Current Article

The End of Cash for Clunkers Leaves the Obama Administration With Its “Unders” Showing

By Linda Anselmi on August 25, 2009 at 10:01 AM in Current Affairs, Obama Administration

The CARS (Car Allowance Rebate System) program, better known as Cash for Clunkers, came to an end at 8 pm Monday night. But for a short-lived program that burned through $3 billion in about a month, it has successfully managed to hit an amazing amount of sour notes for all its claims to be a sweet deal that is quick and oh, so simple.

And while Cash for Clunkers was presented as a win/win/win program aimed at stimulating the economy, providing relief for automobile manufacturers and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the end results seem to have left the Obama administration with its “unders” showing.

UNDER-PLANNING:
From the Detroit Free Press:

“We set up the program in 30 days, which was what Congress gave us,” said Jill Zuckman, assistant to Mr. LaHood.

“No one anticipated that 250,000 cars would be sold in the first four days. It proved to be more than the people we had available could handle.”

Dealers exacerbated the problem by making many thousands of deals before final program rules were posted on July 24, she said.

As the program winds down, only about 1-in-5 of the cash-for-clunker deals reviewed by federal officials have received approval so far, raising questions about whether dealers have been too loose in enforcing rules or federal officials too strict.

(Next time maybe not go for a rush job. Take some time to think things through.)

UNDER-ESTIMATING:

… the Obama administration is to end the cash for clunkers program to prevent car dealers and shoppers from claiming more than the $3 billion Congress approved.

The decision announced Thursday means that the program expected to generate 250,000 vehicle sales over three months will have triggered more than 700,000 in about a month. …

(Underestimating seems to be a pattern with this administration – underestimating projected unemployment, underestimating projected deficits, underestimating taxpayer anger…)

UNDER-FUNDING:

The Obama administration has struggled to keep the clunkers plan in check, pushing an emergency $2-billion extension through Congress earlier this month when the plan burned through its original $1 billion in about a week. Backers of the plan previously said they would not seek more money, and the White House reiterated that stance Thursday.

(But, with only a fraction of the deals actually processed, are we sure they won’t need $4 billion?)

“We’re confident that with this window, we’ll be bringing the program in within the range allocated to it,” a White House official said.

The U.S. Department of Transportation said $1.9 billion has been claimed so far through 457,476 transactions, but it estimated that dealers are likely sitting on another $400 million in deals that have yet to be submitted. With the cost of overseeing the program likely close to $100 million, that would leave about $600 million available.

(Do you get the feeling they had their fingers crossed when they said that.)

UNDER-STAFFING:
From Washington Times –

The U.S. Transportation Department, billions of dollars behind in paying “cash-for-clunkers” rebates, has hired private contractors and solicited volunteers from the Federal Aviation Administration and its own executive ranks to work overtime to clear the backlog.

Employees of the FAA’s air-traffic-control unit were asked to help, but the Transportation Department stressed Friday that essential safety personnel were not diverted from their duties.

A total of 1,200 workers, including about 300 contractors from Citigroup, the financial services giant, are now working seven days a week to review applications and reimburse auto dealers for rebates advanced to customers, officials said.

(Too bad they had to resort to volunteers and overtime, I’m sure there are unemployed that would have loved a pay check – even if only temporary.)

UNDER-EQUIPPING:
From the AP:

Hours before the Monday night deadline for Cash for Clunkers sales, the government gave dealers an extension, until noon Tuesday, to file the paperwork to get repaid. The deadline for sales was not affected.

The Transportation Department granted the extension after the Web site set up to handle the claims was temporarily shut down from overload.

UNDER-PROCESSING:
Questions Continue as Clunkers Deal Nears End

a White House official said Thursday that only $145 million, or 8%, of the $1.9 billion claimed by dealers from the program has been paid out by the government so far.

Of the 457,476 deals submitted, the administration said about 170,000 had been reviewed, with a “large number” rejected for incomplete or inaccurate paperwork. Under the law, customers had to meet several requirements, such as having the clunker registered and continuously insured for the past year, proof of which dealers have to submit to get reimbursed.

