After depicting the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ car buying program as a "runaway success" on Friday, on Tuesday’s Early Show, correspondent Nancy Cordes argued: "The Department of Transportation says the program has been great for the environment. 80% of the clunkers have been pickups or SUVs, traded in for new cars with an average mileage nearly 10 miles per gallon higher."
Following that declaration Cordes cited car salesman Mario Sosnowski, who praised the program: "Starting from 8:00, 9:00 in the morning, we’re here till – till midnight every day because of the program, because of the excitement."
At the top of the show, co-host Julie Chen depicted Republican opposition to increased funding for ‘Cash for Clunkers’ as a desire to "put the popular program on the scrap heap." Following Cordes’ report, co-host Maggie Rodriguez asked South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint about his objections: "We now see this morning that this program is, in fact, getting more fuel-efficient vehicles on the road. It’s getting people to spend money. So do you still believe, as you have said in recent days, that this is quote ‘a great example of the stupidity coming out of Washington’?"
DeMint defended GOP opposition, explaining:
Well, this is another program that was rushed through without even reading the bill language....And the dealers tell me it’s been so mismanaged they have no idea when and if they’re going to get their money....The problem here is instead of across the board tax cuts that would have the same effect on our whole economy, the federal government is trying to run a particular business by targeting just the auto industry here with this bill....This is just an out-of-control government at the federal level right now, and we need to stop and see what we’ve done. And it just doesn’t make any sense to keep rushing through bills, borrowing money from our children, and then saying, ‘shazam, we’ve sold some cars.’
Rodriguez then turned to the topic of the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, attempting to portray the liberal judge as a moderate and Republican opposition to her appointment as unfounded: "I’ve been reading up on some of your objections to her nomination, and you cite concerns over whether she will uphold the Second Amendment, yet she is supported by a senator who has a perfect rating with the National Rifle Association. You say that she’s pro-abortion, but even Rush Limbaugh, I remember back in June, said that her record on abortion is not clear. What is your biggest objection to her nomination?...Do you think that her record has been a record of an activist?"
DeMint responded: "...she’s been evasive on a lot of questions....She seems more founded in precedent than in upholding the Constitution....she has not been consistent in her comments and seemed very evasive with me in the individual meeting that I had with her."
Here is a full transcript of the segment:
7:00AM TEASE:
JULIE CHEN: Has ‘Cash for Clunkers’ finally hit a roadblock? We’ll talk to one senator who wants to put the popular program on the scrap heap?
7:05AM SEGMENT:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Now to the fate of the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program. Automakers say it’s been great for them, but some lawmakers say not so fast. CBS News transportation correspondent Nancy Cordes is in Washington with the latest this morning. Good morning, Nancy.
NANCY CORDES: Good morning, Maggie. That’s right. Senators who oppose ‘Cash for Clunkers’ want to get the chance to debate this before they vote on it. $2 Billion, after all, isn’t chump change. With the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program running on financial fumes and only four days left until a four-week recess, Democratic senators are urging their colleagues to vote to grant the program another $2 billion.
CHARLES SCHUMER: Bottom line is, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It’s working in every way. What we need to do here is not put on the brakes, but step on the gas.
CORDES: The White House says without an immediate injection of funds, ‘Cash for Clunkers’ could be scrapped any day now.
ROBERT GIBBS: If it doesn’t happen this week, it’s unlikely that we’ll make it to the weekend with a program that – that can continue.
CORDES: The Department of Transportation says the program has been great for the environment. 80% of the clunkers have been pickups or SUVs, traded in for new cars with an average mileage nearly 10 miles per gallon higher.
MARIO SOSNOWSKI [CAR SALESMAN, GOLF MILL FORD]: Starting from 8:00, 9:00 in the morning, we’re here till – till midnight every day because of the program, because of the excitement.
CORDES: Congressional aides say a deal is in the works to hold a vote on more funding for ‘Cash for Clunkers’ as early as tomorrow or Thursday. 60 Senators would need to vote yes in order for the program to keep going, Maggie.
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Nancy Cordes. Thank you, Nancy. We know one senator who will be voting no. Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina has been an outspoken opponent of the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program, and he joins us now from Washington. Good morning, Senator.
JIM DEMINT: Good morning.
RODRIGUEZ: We now see this morning that this program is, in fact, getting more fuel-efficient vehicles on the road. It’s getting people to spend money. So do you still believe, as you have said in recent days, that this is quote ‘a great example of the stupidity coming out of Washington’?
