Clunker Questions

[padren]

Apparently the "Clunkers for Cash" program has been used as an example of how the Federal Government can't do anything right, with it running out of money so fast.

 

I get that the program has been "unexpectedly popular" but what I don't understand is, they budgeted 3 billion dollars to run 3 months, but are they running out because of the demand, or because of unanticipated costs? Everything I hear tells me that they basically budgeted the program for $3b to move x cars over n months, but the only real way to claim it has "failed" is if the $3b has been spent to move far less than x cars - the factor of 'n months' seems to be just a factor of working unexpectedly well.

 

So, were they off on the amount of money per car due to administrative costs etc, or are those projections on track, and just moving much faster than expected?

I am trying to nail these figures down, because it seems like the only way to really evaluate the program. Sure - the government clearly made an error in projecting use, but so far I haven't seen any evidence they messed up the program itself at all, which seems to be what a lot of people in the media are saying and decrying it as an embarrassing boondoggle exposing the soviet style inefficiencies that systemically plaque this administration.

[bascule]

Apparently the "Clunkers for Cash" program has been used as an example of how the Federal Government can't do anything right

 

You know, this is really funny... yesterday while traveling I watched a bunch of cable news (my plane got delayed and they had free DirecTV)

 

There was pretty disproportionate reporting on the Cash for Clunkers program by Fox News and pretty much every other news agency.

 

Fox's opinion was ostensibly that the program is a failure! They're spending lots of stimulus money!

 

However, Fox omitted an awful lot from its report. Like pretty much anything positive. They reported on the program as a "failure" but said nothing about sales figures, including the first sales gain in 2 years for Ford:

 

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/aug2009/db2009083_083369.htm

 

U.S. car sales hit an annualized pace of 11.2 million vehicles, a 13% jump over June's sales rate, according to data-tracking firm Autodata. And while sales still fell 12% compared with July 2008, the performance was so much better than the 35% drop-off registered in the first half of this year that automakers are giddy with

 

Ford posted its first sales increase in 2 years. GM and Chrysler still suffered a sales loss, but it was the smallest this year.

 

More than that, the program has been successful at getting people to trade in gas guzzling SUVs for fuel efficient passenger cars. The #1 swap according to BusinessWeek was the Ford Explorer for the Ford Focus.

 

I am trying to nail these figures down, because it seems like the only way to really evaluate the program. Sure - the government clearly made an error in projecting use, but so far I haven't seen any evidence they messed up the program itself at all, which seems to be what a lot of people in the media are saying and decrying it as an embarrassing boondoggle exposing the soviet style inefficiencies that systemically plaque this administration.

 

The coverage I've seen on CNN, MSNBC, etc. has been relatively positive, with them suggesting additional stimulus money would be secured due to the program's success. The only network I saw reporting doom and gloom around the program was Fox News, which, well, it goes without saying: if the Democrats want it, Fox News will be opposed.

[iNow]

Indeed. Here's what the Wall Street Journal had to say:

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124898886526095011.html

The clunkers program, which offers rebates of up to $4,500 to consumers who trade in old vehicles and buy new, more fuel-efficient models, began July 24 and sparked a surge in car sales.

 

"It was an absolute success," said Michael J. Jackson, chief executive of AutoNation Inc., the U.S.'s largest chain of auto dealerships. "There's a very compelling case the government should put more money into it. It's a great stimulus to the economy."

 

Congress had expected the $1 billion set aside for the rebates to last several months and set up the program to expire Nov. 1.

 

The speed with which it took off now puts it among the most successful stimulus packages to come out of Washington since the start of the recession. The boom in car sales will give a much-needed bump not just to auto makers and dealers but also local government coffers that collect taxes on car transactions.

 

<...>

 

Originally, auto makers, dealers and industry forecasters had been conservative in their estimates about the ability of the clunker program to jump-start U.S. sales, in part because it is limited to cars of a certain age and fuel-efficiency. Industry executives expected it to result in about 250,000 vehicle sales.

 

But the incentives proved a powerful lure to consumers -- even those who were unable to take advantage of them.