Given the average clunker voucher of about $4,200, the government’s figures suggest that fewer than 35,000 deals have passed muster. Several dealers have warned that the backlog of claims was threatening their business; GM and Chrysler said Thursday they would advance cash to dealers while they waited for clunker payments.

(According to cars.gov website, reimbursements to dealers was suppose to take only 10 days.)

UNDER-TARGETING:
Latest Cash for Clunkers TOP SELLERS:

1. Toyota Corolla
2. Honda Civic
3. Ford Focus front-wheel drive
4. Toyota Camry
5. Hyundai Elantra
6. Toyota Prius
7. Nissan Versa
8. Ford Escape front-wheel drive
9. Honda Fit
10 Honda CR-V four-wheel drive

(So remind me, who were we spending $3 billion to help – US auto manufacturers, US auto assemblers, or anyone in the Auto Industry anywhere in the world?)

UNDER-GREENING:
From CBS News –

One estimate, by Henry Jacoby, co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT, is that CARS will reduce carbon emissions at a cost of about $160 a ton; Knittel [Christopher Knittel of the Center for the Study of Energy Markets] puts the figure at $237 and possibly much more. By comparison, a ton of carbon on the European trading system goes for about $20 right now.

There is also the

“Mexico effect.” As Matthew Kahn, an environmental economist at UCLA, notes, the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement has, in effect, been a hemispheric cash-for-clunker program, as the United States and Canada ship used but sellable cars south of the border. If these are sent to the scrap heap instead, that means that many older and dirtier Mexican clunkers will stay on the road longer, reducing the gains of the slightly greener U.S. fleet.

Moreover, most of the the funds for cash for clunkers came by shifting money from the loan guarantee program for renewable energy, which is designed to make it easier to invest in and expand green energy projects. Unfortunately, there is no alternate universe in which to test whether there would have been more green for the buck had the money stayed where it was.

From the AP

Even with more fuel-efficient vehicles on the road, it does not always follow that gasoline consumption will fall, especially as gas prices currently average 30 percent below last year’s record highs.

Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser, in an op-ed article in the Boston Globe earlier this month, wrote, “One side effect of the program is that new car owners will surely find it more appealing to drive in their snazzy new cars.”

The program, he said, assumes there is a defined amount that people drive that does not change. Subsidizing the purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles, while it may lower the amount of gas used per mile, could end up encouraging people to drive more. …

(That makes for a expensive way to reduce carbon emissions, especially since the net result of which is not overly green. And it might actually encourage more driving.)

UNDER-VALUING TAXPAYER MONIES:
Again.

jwrjr

Another very large problem with the “Cash for Clunkers” program is that it targeted the people who already had the money (mostly) to buy a new car. This completely leaves out the people most likely to be driving an older – non fuel efficient – car. These are the people who would most like to be driving a new fuel efficient car – the unemployed and the poor.

Docelder

My neighbors who are a two government employee household just did it. They are dripping with pride having gotten $4500 of free money from the government. These same people resent every dime spent on school kids and poor people etc. We fell out with them a couple years ago when they went on and on about how much of their tax money went to the schools and how that since they don’t have kids etc… Forget that these kids are just going to grow up and get jobs and fund these same folks government pensions with the golden health care. They probably think that getting $4500 free for buying a car is different from qualifying folks getting food stamps to buy food… it is not and they are the exact same thing.

bobo

Well said. My family chose not to take advantage of Cash for Clunkers because money is tight. Working class families with children need more than $4500 to trade in their vehicle for a new fuel-efficient Prius. I assumed that a lot of upper income people would be the ones to take full advantage of the program and your example is spot on. Disgusting that your neighbors could criticize people who really need help when they gladly accept government handouts themselves even though they don’t need it.

rose

did you see and hear
howard Dean and a republican representative{on I think MSNBC} were bragging about how they traded in their older car or truck in to take advantage of the clunker deal.. Is this who we really need to get a deal?

you know I am driving an older car and cannot afford a new one but some of those “clunkers” sure would have been an improvement for me..the only thing so far I have gotten form this administration is higher gas prices, a reduction in medicare.I am on disability and i stand along with others to times that are bleak..where is the people that supposedly had the poor and middle class in mind?? Lost in martha’s vinyard or maybe touring europe? flying in chefs to make me a pizza? maybe its the 200dollar beef we heard about or the congressional jets they ordered?

