WHAT “Cash For Clunkers”?

Thanks for the article.

I’m not really bothered by the fact that the top selling automobiles are not American designs – they are still American dealerships/employees that benefit from the program (once they get paid, of course). However, I don’t think the program should have ever been initiated as a government program; just one more intrusion, in my opinion.

Too, I am a member of a union and I have definitely benefited from that in my professional life (entertainment). But I find myself losing patience with the automaker unions and their strong-arm tactics…no sympathy from me on that point regarding Toyota and Honda being non-union.

Thanks, again. I think the real point is the one you make at the end of your piece…efficiency of our government in running large-scale programs (i.e. health care) for all of the population, not just the current Medicare and Medicaid recipients.

If they can’t run a simple program like “Cars for Clunkers”, they obviously can’t run a health care program.
I mean, how hard is it to reimburse these dealers, who reported their sales info into a link that went directly to the White House?

I agree with all your point and how well you articulated them, but I cannot agree with your initial statement:

“the so-called “Cash for Clunkers” program is a HUGE success”

If Maytag did a similar program (trade in your own clunker washing machine for a major credit toward a new one) it would stimulate unprecedented short term sales. The marketing group and finance department would have to responsible and accurately project what the exposure would be so that they could adequately budget for it. If the rate lof success far exceeded what was projected and budgeted for the company would be in serious trouble because they would not be able to reimburse the dealers without first somehow securing a block of capital or waiting till the revenue came in. If they ran out of money in only 4 days that would be the case and the program could backfire with consumers and dealers.

In addition, if Maytag did not have a system to immediately pay the dealers for those sales their product would be kicked out of those retail stors permanently.

This showed that the Obama government is not smart, is irresponsible with our money, and will do the same with healthcare.

[...] rest is here: WHAT “Cash For Clunkers”? Filed under: Uncategorized Tags: a-few-minutes, auto-insurance, automobile, car-insurance-, [...]

I’m seeing a, “you’re doing a heckofa job Brownie” in our future.

“I will gladly pay you on Wednesday for a Clunker today . . . ” We believe that Wimpy pitch, don’t we? The car salesmen believed it. But Hey! How did Uncle Sam scam the scammers? Must have caught them grasping at straws . . .

Rabble Rouser: Neat and unfair comparison to further your own anti-single-payer bias. For one thing, the DOT isn’t in the business of handing out rebates to “consumers” and obviously isn’t up to the task of dealing with something of this magnitude on short notice. You’re comparing apples to oranges by making a scapegoat of Federal programs that have nothing to do with the Department of Transportation.

Sarah Palin Is Right AGAIN!
“No Health Care Reform Without Legal Reform”
Today at 7:03am
President Obama’s health care “reform” plan has met with significant criticism across the country. Many Americans want change and reform in our current health care system. We recognize that while we have the greatest medical care in the world, there are major problems that we must face, especially in terms of reining in costs and allowing care to be affordable for all. However, as we have seen, current plans being pushed by the Democratic leadership represent change that may not be what we had in mind — change which poses serious ethical concerns over the government having control over our families’ health care decisions. In addition, the current plans greatly increase costs of health care, while doing lip service toward controlling costs.

We need to address a REAL bipartisan reform proposition that will have REAL impacts on costs and quality of patient care.

As Governor of Alaska, I learned a little bit about being a target for frivolous suits and complaints (Please, do I really need to footnote that?). I went my whole life without needing a lawyer on speed-dial, but all that changes when you become a target for opportunists and people with no scruples. Our nation’s health care providers have been the targets of similar opportunists for years, and they too have found themselves subjected to false, frivolous, and baseless claims. To quote a former president, “I feel your pain.”