[Pangloss]

I wonder why they were thinking 3 months. At 4500 bucks a pop that's only something like 667k transactions. That's more like a monthly figure than a quarterly figure. Perhaps they were reflecting the recession slow-down. We really do sell a truly mind-boggling number of cars in this country.

 

I was opposed to this program but the more I think about it over time the more I think it was a really great idea. It was fast, and it went right at a problem very directly. You just don't see that kind of efficiency in federal programs. Assuming you buy the premise of federal stimulus, it's hard to even consider a more successful program than this one has been.

 

Which is not to say it's a perfect solution -- replacing people's cars doesn't decrease America's dependence on the automobile. But I saw one story that said that the average transaction under this program increased that driver's net MPG by nine miles per gallon. SHOW me another federal program that can increase one driver's net MPG by 9 instantly and I'll sell you a bridge in Manhattan for a dollar.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Pangloss

[swansont]

I wonder why they were thinking 3 months. At 4500 bucks a pop that's only something like 667k transactions. That's more like a monthly figure than a quarterly figure. Perhaps they were reflecting the recession slow-down. We really do sell a truly mind-boggling number of cars in this country.

 

Not all cars qualify. You need to be trading in a car that gets less than 18 mpg, getting a new car that has an MSRP < $45k, and be improving the mileage by at least 4 mpg for the smaller rebate or 10 mpg for the higher rebate. (for cars; different rules apply to trucks)

 

 

http://www.cars.gov/

http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.com/

[Pangloss]

Interesting... In that case I guess they just underestimated how many people had clunkers they could trade in.

[iNow]

As did auto makers, dealers and industry forecasters.

[navigator]

This program was an embarrassing boondoggle due to more than just an underestimation of its popularity.

 

Many of the dealerships were not getting reimbursed by the government due to the bureaucratic way it was implemented. This caused a major back log in the application process for reimbursement. Many feared, after they destroyed the "clunker", whether the would see the money from the government or not.

 

The environment was used as a guise as an added benefit from the program. What they overlooked was how many years a new car must be driven to offset the carbon footprint of its manufacturing process. The vast majority of the "clunkers" would have passed emission controls and you don't have to be a scientist to understand buying a used car will reduce your carbon footprint compared to buying new.

 

While the program increased the demand and provided much needed revenue to the dealers and automakers, what about the poor who couldn't afford a new car even with the government incentive? The supply of used cars just dropped as well as the parts to repair your car, so those prices have went up.

 

Why destroy decent used consumer goods? Thats counter productive to stimulating the economy not to mention a waste. Many poor people could have greatly benefitted from those "clunkers" that were crushed.

[iNow]

The answer to your questions is quite simply the relationship between miles per hour gallon and CO₂ emissions.

 

Sometimes solutions are about more than just the fiscal bottom line, and occasionally relate also to health and environment.

Edited August 10, 2009 by iNow
Correction... intended mpg, not mph

[navigator]

The answer to your questions is quite simply the relationship between miles per hour and CO₂ emissions.

 

Sometimes solutions are about more than just the fiscal bottom line, and occasionally relate also to health and environment.

 

I am not following you when you say, "the relationship between miles per hour and CO₂ emissions"?

 

Also, I guess I was unaware that emission improvements in the cars built today vs 10 or 15 years ago were that drastic.

 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111511131

 

Chameides calculates that if you trade in an 18 mpg clunker for a 22 mpg new car (22 miles per gallon is the minimum mileage allowed for a new car under the program), it would take five and a half years of typical driving to offset the new car's carbon footprint. With trucks, it might take eight or nine years, he says.

 

Of course, the bigger the mileage improvement from your old car to the new one, the more gas you save and the faster you work off the new car's carbon footprint. If you trade in a 20 mpg car for a Prius that gets about 48 mpg, it saves so much gas that you can offset the Prius' footprint in about a year and a half. (But a 20 mpg car doesn't qualify as a clunker, so there's no government voucher).

