This has been revised and shortened, August 3, 2009.
In the case of
cash for clunkers I believe it is important to look at this transfer of tax payer money from several perspectives with the intentions being to measure the ability of our elected officials to effectively anticipate, initiate, implement and administrate the “highest and best use” of revenue the taxpayers make available. Wait, that’s not an accurate claim on my part. Forgive the slip it sounds like “make available” means the money is actually available, meaning on hand, in the bank or Fort Knox or in the pockets of those spending it. My bad. It is NOT available today, tomorrow or a week from Sunday. They, we have to borrow it (from the Chi-Coms). This administration thinks that like some folks “I’ve got plenty of checks so I must have money. For them, all they have to do is print it. Leave the paying back part to someone else.
It should go without saying that those elected officials should perform with integrity/honesty, evidentially it’s an attribute missing in Chicago & D.C.. I don’t mean to slam the wonderful folks in Chicago but they elect these knuckle-heads and one of wound up in D.C.. Incidentally Chicago and D.C. don’t have exclusivity in the knuckle-head department.
When was the first or last time something came out of D.C. that held the scope promised or intended whether an entitlement or un-funded or even when they want to pick our pockets? Start low, aim high, pick em fast before they catch on.
Like the President before concluding that the “police acted stupidly” I have not read the entire bill. I have however scanned through it with sufficient input along with other credible sources to conclude that the claims set forth in my diatribe are applicable to this here with. I think the preceding was my feeble attempt at full disclosure. Here’s the thing that grind my gears. I thought President O said he didn’t want to be in the car business?? Now he’s the Ultimate Used Car Salesman with the ultimate spiff program.
To qualify: Your trade-in vehicle must
* have been manufactured less than 25 years before the date you trade it in. (1984 and up. The 80’s were some of the crapiest cars to come from the Big 3.)
* have a “new” combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 miles per gallon or less (a lot of V-8’s going bye-bye. I like V-8’s)
* be in drivable condition (because they want to have all the fun of destroying them. What a shame)
* be continuously insured and registered to the same owner for the full year preceding the trade-in (Damn. They did something that makes sense.)
* The trade-in vehicle must have been manufactured not earlier than 25 years before the date of trade in and, in the case of a category 3 vehicle, must also have been manufactured not later than model year 2001 (category 3 relates to trucks.)
Note that work trucks (i.e., very large pickup trucks and cargo vans) have different requirements.
OK, that’s pretty straight forward.
Granted the
“cash for clunkers” has made getting out of a “clunker” a much more attractive and affordable option for folks that might not have otherwise be able to get in to a better car. This is an act of the government redistributing the taxpayers’ money according to what they perceive as the most beneficial to their political objectives. There is absolutely NO consideration of inclusiveness but once again politicians selectively deciding how to spend money that is NOT theirs.
But what are the unintended consequences? One unintended, or at least I hope its an unintended consequence is that many consumers who can only afford “clunkers” like kids in high school and college or minimum wage earners will not have these clunkers available to them. Many of these vehicle sell for considerably less than the $3500-$4500 under normal market conditions. This alone is an inflationary result and reality. Clunkers will now have inflated values. Who loses?
The acronym is the “Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save” read the title again. Maybe this is another instance of the folks, including the president NOT reading the bill? Or is it that they don’t care what it says because they are going to do as THEY want regardless.
CARS act of 2009 is a scant 137 pages as of this writing.
Much to the chagrin of the architects of the Cash for Clunkers give away, a billion dollars went in a flash. When it sent shock waves through the hallowed-halls it was exclaimed “we are going to have to find more money.” What the hell are they talking about? Do they think someone left a couple billion under the couch cushions?
The computer system provided by the NHTSA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or DOT. Department of Transportation resulted in system overload, crashes, delays and unanswered questions. Great planning folks. Check the document to see just how much convoluted bureaucracy is created on this teeny-weeny program.
Imagine if you can what will happen when the Government, who know even less about medicine as demonstrated by their bumbling management of Social Security, Medicare to mention but a couple muffs. After a bit more research I’ll blog the details.
Bend-over, they are going to pick our pockets yet again. Congratulations! The found 2 billion in their candy store. It’s actually our money and that of future generations. The 80% or so of the unused porkulus money is the mother-load. Far be it form our beloved officials to not spend what they don’t have. Only around 6%+/- of the 786 billion dollar stimulus…As you might suspect I suffer from AADHD.
Sorry for the rabbit trails. I’ve moved them to the next blog..
Who is actually benefiting?
What a coincidence, the auto-industry business, which O did not want to be in, gets more “stimulus.” This helps the U.A.W. Union, a huge voting block for the dem’s and G.M., that’s Government Motors. I can’t deny that there are some worthy folks who are able to take advantage of this unprecedented give-away. For sure the dealers are making money for a change and that is a good thing but let the market rise and fall of it own accord. Without specific demographic evidence I’ll go out on a limb here and say there was little thought to the ultimate outcome of this lame attempt to spend our money other than to make themselves look good. But tripling the original costs in less than one month!
Who doesn’t benefit?
Here’s a great example of government waste. Instead of recycling with the best taxpayer outcome in the plan, as the title of this bill implies, the not as smart as fifth graders, in their infinite wisdom decide to destroy some vehicles that could surly be put to better use. They could actually be SOLD to recover at least some of the monies.
Let’s just say that Big Pimpin turns in his 2000 Chevy Suburban with 95,000 miles on it. It’s a little rough but runs well despite only getting around 18 mpg. A family with four kids or an entrepreneur might find this to be a terrific bargain at $4,500 or more. But no, the Chevy, along with other “clunkers” is purchased by a scrap metal dealer for less than $300 per ton. CRUNCH goes the Chevy. At somewhere between 4 and 5 thousand, for those not as smart as a fifth grader, that’s between 2 and 3 toms and $600 to $900 a crunch.
But, what does it do for the Recyclers parts business, that’s salvage or wrecking yards. Some of them will indeed go for salvage parts but money is still being wasted. Oh yea. Waste is what they are best at.
Why not sell the runners and recycle the best of the rest instead of crushing. While in the bills title “R” is an acronym for “recycle” it could, maybe should stand for “RUNING.” The best economic concept seems to have escaped the actual procedure.
The future ramifications of this transfer of money are yet to be realized. Mark my words and those of many others: I’ll bet the worst is yet to come.
.
I know there are millions of “Bush Haters” including the mainstream media and many of the Hollywood elitists. You can’t blame this on Bush, or can you.
As for me I’m calling it a day.
Good night to all and to all a good night