So what can we do? First, we cannot have health care reform without tort reform. The two are intertwined. For example, one supposed justification for socialized medicine is the high cost of health care. As Dr. Scott Gottlieb recently noted, “If Mr. Obama is serious about lowering costs, he’ll need to reform the economic structures in medicine—especially programs like Medicare.” [1] Two examples of these “economic structures” are high malpractice insurance premiums foisted on physicians (and ultimately passed on to consumers as “high health care costs”) and the billions wasted on defensive medicine.

Dr. Stuart Weinstein, with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, recently explained the problem:

”The medical liability crisis has had many unintended consequences, most notably a decrease in access to care in a growing number of states and an increase in healthcare costs.
Access is affected as physicians move their practices to states with lower liability rates and change their practice patterns to reduce or eliminate high-risk services. When one considers that half of all neurosurgeons—as well as one third of all orthopedic surgeons, one third of all emergency physicians, and one third of all trauma surgeons—are sued each year, is it any wonder that 70 percent of emergency departments are at risk because they lack available on-call specialist coverage?” [2]

Dr. Weinstein makes good points, points completely ignored by President Obama. Dr. Weinstein details the costs that our out-of-control tort system are causing the health care industry and notes research that “found that liability reforms could reduce defensive medicine practices, leading to a 5 percent to 9 percent reduction in medical expenditures without any effect on mortality or medical complications.” Dr. Weinstein writes:

“If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine.
Excessive litigation and waste in the nation’s current tort system imposes an estimated yearly tort tax of $9,827 for a family of four and increases healthcare spending in the United States by $124 billion. How does this translate to individuals? The average obstetrician-gynecologist (OB-GYN) delivers 100 babies per year. If that OB-GYN must pay a medical liability premium of $200,000 each year (which is the rate in Florida), $2,000 of the delivery cost for each baby goes to pay the cost of the medical liability premium.” [3]

You would think that any effort to reform our health care system would include tort reform, especially if the stated purpose for Obama’s plan to nationalize our health care industry is the current high costs.

So I have new questions for the president: Why no legal reform? Why continue to encourage defensive medicine that wastes billions of dollars and does nothing for the patients? Do you want health care reform to benefit trial attorneys or patients?

Many states, including my own state of Alaska, have enacted caps on lawsuit awards against health care providers. Texas enacted caps and found that one county’s medical malpractice claims dropped 41 percent, and another study found a “55 percent decline” after reform measures were passed. [4] That’s one step in health care reform. Limiting lawyer contingency fees, as is done under the Federal Tort Claims Act, is another step. The State of Alaska pioneered the “loser pays” rule in the United States, which deters frivolous civil law suits by making the loser partially pay the winner’s legal bills. Preventing quack doctors from giving “expert” testimony in court against real doctors is another reform.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry noted that, after his state enacted tort reform measures, the number of doctors applying to practice medicine in Texas “skyrocketed by 57 percent” and that the tort reforms “brought critical specialties to underserved areas.” These are real reforms that actually improve access to health care. [5]

Dr. Weinstein’s research shows that around $200 billion per year could be saved with legal reform. That’s real savings. That’s money that could be used to build roads, schools, or hospitals.
If you want to save health care, let’s listen to our doctors. There should be no health care reform without legal reform. There can be no true health care reform without legal reform.

- Sarah Palin

Yes, and short term sales are all they are. We must also remember the flip side of this coin–these sales are at the expense of some LONG TERM sales.

A stimulus (or incentive) does nothing to address the underlying weakness is an industry or economy. The weakness here is an overallocation of resources and/or a lack of competitiveness in some companies, i.e.–people don’t want so many new cars and/or they don’t want those particular models at those particular prices. The producers need to adjust to the consumers in order to survive. Government throwing money at it only hides the need for and delays the necessary adjustments.

Excellent article: http://www.capitalisthero.com/Cash_for_Clunkers_3UON.php

But you see, this is what concerns me. Why wasn’t it better considered and more efficiently constructed from the start? That was our current administration in action, like it or not. I don’t know….maybe CONSULT with DOT beforehand in a realistic way.