DEMINT: Well, this is another program that was rushed through without even reading the bill language. It was actually attached to an emergency war supplemental bill. And the dealers tell me it’s been so mismanaged they have no idea when and if they’re going to get their money. If we give away free money, people will buy cars. But what about appliances and heat pumps and TVs? The problem here is instead of across the board tax cuts that would have the same effect on our whole economy, the federal government is trying to run a particular business by targeting just the auto industry here with this bill. That’s not what the federal government is all about. And for us to rush through $1 billion and then say, ‘well, we don’t know exactly what happened, but it’s out of money after one week, so let’s have two more billion dollars.’ This is just an out-of-control government at the federal level right now, and we need to stop and see what we’ve done. And it just doesn’t make any sense to keep rushing through bills, borrowing money from our children, and then saying, ‘shazam, we’ve sold some cars.’
RODRIGUEZ: I also want to ask you about the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, which you will begin debating today. I’ve been reading up on some of your objections to her nomination, and you cite concerns over whether she will uphold the Second Amendment, yet she is supported by a senator who has a perfect rating with the National Rifle Association. You say that she’s pro-abortion, but even Rush Limbaugh, I remember back in June, said that her record on abortion is not clear. What is your biggest objection to her nomination?
DEMINT: Well, she’s – she’s been evasive on a lot of questions. I met with her privately. I asked her some fairly simple questions about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. She seems more founded in precedent than in upholding the Constitution. And a number of us are very concerned about an activist court that’s trying to expand what the Constitution intends for the federal government to do. We see that-
RODRIGUEZ: Do you think that her record has been a record of an activist?
DEMINT: We have some problems with a number of her decisions, particularly on Bill of Rights questions such as the Second Amendment. The decision that she made about the firemen was questionable. A lot of her speeches suggest that she has a different idea of what a justice should do. But she had some confirmation conversions, and she came back to the point of view of a constructionist type of judge. But she has not been consistent in her comments and seemed very evasive with me in the individual meeting that I had with her.
RODRIGUEZ: Senator Jim DeMint, thank you very much for your time this morning.
DEMINT: Thank you. Good to be with you.
RODRIGUEZ: You’re welcome.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
DeMint for
August 4, 2009 - 16:44 ET by bigtimerDeMint for Prez!
Seriously....I love DeMint.
The leftist talking heads do not care, nor do the understand this silly program is paid for by the tax-payers/future tax-payers, and the govt. is actually broke.
Ah well...little things like that matter not.
Only to use little peons...who have to actually balance out checkbooks, pay our bills, pay our taxes.
...I don't even want to get into the perfectly good vehicles being destroyed.
...Oh yes, the govt at it's finest....they are wildly successful.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
One week. How long do you
August 4, 2009 - 19:51 ET by motherbeltOne week.
How long do you think it will take for their beloved "health care program" to run out of money?
Heck mb.... I think it
August 4, 2009 - 23:15 ET by bigtimerHeck mb....
I think it was on Dobbs, either that or Fox, I heard part of the medicare money was already slated to be used in the O-Care bill to help fund this program...which people forget isn't even going to begin killing us until 2013.
Are they insane? Medicare is already in trouble.
I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
Mind-blowing.
It never ends.
....Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
It IS chump change....but is it really working?
August 4, 2009 - 17:15 ET by trak65One disagreement with Sen. DeMint is that $2B really is chump change in the broad scheme of the current spending spree. I might even be OK with this program if there were any objective analysis showing its effectiveness -- like a before and after comparison of the percentages of total purchases accounted for by clunker owners. If the success is real, then why not devote a few billion?
But, no! We just get the automatic presumption of success because the program happened to coincide with a small uptick in sales (which might have happened anyway). The media's incuriousity is the real (and old) story here.
Totally disagree. This
August 5, 2009 - 13:55 ET by zfTotally disagree. This entire spending spree is made of millions of "chump change" programs, a few billion there and here adds up to a trillion deficit. Would you be okay with being forced to shell out your own money to a business, whether you plan to patronize the said business or not, to prop up their sales?
The "well, it's only a few billion" argument is like letting someone cut off your arm and saying, "well, that's not too bad, at least your not touching my brain." A few billion can build a fence on the Mexican border and/or buy new equipment for our troops. Billions may not be as big as trillions, but it's still a ton of money.The Empire State Building is much bigger than the pyramids, but that does not make the pyramids small.
Coercion is coercion, whether it "works" or not. And your argument is dangerous, the government will seize upon your logic to create thousands of taxpayer-money sucking programs as long as they can be shown to "work". It doesn't matter that the free market can do it better, healthier and without taxpayer funds, it's okay to spend freely as long as we can show some amount of "success."
