Incentive program is no clunker for consumers


Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board


This editorial appears in the Aug. 6, 2009, Yakima Herald-Republic.

It's rare when Congress hits a home run. But, in this long hot summer when the nation's economy is still being shadowed by the worst recession since the Great Depression, the "cash for clunkers" program has turned into baseball's proverbial four-bagger.

Of course, it has proven to be too successful. Imagine that? It turns out consumers couldn't wait for a chance to trade in their clunkers and pick up a government-paid rebate up to $4,500 for the purchase of new vehicles with much better gas mileage. In less than a week, car dealerships from Portsmouth to Prosser had processed enough sales to wipe out the $1 billion that Congress had appropriated. It was supposed to have lasted into November.

Realizing they had a bona fide hit on their hands, House lawmakers zipped through an additional $2 billion appropriation Friday.

Now the nation waits breathlessly to see if the Senate will follow suit. The clock is ticking. Senators are heading out Friday on their monthlong summer recess.

While there have been some early grumblings about a filibuster from Senate Republicans, we hope that's not the case. This program needs the added boost. Yes, the $2 billion is a twofold increase over the original outlay of funds and, yes, this nation has to come to grips with a worsening deficit.

But let's do a reality check. The extra $2 billion is minuscule compared to the cost of running the federal government, which plows through more than that -- around $3 billion -- in just half a day.

Furthermore, the program is providing a kick-start to the Main Street economy, something that has been agonizingly slow with the previous $775 billion stimulus package that was passed earlier in the year. At least with the "cash for clunkers" program, real money is being doled out in real time to real consumers. It's a winning combination.

Critics have been quick to belittle the clunker program as an ill-conceived attempt to convince consumers they are helping the environment. Its beneficial effect on energy consumption doesn't really pencil out when you factor in the costs of building a new vehicle that requires energy-intensive processes like steel and plastic manufacturing. Then there's the environmental price tag for junk-piling those gas-guzzling clunkers with their crankcases of thickened oil.

We still take issue with the minimal differences in gas mileage that the "cash for clunkers" program espouses. The difference between what is being turned in compared to the new vehicle's higher gas mileage is too small.

What makes this program a success is the way it's driving the economy -- forward. It has brought the stimulus package to Main Street. The public is driving off car lots with new vehicles, dealerships are seeing twofold increases in sales and, guess what, car manufacturers finally are getting around to the business of producing vehicles as opposed to handing out layoff notices.

Is this cash-rebate program the best Congress has ever devised? No, but it's certainly not a clunker.


* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Bob Crider, Spencer Hatton and Karen Troianello.



Commentsicon2
Posted by jimwhenry0608 at 08/05/09 11:04PM        Post ID#: #8846

I beleive this new legislation is a big win for consumers who is ready to buy a new car with fuel efficient models

Henry
Blogger
www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info

Report Violation
Posted by huh at 08/06/09 06:58AM        Post ID#: #8878

The idea of the cash for clunkers is a good one but there is a question. Why would anyone add to their debt by buying a new car now?

Report Violation
Posted by OddThomasFan at 08/06/09 09:21AM        Post ID#: #8899

Reply to huh: Not everyone is broke. Some jobs have actually had an increase in productivity. Some people didn't have all their money in the stock market. Most people live in a state of constant debt-it's just a matter of how much. Some people have been saving for a new car anyway. Who are we to judge??

Report Violation
Posted by MikeK at 08/08/09 05:23PM        Post ID#: #9282

Since when is the government's business to take my tax dollars to help you buy a new car? I'll send you my address and you can help pay for my new swimming pool. Also, lets see how the car dealers do once the program is out of money.

Report Violation
Posted by ConchRepublic at 08/10/09 06:31AM        Post ID#: #9350

At least this program has a positive "trickle down" effect on a multitude of businesses too numerous to list here. It appears (and I may be proven wrong in the long term) to be good for the consumers that qualify and isn't in the realm of giving direct handouts to bail out some corporation like AIG who then turns around and uses part of the monies for executive bonuses. I'd also put this one up against numerous "freebie" social programs in this country that are mired in problems and cost WAY much more money without us, the taxpayers, getting a "bang for our buck".

Report Violation
Posted by jordan at 08/11/09 04:50PM        Post ID#: #9432

I thought I was already buying Cars below Dealer Cost. Get real people.

Report Violation
Log in or Register to leave a comment.

Posting Guidelines - Updated Aug. 21 2009
Readers are encouraged to use these forums to discuss issues affecting the Yakima Valley. Debate the ideas presented in stories and other comments, but refrain from personal attacks and offensive remarks aimed at others; e.g., you may call an idea idiotic, but don't say the person is an idiot. The Herald-Republic reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason. Examples include material that is obscene, encourages illegal activity or stereotypes based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and other factors. Continued violation of these guidelines can lead to suspension or revocation of your ability to post comments. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, you can bring it to our attention by clicking the "report violation" link by each comment. Guidelines revised Aug. 21, 2009.

Registered User?