It just feels like they got together and said, “I have a cool idea for our summer break: let’s put on a play and we’ll call it ‘Cash for Clunkers’.”

I want to be impressed; I want to be confident. And yet, I am not.

Hokma, I’m sorry – I should have inserted “Snark” there – the GOV’T is calling it a “huge” success. I was kinda making fun of them…

Are you seriously trying to say that the DOT has not ever had to pay subcontractors or cut any other checks to anyone? Really? Yeah, okay…

Exactly, Rah-Rah. I was going to add something along those very lines – they KNEW they were going to do this program, but they had NO mechanism for handing out the funds? Is that the new argument?? The logic there is so flawed, it just leaves me shaking my head.

Again, if for some bizarre reason that IS the case, all that says is that they are incapable of running even a fairly small program well. Can you imagine what will happen if 47,000,000 people try to sign up for health care?? The amt of money was fairly consistent for each car, and all the gov’t had to do was CUT A CHECK. That is not rocket science. They should have had a program set up for that before they even initiated it. Sheesh, go buy Quicken or something!

One could argue that this “Cash for Clunkers” program is an excellent test. It is very limited in size and scope compared to what a healthcare program would be, so a lack of foresight and organizational ability on the part of the government indeed speaks to its ability to handle much larger and more complicated programs.

Why is it OK to make excuses for the government’s missteps? Basically saying ‘but they weren’t really ready’ or ‘but they have their hearts in the right place’ (I know, that one is sketchy) does not cut it.

Either government-as-provider of anything steps up and plays by competitive rules–you goof and someone else with a better product surpasses you–or we stop pretending we care about competition and just roll over into a centrally planned economy. Do we as consumers want the chance to opportunity the best or do we want our decisions made FOR us?

What have we become?

Exactly, oowawa! I saw this morning that one dealer has taken in, something like 1,400 clunkers. Want to guess for how many she has been reimbursed? 8. EIGHT. That’s it! She’s fronting over a million bucks, in this economy!! Crazy…

Very good point and great article! This pretty much sums up the outcome of “Cash For Clunkers:”

“So now I’m expected to subsidize my asshole neighbor’s purchase of an H3 Hummer, while his H2 hummer (purchased with a HELIOC which is now in default) is destroyed by the dealer. Nice country…”

One thing I forgot to mention. If Maytag ran out of budget after only 4 days the progrom would be over and they would have a PR and distribution nightmare.

In the government’s case that was not a problem at all. Like Harvard educated Senator Chuckie Schumer said let’s ad another 2 billion dollars, because unlike Maytag the government just prints more money and creates deeper debt for all Americans.

oops, should be–Do we as consumers want the opportunity to choose the best or do we want our decisions made FOR us?

(I get all fumbly sometimes…)

Oh boy–6 year terms are WAY too long! And thanks, Harvard, for letting another clueless dolt slip through.

I imagine it was complete lack of success that forced them to close down the program now. It can’t be a lack of money since they haven’t paid most of the dealers yet:)

There was a time when the Democratic Party had great leadership in the House and Senate. This current leadership is killing the Democratic Party possibly beyond repair – not just the programs but how recklessly they are conducting business.

I said after the last election that this party did not have a “mandate” – it only had an “opportunity” to prove to Americans that they were mature and responsible leaders. I have been stunned just how immature and irresponsible they have been.

If I remember right the contents of the dealers computers went to the government both American and foreign.

American Style Universal HC is already here. If you feel like you are in favor of it, see how well it is in practice.

Scandal Exposed American Universal Health Care Exists NOW and its Killing People

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RY4nawrLHk

”The medical liability crisis has had many unintended consequences, most notably a decrease in access to care in a growing number of states and an increase in healthcare costs.
Access is affected as physicians move their practices to states with lower liability rates and change their practice patterns to reduce or eliminate high-risk services. When one considers that half of all neurosurgeons—as well as one third of all orthopedic surgeons, one third of all emergency physicians, and one third of all trauma surgeons—are sued each year, is it any wonder that 70 percent of emergency departments are at risk because they lack available on-call specialist coverage?”