A few answers
August 6, 2009 - 00:56 ET by trak65I understand the libertarian perspective that government should be extremely limited. I'm not a purist because I think Government can encourage some behavior beyond defense and commerce, and I just get less bent out of shape if a program is small (and this is really small; the deficit is caused by Medicare and Social Security and now "stimulus") and proven effective. My mild defense of this program was only in the hypothetical case that it had actually been demonstrated to be effective, which it hasn't been. Mr. Market might not place a value on removing a source of pollution, so a government program MIGHT be appropriate to encourage such behavior.
Anyway, the real Newsbusters point was that there's just an automatic presumption of success in the press without any real facts.
How ignorant are they?
August 4, 2009 - 17:01 ET by JTPThe Department of Transportation says the program has been great for the environment.
These older cars are already built.. They seem to forget or ignore what it takes to build a new car. Add up the "carbon footprint" to build a new car.
The kilns and exhaust to melt the metal, aluminum and bronze. The electricity to run the stamping presses, injection molding machines, blowmolding machines, mig and resistance welders, spin formers, trimming machines, robots, rubber molding machines, riveters, upholstery manufacturing, tapping machines, wire manufacturing, heat treating furnaces, glue applicators and on and on. Don't forget the air compressors at each and every supplier. (big power hogs) Also, all of these operations take oil and grease lubrication as well as forming lubricants. Add in the transportation costs to get these raw materials to all of the suppliers and then to the assembly plants and then the finished products to the dealers.You will NEVER get a return on fuel saved at 2 gallons per mile to make up for the cost to replace a used car with this logic.
"Live for yourself...there's no one else more worth living for.
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more"- Rush--Anthem
The carbon or whatever
August 4, 2009 - 19:53 ET by balboaThe carbon or whatever emitted creating these cars was going to happen anyway. That's the cost of having cars at all. But it's the gas mileage they get once they get on the road that helps, is the way I understand it. Increasing the number of efficient cars on the roads.
Thank You Balboa,
August 5, 2009 - 07:45 ET by JTPYou answered my very first question.
"Live for yourself...there's no one else more worth living for.
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more"- Rush--Anthem
Break-even point
August 5, 2009 - 11:02 ET by CobraMan"But it's the gas mileage they get once they get on the road that helps, is the way I understand it."
So when do the car owners reach the break-even point between the amount of energy needed to manufacture the new cars and the amount of energy saved by better gas mileage? I don't think that break-even point will ever be reached, unless those owners keep their cars for several decades and that's a very unlikely scenario.
Oh, and let's not forget the energy requirements of transporting, demolishing and recycling all of of those still drivable but now useless trade-ins. How much energy is that using? None of the Cash for Clunkers supporters will say.
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
Cobra, I don't think they're
August 5, 2009 - 12:07 ET by balboaCobra, I don't think they're looking for a "break even" point, just trying to find a way to increase gas efficiency while reducing carbon emissions that would have otherwise been hirer with the clunkers. The amount of carbon, pollution, in creating cars isn't considered part of this. It's a given, the cost of doing business. I'm sure people are looking into making THAT process more efficient, but if you put better cars on the road, it's going to help, n'est pas?
If by putting "better cars"
August 5, 2009 - 12:29 ET by zfIf by putting "better cars" on the road, you're not in the net effect actually reducing carbon because the process of putting the "better" cars on the road cancels it out, than what is the point?
Your statement is about as circular as it gets. "If it helps reduce carbon dioxide by producing more carbon dioxide, it's going to help n'est pas?"
No bereak even point, no reduction
August 5, 2009 - 13:02 ET by CobraManBal, if there's no break even point, then there's no REDUCTION of carbon emissions,. Where do you think the energy used in manufacturing comes from, anyways? It mainly comes from the burning of coal, a MAJOR carbon emitter, correct?
Add to that the emissions of the transport vehicles that bring the new cars to the dealerships, the emissions of the transport vehicles bringing the old cars to the junk yards, ect. So, where's that actual REDUCTIONS as is being advertised? There isn't any.
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
But you're going to have
August 5, 2009 - 13:06 ET by balboaBut you're going to have those emissions anyway, right? So if you have more efficient cars, but the same production emissions, then you will lower emissions with the better cars, right?
No, you're not.
August 5, 2009 - 13:08 ET by CobraMan"But you're going to have those emissions anyway, right?"