Ken in IL

Wait till your neighbors find out the $4500 is income!! Normally the trade-in value of a car is subtracted from the price and sales tax is paid on the net price. In the clunkers case it is paid ton the total price of the new car. So if the folks are in the 28% bracket and have an 8% sales tax, they didn’t get $4500 but 4500 less (28%+8% * 4500) or about $2880. So if there trade in was worth more, they lost out as did the secondary market!!!

felizarte

This completely leaves out the people most likely to be driving an older – non fuel efficient – car. These are the people who would most like to be driving a new fuel efficient car – the unemployed and the poor.

That’s me. I have an /89 Jeep and would have loved to have a new hi-mileage corolla, but even with the $4500, I would have to be in debt for the balance of the selling price, which I do not want. So I guess my fully paid Jeep will have to do until it can’t anymore.

Carmen

No one has reported either that the cash for clunkers program is the brainchild of Obama’s green czar Van Jones the communist, black liberation radical. He wrote about it several years ago in a book. Now do you suppose that ANYTHING this convicted felon who could not pass a background check for ANY government job is done for the good of Americans?
helenk

http://www.pjtv.com/v/2343

You may not agree with this guy but he will may you think. That is always a good thing

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

PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
Sassy

We worked for forty years paying our health insurance, mortgage, and vehicles.
Now the government is handing out freebies.
Wow, I could have had a V8!
Doc99

Stimulus checks for Inmate? Yikes…
fred_d_fred

Off Topic:
Please Show Health Ranger Some Love
Listen To The Lyric

Don’t Inject Me (the Swine Flu Vaccine Song)
http://countusout.wordpress.com/
Thank You

Pennsylvania Caucasian

Thank YOU for the link. I’ve been to naturalnews and also to this site:
nvic.org

DAB

If the repercussions from this ill-defined plan continues to garner negative coverage from continued fallout, it will definitely undercut any attempts at health care reform and other new programs.

I believe that Obama is quickly gaining a reputation as a radical, shoot-from-the-hip administrator who doesn’t know what he is doing.

Solara 9

DAB–I agree. It’s a style that is becoming highly suspect!

Tricia Spiegel

Excellent post Linda. So well constructed with so much to make me ever madder about!

What might we have done about carbon emissions with 3 billion dollars that would have been even a better deal for all of us? I see this as a flashy operation rather than something that was thought out–much like everything else going on. So what happens now? Sales flatten out again and auto dealers and manufacturers are in trouble again?

What really gets me is anyone who knows how to buy a new car knows you can make deals as good or better than this clunker ANY time. Our last new car purchase went this way: I sold my well-taken-care-of older car from $5,000 to a private party. It was a good deal for him because Bluebook was $2,000 higher. At the dealership, my husband talked for a LONG time to the manager (who you finally get passed up to as you bargain), and we bought my new car for $6,000 off the sticker price. I think people got bamboozled again.
maryann

OOOOOPS! “Administration” miscalculates deficit…
but they were only off by $2 TRILLION!! Oh, and unemployment will jump to well over 10% (and that’s on the low side estimate).

Reuters:

“New deficit projections pose risks to Obama’s agenda”

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s domestic policy proposals will face the reality of skyrocketing deficits on Tuesday when officials release two government reports projecting huge budget shortfalls over the next decade.

The White House budget office and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a non-partisan arm of Congress, release updated economic forecasts and deficit estimates on Tuesday, providing further fiscal fodder to opponents of Obama’s nearly $1 trillion healthcare overhaul plan.

Many of the figures are already known.

The White House has confirmed that its deficit estimate for the 2009 fiscal year, which ends September 30, will inch down to $1.58 trillion from $1.84 trillion after eliminating billions of dollars originally set aside for bank rescues.