The only conclusion I can draw from this quote is that, doctors determined they must purchase liability insurance because they are likely to get sued. But nowhere in either this quote or, the whole passage, is any positive correlation between the high cost of liability insurance and the monies paid out as the result of malpractice lawsuits. The ‘prohibitive’ costs of such insurance policies could just as likely be, the avarice of companies issuing these policies to make as much profit off of medical providers, as possible.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Let’s put on a show…

i agree with Sarah.

We are in this mess because people were motivated to vote by their opinions and not the facts. If no “cause and effect” has been established between the price insurance companies charge doctors must pay for medical malpractice policies; and the cost to the insurance companies of medical malpractice payouts then, no basis exists to suppose the two figures are related, notwithstanding you agree with SP’s opinion they are.

Rabbble; Let’s get a little bit real. To think that 47 million people would be “served” in one day is pure hokum. Any single payer program based on the already SUCCESSFULLY RUN Medicare program would have to be phased in over a period of years. Also, while you’re at it, and since you seem to be opposed to govt. programs, when you reach 62 or 65 years of age, don’t forget to tell the Soc. Sec. administration that you don’t trust them to send your checks, so please drop your name from their rolls.

Comparing the DOT writing a few checks now and then to subcontractors to this Clunker of a program somehow smacks of disingenuousness. The Clunker may have been a good idea, but don’t forget that O has assembled probably the most corrupt, inefficient, and lazy group of toadies to run his government since, well, Chimpy.

Cash For Clunkers: Two Crimes, Justified By A Lie [Reader Post]

Posted by: Alec Rawls @ 1:48 pm in Auto Industry, Barack Obama, Economy, Environment, Global Warming, Moonbats, Obamanomics | 347 views

Crime 1: Another multi-billion dollar subsidy for Government Motors.

When Obama stole Chrysler from its stockholders and gave it to his union cronies, we knew he would take every opportunity to waste taxpayer dollars trying to keep this lead balloon afloat. The Cash for Clunkers subsidy is just particularly egregious, since it works by subsidizing the last people in the world who need a subsidy: those who are well off enough to buy new cars in the midst of a deep recession. Talk about a middle class welfare program!

Crime 2: Eliminating Government Motors’ competition by gratuitously slagging an expected 750,000 perfectly good used cars in the sub-$4500 price range.

The Obamacrats aren’t just subsidizing cars for the well-to-do. They are destroying the cars that the less well-off are in the market for, driving up used car prices as part of their effort to make new cars more attractive:

more at the link

http://www.floppingaces.net/

The government already runs a successful single-payer healthcare system. It’s called “Medicare”. It’s been in existence for over 4 decades, has served hundreds of millions of people, and has the lowest administrative overhead of any health insurance program, public *OR* private, in the world (less than 3%, as opposed to an average of 35% for private health care plans in the US) – in spite of the fact that:

1) It only serves the elderly, who are the most expensive patient base to treat, and

2) Is prevented by law from negotiating for lower prescription prices

I could not agree more, Hokma and SNK. Great comments!

And Hokma, yes, this was the Dems’ best chance, and they are squandering it left and right, not just with this, but a number of programs/options they are threatening, um, attempting, to implement.

One of my recent faves is Henry Waxman DEMANDING of ins. co’s all of their financial information. I have no love lost for ins. co’s, mind you, but Waxman seems to be overstepping his bounds a bit. Hmm – I wonder why he wants that info? Kind of reminds me of how things went with GM early on, you know?

I’m sorry – I don’t buy your argument for one second. They KNEW they were implementing this program, and should have been PREPARED to fulfill the parameters of the program. To suggest otherwise is not, um, “real.”

