Congress Wants To Buy Your Gas-Guzzling Car

Just in time for rock-bottom oil prices comes a stroke of brilliance from Congress: “Let’s use the taxpayers’ money to buy from them the sort of cars we don’t want them to have if they’ll promise to buy the sort of vehicle we want them to drive!”

Congress is considering a “Cash for Clunkers” bill that would give people a $4,500 voucher to trade in their “gas guzzlers” for certain fuel efficient models.
In my opinion this is the ultimate win/win for buyers, dealers, and the auto makers.
• Buyers get help in buying a newer model that will get better mileage, and therefore help them save money. Granted, $4,500 ain’t exactly winning the lottery, but it’s something. With the economy in the tank, every little bit will help a lot people make the numbers work to buy a car.
• Dealers benefit by having a new incentive program spur traffic. Yes, consumer confidence is still the main reason sales are depressed, but these vouchers could spark more showroom traffic and ultimately sales.
• Auto makers would be helped by having a program that could push demand, especially for more fuel efficient models. With cars lasting longer, even gas guzzlers are holding up. Lately, that’s made people say, “ok, I may not like this boat I’m driving, but it does the job for now.”
• The environment would also get a break as this program could take tens of thousands gas guzzlers off the street. By one estimate, the program could save 40,000-80,000 barrels of motor fuel a day at the end of the offer.

Here are the problems:
First, most people own SUV’s (which are generally more expensive than their more fuel-efficient counterparts) because they want to drive an SUV. Meaning that they aren’t likely to trade in their vehicle of choice for something else for a measly $4,500. People who do use this program are going to be people who were going to switch from an SUV to something lighter anyway. Like maybe a family trading off the old Suburban for something small and efficient for one of the kids.
Second, as we see with gun buy back programs (which have been shown time and gain to be failures) most of what you’re going to get traded in for these vouchers are going to be junk that was just a few years from being taken off the road anyway.
Third, since when is it the government’s job to try and pressure us into driving one sort of vehicle over another? And to use our tax dollars to do it, no less? Isn’t this still a free country? Or should we just have Congress mandate what vehicles we can drive just like they’ve mandated what kind of light bulbs we can use?
They’re close to that anyway with CAFE standards. This is just another step in the wrong direction. Another move against our freedom and liberty done, as most of these sort of moves are these days, in the name of “climate change.”

Tags: , , ,


«
»
  • http://Array Mickey

    I can’t pull two snowmobiles, or two ATV’s or a 20′ boat with a Prius.

    Not interested.

  • kbiel

    You forget the fourth and most important point: someone is going to have to pay for that $4,500. Now it might not be the people who are trading in their clunkers, but then again it might. Someone is going to pay the tax bill which will certainly be more than $4,500 as you have to pay bureaucrats to administrate the program, printers to print up the vouchers, IT people to develop and maintain databases, experts to determine which vehicles qualify as gas guzzlers and which qualify to be purchased with the voucher, and congressional fact finding missions to Detroit, Korea, Japan and Germany.

  • http://ptschett.livejournal.com/ ptschett

    A few thoughts:

    Would it kill reporters to reference the bill number? It appears to be S.247 for those interested… the text of the bill isn’t up on thomas.loc.gov yet, though. Getting there took some searching till I could identify a co-sponsor who wasn’t on half the bills in Congress (i.e. DiFi and Schumer.)

    This seems more like an artificial scheme to spur car sales or push people towards mass transit:

    -My 1996 Thunderbird, which I was thinking about replacing this year anyway, has poor fuel economy for a car at 15 city/23 highway/18 combined; which number needs to be 18 or below to qualify? Are we actually targeting “cars” at all? (And technically my car doesn’t qualify, since it’s sitting in the garage with a broken balljoint right now, and the car needs to be drivable…)

    -The cars I’d consider buying have better mileage than my old car, but aren’t necessarily 25% better than their class target. It seems I could replace my old car with something that has worse mileage but does well in its class. An F-150 at 21 highway MPG might qualify since that’s great for a pickup, but maybe not a Mazda3 with the 2.3L engine at 29 MPG since that’s poor for a car its size.

    -If we’re doing this out of environmental concern, the incentive should actually be less for 2004 and later vehicles, which conform to Tier II emissions.

  • Spartacus

    $4500 isn’t all that much of an incentive. Once you figure in state sales tax, registration fees, increased insurance premiums, etc., depending on what you buy and where you live you might have $1000 or $1500 to put against the principle purchase price of the new vehicle. If you have the funds available to pay cash for the vehicle that might be a an incentive, but if you’re taking out a loan to make the purchase the interest will eat the remainder of the incentive and more.

    Also, the government prints money, it doesn’t make it, the $4500 was yours to begin with. When the government finds itself short of cash it will take back from you that $4500 and more, that incentive is nothing but the government loaning you your own money.

  • welder4

    Only one good thing about the house being all democrat and the administration also democrat they do not have any one to place the blame on any more . they even stopped a long standing rule that they wanted in place to begin with but when it came their turn to be stopped they lifted that rule , how convenient. but they have complete control now so let us watch and see who they try to place the blame on now . the 4,500 dollars would just get people in debt and scraping the barrel to make the payments .