Looking forward, an administration official told Reuters the 10-year budget deficit projection will jump by about $2 trillion to roughly $9 trillion from an original forecast of $7.1 trillion.”

“Many economists think it is unlikely that the government can curtail spending, which means taxes would have to rise to cover the increasing costs of providing retirement benefits and healthcare to older people. That could slow economic growth.

Stanford University economics professor John Taylor, an influential economist, told Reuters Television on Friday the U.S. budget deficit poses a greater risk to the financial system than the collapse in commercial real estate prices.”

Read more:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE57M0WV20090823

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNaqecavD9ek
imustprotest

I wonder what would have happened if the $$ had been given to have people convert their gasoline powered cars to alternative forms of energy? I read somewhere that it costs about $6000 to convert a car to all electric.
Doc99

Now that CARS is over, the consumer will sit back and wait. And can Clunkers, Part Deux be far behind?

Docelder

Aren’t what we are really doing here is indoctrinating people who don’t qualify for normal government assistance into putting their hands out? Having drank from the public trough, how many of these people are going to become addicted to it?

tzada

Tis appliances next. But you can give the last rites to them yourselves, like leave them at home when you buy the new ones.

Let us be sure and show GE the proper respect, they well deserve and leave their model on the show room floor.

tzada

I do not support any of the clunker plans, especially the grandparents one.

But if you should need or choose to take the appliance offer, think about this. You can find free plans for turning old refrigerators into solor hot water heaters.

To be sure if the current administration remains we will have appliance police at our doors.

Tess

Is there any possibiility we could turn in the O? And the FLOTUS? And get someone that works?

Obamastolemycountry

the O is definitely a clunker. I think you may be on to something here!

helenk

This program kept being advertised as the government’s money is being given to people for new cars.

That is NOT the governments money that is the taxpayers money. They worked for and earned that money and many can not afford new cars due to the taxes they pay.
Salaries have not kept pace with the cost of living for many people. Some how it does not make me feel better that I helped someone buy a new Toyota when I am taking a bus or driving a older car that I will no longer be able to get parts to fix it when it breaks down.

That is just my feeling on this mess.

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

PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
helenk

OT

http://www.puma08.com/2009/08/15/list-of-obamas-czars/

There does not seem to be a lot of conversation on backtrack’s czars. The public does not have a lot of information on them. Congress does not have to vet them
Just who are they and what do the believe?

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

PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

Docelder

Only Beck so far really seems to address this topic with any depth at all. There are so many of Obama’s regular appointments unfilled. Why is that? Is it because the czars really are running things? Is the regular cabinet just there to follow the rule of the law… and are the czars really the framework for a shadow government that has no oversight? It is hard to imagine that this isn’t getting more attention.

newmex

Let us not ever forget this program was taken from a book written by BO’s green czar who is an avowed Communist and a felon.
tzada

Somewhere I read another behind the scenes, darker motive. The theory went like this. Older cars can continue to run after there is an EMI set off above the earth. Newer cars cannot run because of their electronics. There are more scientific words to use, but the gist is there.

EMI (electromagnetic interference) is the disruption of operation of an electronic device when it is in the vicinity of an electromagnetic field (EM field) in the radio frequency (RF) spectrum that is caused by another electronic device.

http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid40_gci213940,00.html

That was just someones idea. However since they were not age specific, as in really old cars it is doubtful it was the real reason.

Docelder

The car would need to not have an electronic ignition… I am not so much an into cars to know for sure, but suspect this is probably applicable to just very old cars by now. If you want a scare look into “solar maximum in 2012″. Every 11 years there is a large release of solar radiation. 2001 was unusually mild, and in 1990 we didn’t have so many satellites as we do now. Scientists at NASA… not conspiracy kooks are saying the solar maximum of 2012 could be unusually large and could take out satellites. This has happened before, in 1859 radiation from the sun shocked telegraph operators and melted telegraph equipment.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/sun-ez.html

tzada

aha I did not know about the 2012 solar thing.