No, as the manufactures build those cars to order. They don't build cars in anticipation as to what MAY be ordered. If those replacement cars are not ordered, they won't be built.
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
Seems to me the long-term
August 5, 2009 - 13:16 ET by balboaSeems to me the long-term effect of having better cars on the road for years to come would offset any boost to transportation of new and old cars, and production of the new cars.
Add it all up
August 5, 2009 - 13:22 ET by CobraManAdd it all up, Bal. The manufacture, let alone the transport, of ANY car far exceeds the CO2 emissions of that car over it's entire lifetime. Now throw in the other CO2 emissions needed to get that car to the customer and tell me, what's worse, driving an older 16 mpg car for several more years or buying a NEW 20 MPG car today? That 4 or so gain in mpg isn't going to reduce a lot of CO2 emissions even if you drive it for several decades, correct? So, where's the net reduction? There isn't any reduction, none at all.
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
What you're saying makes
August 5, 2009 - 13:27 ET by balboaWhat you're saying makes sense, but I don't know if it's true or not. We'd have to see the average emissions of any factory, of an average month of transport, versus a "clunkers bump" month of emissions and transport.
Bal, think it through.
August 5, 2009 - 13:37 ET by CobraManBal, think it through. You do realize what is involved in the manufacture of a car, don't you? The casting of the engine block alone requires VAST amounts of energy to melt the metals used in it's manufacture, correct? That very process itself emits CO2 (along with other noxious gasses), let alone the process used to generate the electricity that is used to melt those metals from available or recycled stock. How much CO2 is produced in just that casting alone?
Now ,add in the energy required to manufacture the rest of the parts of that car, their transportation of those parts to the assemblers, their actual assembly, and the eventual delivery to the customer and you tell me which is a greater producer of CO2, the manufacture and delivery of that car or the life time use of that finished product?
Be honest with yourself, Bal, and tell me which is a greater source of CO2?
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
Like I said, I think you
August 5, 2009 - 14:18 ET by balboaLike I said, I think you make great points. But I'd love to see actual numbers for all this.
Ok, so lets suspend the program untill we're sure.
August 5, 2009 - 14:21 ET by CobraManOk, then let's suspend the program until we're sure that there will be a net benefit instead of spending American tax dollars on something we HOPE will have an environmental benefit. Should we wait until actually know?
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 would I, Bal
August 5, 2009 - 14:22 ET by Cool ArrowIf the majority of these trade-ins are going to foreign manufacturers, I'd also like to see the percentage of benefit realized here in the usa.
I realize Toyota and Honda can be just as American as Ford, but I don't know which of these domestic models are being purchased.
GM and Chrysler haven't even cracked the list yet.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
GM and Chrysler should make
August 5, 2009 - 14:37 ET by balboaGM and Chrysler should make better cars.
Or...
August 5, 2009 - 14:38 ET by CobraManOr Obama could offer their customers a bigger rebate, at the taxpayers expense, of course.
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
Well, sure, there's that.
August 5, 2009 - 14:45 ET by balboaWell, sure, there's that. :-)
And they still have to be delivered
August 5, 2009 - 13:13 ET by CobraManPlus, those new cars still have to be delivered and the OLD cars need to be taken to a recycling yard. That transportation requiresCO2 emitting trucks to carry the heavy loads, correct? Well, guess what, that ADDS to the CO2 emission for EVERY car transported.
Those transports wouldn't be necessary if the NEW cars were never ordered. By trading in a still working but slightly less efficient model, the actual CO2 production is greater than any saving gained by the purchase of those new cars. The net effect is a RISE in CO2 emissions, not a reduction. Do you understand?
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
→ Cobra
August 5, 2009 - 13:08 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe what Bal is saying is that it's more important how you feeeel about your carbon footprint than any realistic measurement of it.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
A feel good policy
August 5, 2009 - 13:15 ET by CobraManYou're absolutely right. It's a federal feel good policy, at the taxpayers expense!
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
BTW, Bal...
August 5, 2009 - 14:09 ET by CobraMan"The amount of carbon, pollution, in creating cars isn't considered part of this."
You bring up a good point. Do you know why the manufacturing of those cars are not mentioned, not "part of this," as you put it? It's because that, if people understood that the purchase of that new car isn't going to REDUCE CO2 emissions at all, that, in fact, it will INCREASE CO2 emissions, the Obama administration can no longer claim ANY environmental benefits from this program.
THAT'S why you haven't heard anything about the CO2 emissions the manufacture of those replacement cars will produce. The Obama administration doesn't want people to know his program will INCREASE CO2 emissions and not decrease them as it claims.