If they were incapable, or not ready, they should not have engaged the program, but waited until they COULD fulfill their contract. For the Fed gov’t to attempt to get positive PR for this program, yet leave the people whose money was on the line hanging, is irresponsible at the very LEAST. In this economy, to not reimburse dealers in a timely fashion, is egregious.

And you really believe that the DOT, the FEDERAL DOT, only cuts a few checks here and there? Wow.

Thanks, SNK- good points.

And propertius, I get your point (though a link to back up figures is always appreciated), but there HAVE been problems with Medicare, including: abuses of the system, reduction of funds to the system, a decline in care covered, decline in the amt of coverage, and on and on.

There are a number of important, critical, issues not covered in your comment, as well. Another post, really.

Excellent points all.

Another one of the biggest problems with this program (oowawa has mentioned that in previous posts) is that they are not allowing people who cannot AFFORD new cars to even use parts of the “clunkers.” They aren’t recycling any usable parts, simply turning them into scrap metal. That is just waste, pure and simple.

Here is a very painful video that everyone should take a look at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waj2KrKYTZo

It’s about a 2003 Volvo being turned in for the CfC scam program and having the engine disabled. This car is in solid shape-clean engine block, body in near perfect condition. It very easily could have gone to someone else who needed a vehicle to get to work, etc. Instead it’s destroyed.

Waste of a good vehicle. Apparently the CfC is also driving up the cost of quality used vehicles because vehicles such as this one are being destroyed instead of being put to use.

And if you believe what you have just written? Wow. You still haven’t addressed your comparing this hastily put together program designed to make O look good, to other govt. programs that actually work. Don’t try to convince me or anyone else that the DOT is set up to deal with a massive check-writing program that went way faster and beyond anyone’s expectations.

I’m on your side; I think the program was badly handled, but knowing this administration, that was to be expected. I just don’t like painting the entire govt. with a broad brush based on this Clunker of a program.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/corpsevette/#commentsmore

this is just wrong!!!!!!!!

WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

There are terrible problems:

Please sit tight while I walk you through the math of Medicare. As you may know, the program comes in three parts: Medicare Part A, which covers hospital stays; Medicare B, which covers doctor visits; and Medicare D, the drug benefit that went into effect just 29 months ago. The infinite-horizon present discounted value of the unfunded liability for Medicare A is $34.4 trillion. The unfunded liability of Medicare B is an additional $34 trillion. The shortfall for Medicare D adds another $17.2 trillion. The total? If you wanted to cover the unfunded liability of all three programs today, you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill. That is more than six times as large as the bill for Social Security. It is more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy.

Richard Fisher of the Dallas Federal Reserve
http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm

$85 trillion in unfunded liabilities, to me, basically means it’s bankrupt.

Yes, eliminating malpractice suits would probably result in a 5% cost saving, at the risk of further harming those who have already been disabled by incompetent or impaired physicians. Why shouldn’t physicians be legally responsible for the quality of their work? Shouldn’t people whose lives have been ruined by, for example, a drug-using anesthesiologist have legal recourse against him/her? Why don’t you think physicians should be responsible for their actions? Everyone else is (except Obama, apparently).

Replacing private, for-profit health insurance with Medicare-for-all (HR 676) would reduce health care costs by about 35% in reduced administrative costs *alone* – and this doesn’t even count the physician hours that are wasted in haggling over CPT codes or arguing with insurance clerks to get necessary procedures, tests, or medicines covered. Why not go for the big cost saving *first* by enacting single-payer?

Medicare is only for the elderly? I’m guessing you mean 65 years or older. Not true.

Also under Medicare you either get a discount or your prescriptions for free.

Medicare operates under Social Security. Al Gore wanted to put a lock box on it so the funds would no longer be raided for other government programs. That worked out really well for him.

Everyone (working folks at least) pays into Medicare/Medicaid so in that sense we are already looking out for each other.

I just found out that if you are a farmer and have less than 5 employees you don’t have to pay into Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid.