As for the other it doen’t need to be a conspiracy theory. Any nation any where can do it to us or any other place on earth dependent upon computers.

If there was advance notice there are ways to keep it from effecting your electronics. The problem is there will not be a public service announcement.

crk62

this cash for clunkers thing seems like a nice litmus test for rational thinking. it’s a real stretch to say that because an attempted stimulus program was wildly popular and more so than originally planned for makes it a failure somehow. that’s just looking for something where there is nothing.

Docelder

It is wildly popular with farmers to get paid not to farm. By that standard then the USDA is also equally wildly successful then. Why is it that when the government tries to control behavior it always winds up costing the rest of us money?

ces

Farmers get paid to not farm because the fields NEED a REST sometimes.

It’s popular because they can mostly continue to farm because a) they get money during the ‘rest’ seasons, and b) those fields are more productive for more species because they get that rest.

And they also know if everybody is doing beans this year, the price will be low. So they can wait and plant something that has a good futures price.

Sometimes doing the right thing takes some money.

Docelder

I grew up on a ranch and there were a lot of local “farmers”. Even the ranchers were into the farming for the allotments. The ranchers would get wheat allotments… plant winter wheat and the USDA paid for half of the seed and cost to plant it. Then the USDA paid the ranchers not to harvest the wheat… which was not a problem since none of them had combines to begin with… so they ran the cattle on the wheat fields feeding them winter wheat paid for by the government and paid again not to harvest… free winter pasture for the cattle. Farmers are some of the biggest welfare queens out there.

ces

After living out west for several years and seeing how the BLM runs things, I don’t consider “ranching” as farming. I’d include Texas ranching in with this, too. I don’t mean that to be inflammatory, just my opinion.

If people knew that their $12.99/lb steaks were being subsidized to the extent they are, people would be upset. Back in the late ’90s it was about $2.50/head/year to “ranch” on government, aka OUR, land. That’s right, less than a Starbucks coffee. With no sense of responsibility for the riparian areas the relatively dumb beasts rip to shreds. (I eat some beef, too, btw.) Ranching is a smart business choice, but it’s a lot different than planting crops.

The farming I was referring to was the stereotypical midwest type. The idyllic farm of wheat, corn, soybeans, and other commodity staples. You can’t plant corn and wheat in the same field year after year and expect the yield to maintain a decent level. The fields need a (paid) vacation, if you will.

(OT: I don’t like the mega-ag corps selling products that don’t provide viable seeds so farmers in Africa or Indiana can’t use them.)

And yes, the farm lobby (aka family farmers) used to be heavily Democrat and were very much for government involvement because some national entity was the only thing keeping food on their own tables in dry or wet years. Now, most farming isn’t done by individual families, but corporations. Hence, a new type of lobby against government “interference.” And thusly, the reduced subsidy for milk. Gallon prices jumped enormously a few years back–because the subsidy was either eliminated or severely reduced.

I wouldn’t call the people I know in the MidWest Queens, at all. It is a very difficult and risky “life style” that not only is rewarding at many levels, but puts domestic food on all of our tables.

And lastly, I’d much rather subsidize a farming community than the mega-ag/auto/energy/oil industries.

pm317

oh, put a sock in your irrational mouth.
pm317

As some of the comments up thread show, wildly popular with whom? Who benefited from it, people who don’t deserve to benefit from it? What kind of clunkers did they really trade in?
Peggy Sue

crk62 said:

“this cash for clunkers thing seems like a nice litmus test for rational thinking. it’s a real stretch to say that because an attempted stimulus program was wildly popular and more so than originally planned for makes it a failure somehow.”

Rational thinking? The speil on this program was that these trades would have an effect on environmental grounds and boost the failing US car manufactuers. The truth is that the trade-ins will have a minimal effect on environmental issues and most of the trade-ins were made for “foreign vehicles.” Yes, many of the foreign manufacturers employ US workers, but Toyoto, Honda and Nissan are “not” American companies. And you know what? Lower income people would love to be driving those rejects until they can afford something better [and greener].