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
I hate to tell you this,
August 5, 2009 - 12:27 ET by zfI hate to tell you this, but carbon dioxide is the by-product of efficent engine use. Pollution is a by-product of inefficent engine use. You can have less pollution or less Co2, BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH. You see, the energy that powers a car is in part generated by the energy of Co2.The release of Co2 is *intended* not an unwanted byproduct.
Plus, more fuel efficent cars means people will drive them more, so any anti-carbon effect is cancelled out.
This ignores the fact that the crusade against co2 is moronic to begin with, it's akin to rationing out oxygen.
Plus this is less about helping auto dealers and more about getting people out of their vehicles and into the ones the elites think we should drive.
I'm still trying to figure out...
August 4, 2009 - 17:31 ET by Sasquatch...how my 1995 5.1 liter Buick Roadmaster doesn't meet the 18 MPG requirment, but my father--in-law's 2000 Mazda MPV 6 cylinder mini-van does.
The EPA says a Roadmaster gets 19.1 MPG. I'd love to own the Roadmaster they tested, because mine only gets 13-15 in a brisk tailwind.
cars
August 4, 2009 - 18:05 ET by RobersireThey say there are more cars on the road. How is that when they destroy the one turned in?
If this is such a success,
August 4, 2009 - 19:12 ET by ckc1227If this is such a success, why not have a $4700 rebate on everything?
Next time this bimbo
August 4, 2009 - 19:27 ET by the strugglerNext time this bimbo moves,she should be forced to do it in a Prius.See how she feels about trucks,then.
Sunshine
August 4, 2009 - 19:56 ET by beauxdogClunkers for Cash protest Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zurwvfj6f_0&feature=related
The composer and singer is a devout anti-war leftist, so sing his song loud and hard for Obama.
Thank you.
Beauxdog
Carbonless libs?
August 4, 2009 - 23:06 ET by nadadhimmiThese hypocrit liberals and global warming freaks. They exhale millions of tons of CO2 gas into the fragile atmosphere, destroying innocent little bugs and stuff, like man, why don't they face up to the fact THEY ARE THE PROBLEM. Their very life processes are destroying Gaia, they exhale carbon and their macrobiotic diets produce jillions of tons of methane gas, expelled as reeking, tofu and granola farts. Oh, the horror, the horror. They should just commit suicide and deposit their evil carbon packed bodies back into the ground for trees and stuff to live on, ya know man? The damn hypoctrits!
People are trading in their pickups for econoboxes?
August 5, 2009 - 07:26 ET by SickofLibsWhere, in Manhattan?
Does this idiot really think we believe that? Try stuffing a bale of hay into a Corolla.
UAW Giveaway
August 5, 2009 - 13:28 ET by slickwillie2001I believe a part of this program is just a giveaway to the UAW thugs. When Chrysler and GM entered bankruptcy, they both began plant shutdowns for all of July and August. In order to get them back to work, the C4C is designed to empty 2009 models from dealers so they will submit orders for the new vehicles. Some dealers in Atlanta have already announced that they have no inventory left to sell, so in effect C4C is over for them.
BTW, if you look at the data on C4C, it appears that it should have been called 'Cash for Ford Explorers':
"The White House hasn't released the official data yet, but here's a list that Jalopnik published yesterday of the ten most popular traded-in vehicles and purchased vehicles:
The Ten Most Traded-In Vehicles
1. 1998 Ford Explorer (14-17 mpg)
2. 1997 Ford Explorer (14-18 mpg)
3. 1996 Ford Explorer (14-18 mpg)
4. 1999 Ford Explorer (14-18 mpg)
5. Jeep Grand Cherokee
6. Jeep Cherokee
7. 1995 Ford Explorer (15-18 mpg)
8. 1994 Ford Explorer (15-18 mpg)
9. 1997 Ford Windstar (18 mpg)
10. 1999 Dodge Caravan (16-18 mpg)"
Others pointing out that strangely the list of eligible vehicles doesn't include diesel powered cars and trucks, even ones with horrible mpg.
Why does this remind me of
August 5, 2009 - 16:07 ET by RR GOPWhy does this remind me of the decay of America's intercities?
Is there a connection here between this auto program and HUD and city governments allowing the decay of thousands of city blocks, eventually to the point where once fine buildings are officially condemned, torn down and more profitable high-rises or government housing are put in their place?
Not really sure, but C/C does evoke familiarity in my mind.
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!?).