BTW I paid into Medicaid for years. I’m not eligible. The idea that those against this program don’t want to help their fellow Americans is ludicrous.

No one is protesting Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security taxes. They’re protesting this particular program.

That is painful to watch. I don’t know how anyone could justify killing that car.

Even the ones that are true clunkers still have life. Isn’t that the American way for most of us….clunkers for our first few cars?

Most doctors offices, either hire medical billers or purchase the software to do it themselves. Once you know the codes ect there isn’t much haggeling. it is just put the codes in and send it off.

I don’t think anyone is proposing to *eliminate* malpractice suits. They’re talking about reform of the tort system, not ending it, so that juries can’t award outlandish payments, but something considered more appropriate to the doctor’s error and the patient’s resulting disability.

There will be disagreements about what is considered an appropriate cap, but it’s not accurate to say they’re trying to eliminate malpractice suits.

I agree, it’s a waste. Plus, I think “clunkers” is a misnomer, as I believe the main qualification is the gas mileage the vehicle gets. I understand there are people trading in perfectly drivable SUVs and trucks, because their low gas mileage makes them eligible. So not only does this deprive others from being able to buy them as a used vehicle, it’s not really affecting the pollution problem:

There have been programs over the years (mabe on the state level) where if a car was considered a gross polluter, they would give the owner extra money to turn it in, more than they would get from just selling it to the junkyard. These were usually pretty old cars, which of course were no longer being made. So this type of program definitely worked to get a polluter off the road (these were “clunkers”, for sure!). With the SUVs and trucks being turned in today there isn’t the same effect, because the dealerships are still making these high gas mileage vehicles – so what is really the point in crushing some, when they’re still making more?

Of course, some of the vehicles being turned in now are older vehicles. The owners probably aren’t used to making payments, so I hope this doesn’t turn into the same fiasco as the ACORN housing push, where people were allowed to buy homes they couldn’t really afford!

They showed a clip on the news of some of them bring crushed, and they’re crushing tires and all. A lot of people rely on used tires, so this is another waste.

“there isn’t the same effect, because the dealerships are still making these high gas mileage vehicles”

should be “low gas mileage vehicles”

…and the first commenter mentions the broken window fallacy–a great little story for everyone to read these days: http://mises.org/story/3000 (It also debunks the pernicious idea that wars boost economies.)

That is why Pelosi et al kicked the ladder out from under Hillary — I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts she didn’t want this bunch of boobs minding the mint and she wouldn’t have outsourced this much control to Pelosi/Reid/Dodd/Frank. The “leadership” of Obama and those currently in charge does not represent the Democratic Party to me. Not the Clinton wing of it anyway.

Well said, Ani – I couldn’t agree more!

It truly is a huge waste – disabling the engine block and the whole thing. What a waste of resources, isn’t it?

I’ve been an environmentalist for many years, and this just sickens me. People could USE those parts, they could be RECYCLED, for crying out loud (remember the saying, “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”? evidently, the Dems and Obama haven’t.).

Candymarl, great point. I meant to say something abt that earlier. It is VERY hard for disabled people to get Medicare. My cousin tried unsuccessfully for a number of years to obtain it – she had Lupus. Her sister kindly picked up all of her medical expenses in the interim while she was fighting for Medicare.

Her sister was hoping that, after my cousin died from complications of Lupus, that maybe THEN they would acknowledge how bad it was, and reimburse her costs.

I know other people who have tried, unsuccessfully, to get Medicare, even though they were deserving. So, again, it isn’t a slam dunk program, nor is it a perfect program.

But yeah – I don’t think anyone has been advocating it be abolished anyway…

I fully agree.

I think this far left wing of the party shares the same beliefs as Obama and have marginalized the balance of the party, much the same way Obama has tried to marginalize Hillary.

For me the best scenario would be for Obama’s number to continue to plummet, the Dems lose big in the 2010 elections, and then Hillary resigns to pursue a run against Obama for the nomination.