Hello? Not a rational approach from my part of the woods.

Plus, “wildly popular?” When have you ever seen a handout, a government freebie that is “not” popular? Hurrah! We get something for nothing Who could complain? Maybe when you realize you’ll pay taxes on that handout. And if you live in a state with income tax, you’ll probably be double-dipped.

There’s no such thing as a “free-lunch.” Not even in Obamaland.

Of course, if you buy into the idea that we destroy what still works in this country, level it all and replace it with “green clones,” regardless of the price or the waste then I guess this all makes perfect sense.

Rational? Why not try retrofitting the dastardly gas guzzlers. Why not working with what we have and making it better, transitioning into what we want?

Oh no! That would make too much sense. That would crimp your definition of “rational,” which really means: hang onto your seats as we destroy what we have and freefall into a murky [and from where I sit, a very grim] future.

Take pm’s advice: stick a ratty sock in it. Some of us are actually paying attention.

pm317

Thank you, Linda for an excellent post. It goes to show that there is no deliberate planning nor well thought out execution of many of the policy ideas coming out of this administration. It goes to show that they don’t have a lot of smart people who can think and work efficiently under pressure and time constraints. A failure is a failure whatever the merit of the ideas on paper be.
carolhaka

Hot Damn!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/2009/08/every-critic-a-racist.html

CAROL HAKA

Docelder

Maybe this administration will be forced to play the rest of their game with an actual deck of playing cards… and not the house deck.

lorac

Well said!

ces

Ok, seeing as NQ seems to be turning into LGF Lite ™…..

There wouldn’t be a C4C program if:

1. Detroit hadn’t played the lending game and LOST. GM had been sinking hard and fast for YEARS; could have gone bankrupt w/o the bailout (taxpayer) money, but they didn’t.

2. Detroit had actually made cars that meet the mileage standards their European models ALREADY meet.
– it wouldn’t take years to reengineer cars, because they already make smaller, more efficient models for the UK and the Continent.
– they kept making huge cars because they were cash cows…and yet the big three STILL were sinking fast.

Moreover, the list of cars that people are buying should tell everyone what the MARKET is demanding: smaller and more efficient.

Again, folks, GM was losing money for years and finally went belly up because of its lousy business practices, from vehicle product to financial games—-NOT from oBlunder’s “socialist” agenda.

I’m not one to ‘defend’ the current maladministration lightly, but I would not hesitate for a second to say that the auto industry came up with this plan (as industry does for most legislation these days) and then it was up to oBlunder to make it happen. And to add relevance to this point, GM has hired back some workers to make more of those small cars being gobbled up by a more cost conscience buying public.

To the point about how slow the rebate money is getting back to dealers: How many of you have sent in a rebate from say Frys or Best Buy? I’ve done that countless times and it takes nearly 2.5 months to get back $20. And yet people think all those hundreds of thousands of sales are going to be processed overnight? If a dealer didn’t want the paperwork hassle, they did not have to offer the deal.

And finally, the carbon footprint. So is lowering the carbon footprint a good thing or bad thing? (I think it’s good.) Please don’t enter the conversation about carbon emissions if you have consistently denied those emissions are a problem. You can’t complain about something about you don’t give merit in the first place. — Of course the program could have been better: it could have made the threshold of getting the $3500 and $4500 higher, that is, having to have an improvement in mpg higher than the 10mpg in cars (in some cases only 2mpg for trucks). Or it could have eliminated the ability to buy a truck altogether, because if the real purpose it get more efficient vehicles out there, getting a F150 at 18mph combined mileage is not the answer (no matter how much more money Ford would make).

/soapbox
I’m a Linda too

Standard Obamarating Procedure=Standard Obamarating Scheme. SOS
ces

And I’m going to make a meta request to the mods: please make more open threads because the OT posting is growing more frequent by the day.

Important stuff that deserves its own thread/s…
helenk

Does anyone else see this c4c program as being the same idea that caused a lot of the housing bust?
People getting in over there head and buying something they can not afford. After the clunker money there are still car payments, higher insurance payments. What interest rate is being given on the car loan?
How is this helping the economy if people lose the car due to not being able to make payments?