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

    Well of course they have someone to blame! REPUBLICANS!

    You idiots blamed democrats for this economic meltdown and they weren’t even in power for the bubble!

    REPUBLICANS ruled from 2000-2007 UNILATERALLY and did NOTHING to stop the crash. NOTHING.

    We’ll not only blame republicans, we’ll hang them with the blame like we did in the 1930s when the republicans dropped to 19% of Congress. NINETEEN PERCENT!

  • http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

    Automakers will just raise the price of government approved auto models by more than $4500.
    Colleges respond the same way when tuition is subsidized.

    Einstein’s Definition
    Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

  • robert108

    Einstein’s Definition
    Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

    Proof that lefties are insane.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

    Yeah Kevin, that’s the ticket. Try that.

    Bush is still the President. Did you forget that? Take some responsibility for your failures.

  • bill-tb

    They can build Volgas, but will people buy Volgas? The Soviet Union already answered the question.

  • Hungry Bear

    Sounds like our wise leaders want to take all the fun vehicles out of private hands.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    I would go out and buy a non-running vehicle for $100 from a junkyard and trade it in when I go to buy a compact car.

    Something like this was tried in Arizona–the Alt Fuels fiasco.

    California did something similar a while back, to get rid of old polluters. Not sure that it got any “ol’ smokies” off the road, but it probably cleaned up around some barns and junkyards!

  • robert108

    It’s not a crime to buy what you want.

  • robert108

    Under our tax code, “the rich” pay for everything, including the rescue on the Hudson River yesterday, and the govt-mandated vehicles. Govt mandates are the path to failure, as we learned a few months ago.

  • HG

    “I will not be a party to that. Thank you very much.”

    The sad reality is the money to do so doesn’t exist. Too many Americans will unfortunately line up to buy a car on their children’s tax liability. This is just out and out irresponsible.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

    It’s not a crime to buy what you want.

    robert108 on January 16, 2009 at 02:55 pm

    LIAR!!!!

  • jk

    This type of idiocy is what we can expect from Obamas government. Imagine 4 years of this crap.

    It’s not Obama’s government, it’s 70% Clinton…AGAIN.

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

    If the dems keep this crap up they will be a minority party soon. The dems are mad as hell at Nancy Pelosi. I think an implosion is coming soon.

  • ellinas

    pparets. Do your homework, little boy.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    If it were advantageous to me I’d use this program. Otherwise, no.

  • docdave

    Perhaps this is a logical extension of the gun buyback programs. That didn’t work either. Tragic how liberals never learn from their screwups.

  • http://www.ski-blog.com/ sayanything-24

    I would go out and buy a non-running vehicle for $100 from a junkyard and trade it in when I go to buy a compact car.

    Something like this was tried in Arizona–the Alt Fuels fiasco.

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/28060.html

  • docdave

    This type of idiocy is what we can expect from Obamas government. Imagine 4 years of this crap.

  • ellinas

    pparets. Ever hear of funds being impounded by the executive?
    Correct me if I am wrong. The executive does not have to spend what congress appropriates.
    There are situations in which a President may desire to not apportion the budget authority contained in an appropriations act — even though he signed that act into law. The Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 permits the President some latitude in the release of that appropriated funding. Under the provisions of that law, the President may identify a specific amount of funding contained in an appropriations act for a specific purpose and initiate an impoundment action. There are two types of impoundment actions specified in the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974: deferral and rescission.

    You know what though? I am not going to belittle you like you attempted the other day, with that remark about my intelligence.

  • pparets

    dino still doesn’t get it…

    Bush is still the President.

    Congress, and only congress, holds the “power of the purse” and makes all law.

    Article I, The Constitution

    The republicans never had ‘unilateral’ control of congress, anymore than the democrats will because, in neither case, will [or did] either party hold a super-majority in the senate.

    do your homework, little boy.

  • A Citizen

    When Americans see that Obama is leading the country into socialism, there will be an uprising and the country will correct itself through the voting process.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

    Goon buddy, the people could despise the democrats but would NEVER return power to the republicans who brought this economic meltdown upon us.

    Might as well dash those memories of 1994. That’s not going to happen in any way, shape or form.

    You won’t see a return to conservative rule in your lifetime.

  • http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

    Things were just fine until the Democrats took over Congress.

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

    Wrong as ever clown.

  • http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

    Completely bad idea but just a taste of what hardcore “government is all things” dimwits on the left like Pelosi have in mind, just as they did when Bill Clinton took office. They just don’t have any idea of self-control and go right into a winner take all, hogs to the trough mentality. Last time this happened, we got the explosion of liberal fascist political correctness run amok. Now, we have people in the streets comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and praising Hamas in the streets.

    Conservatism’s backlash when it comes is not something I’m looking forward to given the last time saddled us with the NeoNeoCon Bush years. We better spend the next four to eight years concentrating on rebuilding conservatism properly and wisely or else we’re likely going to return unprepared and with an even worse return serve.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development