Of course Obama will start to use the race card as his excuse the same way Governor Patterson used it today with calls for him to step aside int he next election.

I had the timing belt changed on my car today at a HONDA dealership in the Seattle, WA area.

The shuttle driver there said the dealer had stopped participating in the Cash-for-Clunkers program because they hadn’t been reimbursed by the goverment for cars already sold and it was causing cash flow problems. They had sold 400 cars in the program and were owed about $4000 each for about $1.6 million total.

He also said the number of cars they sold was similar to what they were doing last year or the year before…but not better.

Even a chop shop would scream bloody murder at this waste of vehicle. The breakup value of the parts alone are worth more than the CfC scam.

This far left wing is the mirror image of the neo-cons and what they did to the Repubs in 2000.

Thanks for another great post, R3Amy. I had a 1985 Peugeot that finally had no more major replacement parts from any maker in early 2008. We had the AirCheck Texas program, where old, POLLUTING cars which failed the emissions test even if they passed the safety test(lights, brakes, wipers, etc.)would be turned in, engine blocks bored, for a $3,000 voucher for a newer car. Parts could be sold–I had great tires, battery, alternator, etc.–but the engine–in this case 23 years old–had to be bored. A good junk yard mechanic or chop shop could salvage lots of usable stuff off that old car. The point was OLD/POLLUTING cars that failed emissions testing were to be destroyed. The one sticking point was the car had to be driveable–driving it to the new dealer, who would then drive it to a loading truck for salvage. One could also sell the car straight to a salvage yard and have the salvage owner sign an affidavit promising to destroy the engine while being welcome to sell all the parts. There was some paperwork involved–just a few pages, and very clear instructions.

My mechanic was a European raised Peugeot garage owner who gave me very good service and reduced prices all along when my income was low. That’s the only reason I had a foreign car–I bought it cheap and could make payments on repairs. I had an 18-year business relationship with that mechanic, a true gentleman.

So, the government, in this case the great state of Texas, and invidual business owners like my mechanic, “cooperated” to keep me driving to work in an area still needing way more mass transportation. This program was only available in the polluting counties that encompassed Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston-Galveston and San Antonio, I believe. Well organized, well managed.

I think a different perspective should be used towards this program. Automotive Dealers aren’t happy they aren’t getting paid??? The truth is this isn’t the gravy train they are used to and they are going to spin it to make them look like a victim. They are not hurting for money….let’s be real this is Government debt. They would have no problem having a bank offer a line of credit which is secured by government debt. There are plenty of industries which have to wait for payment far longer than the two months this program has been in effect. Look at their sales numbers since the program rolled out and compare them to prior numbers when the program wasn’t around. The volume has increased so much and they still want to claim they are the victim. I would also like to commend how the government handled this sucessful program. It accomplished exactly what its goals were….put millions of Americans in more fuel efficient and it spurred significant economic activity. I must also say how well a job was done with the events during the recent week. While the program was hugely successful it hasn’t operated perfectly regarding all facets (e.g. the dealerships being reimbursed sooner than they currently are). After recognizing the two main goals were accomplished they decided to stop the program rather than letting the short-falls continue to grow and become insurmountable. That is called PROGRESS. A final note to the dealers who claim to be the victims: If your complaint now is “where is my money?” what are you going to say next month when there are a big fat zero buyers like it was prior to this program?

I remember that slogan as well and agree it’s a huge waste of resources on so many levels. The manpower and energy consumed to produce it the first time should guarantee it usefulness to most environmentalists.

The loss of wealth to the entire US system seems a bizarre fix as well. As others have noted previously, besides junk yards, charities, parts stores, and mechanics which will have less to work with. Why couldn’t the car dealerships kept the cars whole and sold them to the used car dealers? The 3 billion dollar price tag is still there, but other industries still get to participate.

Maybe it is stacking the deck in their future for more car sales with the loss of these.

Sorry for posting this late….had it written but shut down the computer when hubby came home.