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

PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

ces

Probably not. Only because the banks just aren’t lending like they used to???

helenk

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-ap-us-gm-logo,0,4990008.story?track=rss

I guess GM’s new motto will be ” close enough for government work”

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

PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
http://noquarter foxyladi14

nice to know Dean got a new buggy he sure needs it..
poor thing
azblondie

As helenk alluded, there are many unintended consequenses of CFC. If so many are in a relatively small bill, what lurks in something like the 1000 pg HC monstrosity?

- charities are reporting huge declines in the number of auto donations. These donations fund good causes and provide low cost transportation for some of the working poor.

- Thousands upon thousands of perfectly good vehicles are being destroyed, increasing the cost of used cars and reducing the availability of salvage parts. Again, this impacts those who can’t afford to take advantage of CFC.

- How much will CFC truly stimulate auto sales in the long run, and how much is simply due to delaying some sales and accelerating others? I would expect that Sept and later sales will be lower than otherwise because many people were going to make these purchases anyway and either held off waiting for CFC, or would have done so anyway in the next few months. And for those sales, how much impact did it really have on the selected vehicle?

I drive a 2002 Honda Odyssey. At about 80K miles, it is just getting broken in. The 2001 Odyssey is an approved ‘clunker’. I can imagine there are plenty of people who would love to have one, but it would be destroyed instead.

The unintended consequenses of legislation in many cases bother me way more than the stated provisions. For another good example, google ‘Consumer product safety improvement act unintended consequenses’. This is a well-intentioned piece of legislation that passed with a huge bipartisan majority – but is a mess in many ways…
candymarl

I checked out the program. I’m one of those people that would like a more fuel efficient vehicle but I didn’t make the cut.

From what I could tell you need a car already in good or excellent condition and X number of years old. So the older less fuel efficient vehicles wouldn’t be eligible unless the vehicle was in near perfect condition. How does this help real “clunkers”, ie. old maybe not in so good shape, get off of the road?

It doesn’t.

BTW We The People are the government. Not the folks in Congress or the President. That means We paid for this program.
http://shhhithitsthefan.wordpress.com/ It hits the fan

It’s a shame that the moral to this story isn’t that the White House is UNDER new management.
http://www.donatecarusa.com/ doantecarusa

You may have heard of the government’s new “Cash for Clunkers” program but do you know all the facts?

Friday, August 21, 2009 Update: Informed sources are projecting that the total $3 billion directed to Cash for Clunkers will be fully expended by Monday and the program will be winding down at that point. Some projections indicate that 700,000 new car sales, including a Cash for Clunkers component, are on the books or will be by Monday. There’s some talk of more funding for Cash for Clunkers, but with congress out of session until after labor day, that can not be immediate. Naturally, it will be some months before the car dealers themselves are fully reimbursed for qualified Cash for Clunkers purchases through the program.

Proponents call it a win win for the environment and the economy and the charities we represent indicate that a slow down in car donation proceeds (if any) has not been as severe as some had initially projected. Volume of car donations for us has been flat and a modest 7.5% decline in gross resale prices of donated cars seems to be the average.

Cash for Clunkers (the Car Allowance Rebate System act, also known as CARS), was recently passed by congress and signed by President Obama. It is an innovative new program designed to get gas-guzzling cars off the roads and motivate people to drive more fuel efficient cars. It is intended to replace older vehicles with new ones that are safer and pollute less. Supporters claim it will help jump-start auto sales and the U.S. economy, while also providing environmental benefits and increasing energy security.

How it works: to be eligible for $3,500 or $4,500 worth of federal money (some terms vary for trucks).