 

And people with big cars tend to buy new cars that are still pretty large, according to Brand Fowler, vice president of Sheehy Auto. He says more customers are opting for modest trade-ups, close to the four mile-per-gallon minimum improvement that's required for cars. Auto analysts say they're seeing plenty of deals for new cars that get 10 miles a gallon more. So far, though, there's not much data to indicate where the final average will end up.

 

But either way, it's not enough, says Dan Becker of the Safe Climate Campaign. "The problem is the auto industry hijacked this law so it doesn't get the better ones on the road," he says. "All it does is replace old clunkers with new clunkers."

 

Maybe your right, just seems programs like these only help big corporations and unions while over looking those who need the help the most, IMO.

 

EDIT: Had trouble removing the angry smile at the top, it does not reflect my feelings in this post.

[Sisyphus]

Sometimes solutions are about more than just the fiscal bottom line, and occasionally relate also to health and environment.

 

And national security, since we're talking about oil. And the fiscal bottom line in the long term, since we're talking about oil.

[swansont]

This program was an embarrassing boondoggle due to more than just an underestimation of its popularity.

 

Many of the dealerships were not getting reimbursed by the government due to the bureaucratic way it was implemented. This caused a major back log in the application process for reimbursement. Many feared, after they destroyed the "clunker", whether the would see the money from the government or not.

 

A reference would be nice.

 

The environment was used as a guise as an added benefit from the program. What they overlooked was how many years a new car must be driven to offset the carbon footprint of its manufacturing process. The vast majority of the "clunkers" would have passed emission controls and you don't have to be a scientist to understand buying a used car will reduce your carbon footprint compared to buying new.

 

And what are these numbers. Reference?

 

While the program increased the demand and provided much needed revenue to the dealers and automakers, what about the poor who couldn't afford a new car even with the government incentive? The supply of used cars just dropped as well as the parts to repair your car, so those prices have went up.

 

No existing used cars were destroyed (i.e. used cars for sale, on a lot somewhere), so how exactly did the supply drop? And since people tend to buy used cars more often in a recession, this program has had the effect of reducing demand for used cars, thus easing any pricing pressure on them and making them more affordable.

 

Why destroy decent used consumer goods? Thats counter productive to stimulating the economy not to mention a waste. Many poor people could have greatly benefitted from those "clunkers" that were crushed.

 

Decent goods? What part of "clunker" is giving you trouble here? We're talking about cars that got less than 18 mpg and were worth less than $4500 (otherwise you'd just trade in your car).

[iNow]

While I fully agree with you regarding the appalling lack of references supporting navigators many questionable claims, this particular bit could be argued somewhat:

 

 

No existing used cars were destroyed (i.e. used cars for sale, on a lot somewhere), so how exactly did the supply drop?

 

The parts are being fully stripped and recycled wherever possible, but the engines themselves are being destroyed via use of sodium silicate:

 

 

http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.com/car-dealers/how-to-use-sodium-silicate-to-disable-engines

Engine Disablement Procedures for the CARS Program

 

Taken from Page 127 in the NHTSA Final Rule

 

 

The engines, after this procedure, essentially become an inert block of metal. They are turned in, shredded, melted down, and then used in other products.

 

 

However, as I stated in my first sentence, I fully agree with you regarding the appalling lack of references for navigators many questionable claims.

[navigator]

A reference would be nice.

 

 

http://www.necn.com/Boston/Business/2009/07/31/Is-cash-for-clunkers-worth-the/1249081730.html

 

...But like so many problems, "Cash for Clunkers" isn't one the government can solve just by throwing more money at it. For dealers across the country, applying for and receiving the $3,500 and $4,500 government rebates has been a red-tape bureaucratic fiasco...

 

...Martell's comptroller, Harry Lozon, has been pulling his hair out trying to process rebates on the government website. "I've just put this one deal in four times and been booted out all four times,'' Lozon said in an interview as he tried to process an application for a rebate through the http://www.cars.gov website. "All day today we've gotten one deal in, saved. That's all we've gotten.''

 

Similar reports came from all over the country of crashing computers, endless waits, thousands of backlogged applications, and no clear word from the government when or if dealers would actually get compensated for rebates promised by the program.

