Perhaps I should think about trading my GMC 4X4 in for a Ford F-250 4X4 diesel...But I think my truck is worth more than any 4500 bucks. Ahhh, skip it. Mine is paid for.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

We already have Cash For Clunkers ----

---- in Congress:

Our tax "cash" has looooooooong now been purchasing an endless crop of clunkers (or as Will Rogers once said, "We have the best politicians money can buy!")

...with rare, but refreshingly noteworthy exceptions....

There's more...

Here's another left-wing government program doomed to fail:

Union Wages Make Obama's Energy Efficient Program Inefficient: http://www.americanthinker.com

"Congress mandated that prevailing wages under the Davis-Bacon act must be paid to workers employed with "stimulous" funding.  They decided that prevailing construction wages are the the benchmark for comparison, meaning nearly $60.00/hour in New York and over $50.00/hour in Chicago.  This of course makes "weatherization" of houses so costly it can never be paid back in "energy cost savings"."

In other words the program is just another sop to the Bamster's Big Union thug buddies.

HMMMMM

 

 Add another stroke to the Govt. Ponzi scheme.

 

 My dayghter has a 1994 Buick LaSabre but it doesn't qualify.

 

 Why because they use the #'S for milage that the car Co's used to scam the system. LOL  take the in town and hiway and use the average that the car Co's used to scam the Govt.when  the cars were new. Thats the milage they go by. 

rick007... Exactly...there

rick007...

Exactly...there are so many catches in the bill it isn't funny.

It would be if the tax-payers weren't paying for this too.

...dontcha just love the congress-critters.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Improper title

The biggest problem with this bill is its title.  It should be called "Liberals for Lemons" for the cars they want everyone to drive have some serious quality problems, let alone the safety issues a lightweight car evokes during a collision (try surviving a 50 mile an hour crash in a sub-compact.  Remember the Ford Pinto?  KABOOM!). 

For example, how am I supposed to drive a Toyota Prius or  Ford Escape here in Minnesota when the temps fall below zero for months at a time?  The Limousine Liberals may not be aware of this, but the batteries those hybrids need to run don't do very well in the extreme cold.  Don't believe me?  Fine, put your mp3 player in the freezer for an hour or two and tell me how well those lithium ion batters work for you after they freeze solid.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court

So, people who can afford

So, people who can afford new cars buy clunkers for a couple of hundred dollars, knowing they can then get $4500 for them -- thus buying up all the clunkers that the working poor need to survive. Nice job, BO. Put more people out of work when their cars break down and everything that's worth less than $4500 on the open market has been snatched up as a boondoggle by people who just wanted the government money.

Re So People...

Rules, rules rules. You have to have owned the car for a year or so, you have to have it registered, and it had to have passed emissions, etc. There are all kinds of safeguards/rules that make it hard to abuse or use.

Once the car is accepted, it has to be crushed, but before crushing, parts can be removed from it for salvage.

I like It

For once.... I can take advantage of government money (my tax dollars). I am looking at trading in my son's '85 ramcharger worth $500. I can't sell for $500, but can get a $4500 credit. YOU BET!!!

Emissions

There is nothing that says it had to pass emissions. That would be stupid. They are crushing the cars. That is another reason to get rid of this POS. All that is required is you have had it insured and REG. for the last year.

Jeb

Having worked in the parts/service departments at dealerships here in San Diego County for over 35 years, I can pretty much guarantee these aren't getting crushed. If you can drive it onto the lot, it's getting resold. We have wholesalers from Mexico coming in at least 2-3 times a week, and they buy anything that runs. Not to mention the salvage yards. Heck, just the front clip, (hood, fenders, frt bumper, etc) costs dealers $800 to $1000 bucks. Make no mistake, we'll turn a profit on these 'clunkers'. 

 

'Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.' —George Orwell

True story from Texas

I own a 95 Nissan 200SX that leaks oil, can't pass emissions tests, and is in general a complete "clunker".

I do not qualify for the federal program because I (foolish, selfish conservative that I am) purchased a car that gets TOO GOOD OF MILEAGE.  You see, it matters not what kind of mileage the car currently gets-everything is based on the sticker mpg at the time of sale.

So because I bought a car that got good gas mileage in 1995 (before the government figured it out by 14 years) I don't qualify-even though my car is exactly the type they want to get off the road.

It gets better- the state and local programs only give credit to those making under $30,000.  All others are considered "rich" and not worthy of assistance.

I figured out that none of this matters-because the Democrats (with the full cooperation of all media) will pretend this Cash For Clunkers was open to anybody and that they should get credit based on their good intentions-not results.

That is what this program is really all about-generating good PR to show how caring and involved the Dems are.  Results are totally irrelevant-getting the credit is all that matters.

It's a republican

It's a republican co-sponsored bill.  You can't solely blame the Dems for this one.

ILT... You've already

ILT...

You've already stated that...and once again it was Schumer/Collins...not much difference between them, other than a letter behind Collins name.

'R' for RINO

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Hardly anyone would

Hardly anyone would actually get the money...just enough for the politicos and the MSM to parade around on TV and for the papers.

I can only imagine the red tape and the time it would take to see this money, if ever.

It would be most interesting to see (if possible) where exactly this money allocated for BS like this actually ends up?  It's got to end up somewhere...it can't simply evaporate.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).

sic721

If I can get $4500 for a truck that is sitting in the street with no one to drive it, paying insurance on, worth less than $1000, that I can't even get an offer on.......then you have to ask yourself......take $4500 for a truck worth maybe $500 (new tires) and buy a new car or donate to a group that will give you $300 in tax credit.

I don't care if it goes to Mexico, ends up in the junk yard or Obama drives it at Camp David. I got a NEW car that gets GREAT gas mileage and I get rid of something that is an eye sore. By the way I am also trading in a 2005 Buick.

There are dealers in Dallas that are offring to double the $4500 :)

 

This is one government program I can particpate in.

NEW cars?

Haven't even bothered looking up to see if our '99 van is eligible. It's paid for -- why would I want to get in debt for years in an unstable economy buying a new car? Seems like if they weren't quite so isolated from most middle Americans, they'd realize few of us buy brand new cars. (Let's see...maybe if the credit was $10-15,000)