* Your vehicle must be less than 25 years old on the trade-in date
* Only the purchase or lease of new vehicles will qualify you for the federal funding
* Trade-in vehicles must get 18 miles or less per gallon
* Vehicles must be in driving condition, plus registered and insured for the full year prior to the trade-in
* The bill is intended to be a boost to struggling car dealers and anybody who wants a new compact or hybrid, and to help the environment, and who wouldn’t support that? Unfortunately, this legislation won’t help everyone. Here are some reasons that will prevent many people from taking advantage of the Cash for Clunkers program:

The gas mileage rates are so low that only very poor mileage cars like SUVs or trucks will qualify. Those who do qualify have to buy or lease a new car to get the money; just getting rid of an old junker gets you nothing with Cash for Clunkers. If the value of your trade in is more than $3,500 or $4,500 then you don’t get any additional money from the government.

The Cash for Clunkers legislation, as originally written, covered “approved” clunker vehicles for new car purchases from July 1st to November 1, 2009. For technical reasons re-determining what cars would qualify, the start date was subsequently delayed from July 1st to July 24th. Car dealers and legislators were all very surprised at the huge initial response such that by midnight, July 30th, the program was halted given the projection that the initial one billion dollars of funding had been all used up by vehicle purchases that are already in the system. The House of Representatives acted very quickly and the next day, July 31st (the last day of the congressional session prior to the August recess) passed a two billion dollar refunding of Cash for Clunkers. The Senate, with the same extraordinary speed, passed the same bill, Thursday, August 6th barely a couple hours before they also went on summer recess at midnight. Now, President Obama has signed it and the program can be restarted very soon. Stay tuned to this site for breaking news on this topic. Some proponents suggest that even with the additional two billion dollars in funding that the program will again run out of money long before November and that additional funding should be provided.

Fortunately, if you don’t meet all the criteria for getting the Cash for Clunkers payout, you still have other good options for getting rid of your old car. Vehicles that don’t qualify for Cash for Clunkers are still ideal car donations. When you donate cars, trucks, vans, RVs, boats or even real estate you get rid of your unwanted property, help a non-profit of your choice, and itemizing taxpayers get a write-off.

Hundreds of charities do invaluable work all across the country, and car donation funds are an important part of their revenue stream. Pete Palmer, co-founder of The Vehicle Donation Processing Center, Inc., states that his company “assists more than 400 charities who do great work and depend on car donation to pay for it. We handle it for them and in so doing we’ve put more than sixty million dollars in their hands — net-net, after all expenses were paid. Every penny of that sixty million dollars went to charities for their charitable missions.”

Now during tough economic times many people want to take advantage of every opportunity for a little extra income, however some Cash for Clunker qualifiers might find the extra dollars are outweighed by other benefits of donating a vehicle to a charitable organization via one of the reputable car donation organizations.

* You will feel good about helping a worthwhile cause
* Some car donation companies offer free vehicle pick-up
* Many will take any vehicle, running or not
* Plus the tax write-off for itemizing taxpayers.
* And to thank you for deciding to donate your car to charity, instead of participating in the Cash for Clunkers program — when you donate your car to one of our 400+ fine charities — just tell your operator you’d like the $300 Free Grocery or Gasoline Rebate when you make arrangements with us for the free car donation pick up.

A vehicle donation political coalition is reaching out to Congress to get a bill passed that makes car donation even more attractive. The passage of U.S. House of Representatives Resolution 571 will help the situation by reinstituting some of the tax benefits for vehicle donation to charities which were withdrawn by Congress in 2004. Accompanied by the economic downturn, those limitations have resulted in an average 52% reduction in vehicle donations according to industry sources. Currently, taxpayers are only allowed to deduct the fair market value up to a maximum of $500 or what the charity sells the car for, whichever is greater. Under HR 571 taxpayers would be allowed to ascertain and deduct the Fair Market Value up to $2500 for their car donation, and the appraised value over $2500. As of the end of June this bill is showing promise and has been co-sponsored by twenty Representatives from both sides of the aisle and every region of the country.

It’s important for the public to realize that Cash for Clunkers is not the best answer for everyone. Learn more about Car Donation and charities it supports.
Pingback: “Success” Breeds More Clunkers - OPEN THREAD : NO QUARTER
Margaret

Great piece! Thank you
Pingback: Clunker Is as Clunker Does - OPEN THREAD : NO QUARTER