 

 

And what are these numbers. Reference?

 

Are you intentionally being difficult or did you not read the rest of the thread?

 

Copied from above...

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=111511131

 

Chameides calculates that if you trade in an 18 mpg clunker for a 22 mpg new car (22 miles per gallon is the minimum mileage allowed for a new car under the program), it would take five and a half years of typical driving to offset the new car's carbon footprint. With trucks, it might take eight or nine years, he says.

 

Of course, the bigger the mileage improvement from your old car to the new one, the more gas you save and the faster you work off the new car's carbon footprint. If you trade in a 20 mpg car for a Prius that gets about 48 mpg, it saves so much gas that you can offset the Prius' footprint in about a year and a half. (But a 20 mpg car doesn't qualify as a clunker, so there's no government voucher).

 

And people with big cars tend to buy new cars that are still pretty large, according to Brand Fowler, vice president of Sheehy Auto. He says more customers are opting for modest trade-ups, close to the four mile-per-gallon minimum improvement that's required for cars. Auto analysts say they're seeing plenty of deals for new cars that get 10 miles a gallon more. So far, though, there's not much data to indicate where the final average will end up.

 

But either way, it's not enough, says Dan Becker of the Safe Climate Campaign. "The problem is the auto industry hijacked this law so it doesn't get the better ones on the road," he says. "All it does is replace old clunkers with new clunkers."

No existing used cars were destroyed (i.e. used cars for sale, on a lot somewhere), so how exactly did the supply drop? And since people tend to buy used cars more often in a recession, this program has had the effect of reducing demand for used cars, thus easing any pricing pressure on them and making them more affordable.

 

 

Decent goods? What part of "clunker" is giving you trouble here? We're talking about cars that got less than 18 mpg and were worth less than $4500 (otherwise you'd just trade in your car).

 

 

There are other videos of similar cars many poor people would have been very thankful for.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

While I fully agree with you regarding the appalling lack of references supporting navigators many questionable claims, this particular bit could be argued somewhat:

 

I guess your just not used to some one being honest.

 

The parts are being fully stripped and recycled wherever possible,

 

 

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/08/cash-clunkers-equals-cash-junkyards-too

 

Under the program's rules, salvage yards can keep clunkers for 180 days before they are required to crush or dispose of them.

 

"So we have six months to try to sell parts off a lot of them," Richard said. "Some of these vehicles that come in, they have perfect bodies."

 

like I said destroying decent used consumer goods is counter productive to stimulating the economy.

[swansont]

While I fully agree with you regarding the appalling lack of references supporting navigators many questionable claims, this particular bit could be argued somewhat:

 

 

 

 

The parts are being fully stripped and recycled wherever possible, but the engines themselves are being destroyed via use of sodium silicate:

 

 

http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.com/car-dealers/how-to-use-sodium-silicate-to-disable-engines

Engine Disablement Procedures for the CARS Program

 

Taken from Page 127 in the NHTSA Final Rule

 

 

The engines, after this procedure, essentially become an inert block of metal. They are turned in, shredded, melted down, and then used in other products.

 

 

However, as I stated in my first sentence, I fully agree with you regarding the appalling lack of references for navigators many questionable claims.

 

Let me clarify what I meant — a car that is traded in under the cash-for-clunkers program was not sitting on the lot at Bob's Beaters, waiting to be sold, it was owned by somebody. Bob has just as many cars on the lot for someone to buy. As for vehicles being sold by their owner, if they were going to then buy a used car, that's a zero-sum game. So again, no effect. They didn't sell their car to someone but neither did they buy a used car.

 

So I'm not buying the argument that this program has removed a whole bunch of cars from the used-car supply. And, as you point out, since the parts other than the engine are stripped and an be sold, that points to an increase in supply of these parts, not a decrease, as claimed by navigator.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Are you intentionally being difficult or did you not read the rest of the thread?

 

Yes and yes. I intentionally try to be difficult — it usually makes the fact content of posts go up. And I had hoped for something more substantial than a few snippets in an NPR piece.

 

"Chameides calculates that if you trade in an 18 mpg clunker for a 22 mpg new car (22 miles per gallon is the minimum mileage allowed for a new car under the program), it would take five and a half years of typical driving to offset the new car's carbon footprint. With trucks, it might take eight or nine years, he says."

 

So, for cars, the worst-case scenario is 5.5 years to break-even for the carbon fooprint. Someone who buys a Prius gets break-even in less than 1.5 years (since 18 mpg < 20 mpg used in the story). Which means "buying a used car will reduce your carbon footprint compared to buying new" is only true under a limited set of circumstances, and not generally the case.

[navigator]

Let me clarify what I meant — a car that is traded in under the cash-for-clunkers program was not sitting on the lot at Bob's Beaters, waiting to be sold, it was owned by somebody. Bob has just as many cars on the lot for someone to buy. As for vehicles being sold by their owner, if they were going to then buy a used car, that's a zero-sum game. So again, no effect. They didn't sell their car to someone but neither did they buy a used car.

 

You are basing your arguement on the assumption that customers taking advantage of the clunker program were never in the market to buy a new or used car, but decided to purchase a new car just because of the govenrment incentive. It would be more likely that upgrading their used car was their intention all along, but waiting for a better financial situation. We have also seen what happens, when government encourages bad debt, in the housing market.

 

 

And, as you point out, since the parts other than the engine are stripped and an be sold, that points to an increase in supply of these parts, not a decrease, as claimed by navigator.

 

The salvage yards only have six months to sell the parts before they must dispose of them. See my referenence in earlier post.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yes and yes. I intentionally try to be difficult — it usually makes the fact content of posts go up. And I had hoped for something more substantial than a few snippets in an NPR piece.

 

Duly noted

[Sisyphus]

The clunker program has been criticized as an example of the Broken Window Fallacy, which I think is what navigator is getting at. However, it's not merely destroying something to make work for someone else (which would indeed be a net loss of wealth and not a "stimulus"), but scrapping/salvaging something wasteful and replacing it with something efficient, which in the long term (a few years) is a net increase in wealth, as well as being a short term boost to the auto industry and participants, and a long term boon to national security, the environment, and public health. And yes, an additional burden on taxpayers, in theory to be paid off when times improve.

[navigator]

The clunker program has been criticized as an example of the Broken Window Fallacy, which I think is what navigator is getting at. However, it's not merely destroying something to make work for someone else (which would indeed be a net loss of wealth and not a "stimulus"), but scrapping/salvaging something wasteful and replacing it with something efficient, which in the long term (a few years) is a net increase in wealth, as well as being a short term boost to the auto industry and participants, and a long term boon to national security, the environment, and public health. And yes, an additional burden on taxpayers, in theory to be paid off when times improve.

 

When does the benefit to the poor ever come into the equation? It would be interesting to know how many people are jobless due to lack of transportation.

 

Scrapping/salvaging something wasteful and replacing it with something efficient is a possible red herring. Depending on who ended up with the clunker, we could see an increase in income tax revenue, decrease in wealthfare, medicaid, and the list goes on, but we will never really know.

 

Please clarify how destroying consumer goods, with any amount of market value, is good for the economy. I thought that was basic economics.

[Sisyphus]

The hypothetical person who would have bought the clunker (who in many cases wouldn't exist - cars don't last forever) would benefit, but at the cost of everyone else in the form of the aforementioned externalities (national security, environment, public health). Instead the person who buys the scrap benefits.

 

Another good example of necessarily destroying something of value in order to create more value is pretty much any urban construction project. Those low buildings where the Empire State Building now stands were probably quite valuable.

[navigator]

The hypothetical person who would have bought the clunker (who in many cases wouldn't exist - cars don't last forever) would benefit, but at the cost of everyone else in the form of the aforementioned externalities (national security, environment, public health). Instead the person who buys the scrap benefits.

 

I guess we will never know if the benefit would be greater than the cost to everyone else. But, anytime you can give somebody with no income a leg up, by giving them something that would go to waste anyway, so they can begin to provide for themselves, the benefits to society innumerable.

 

Another good example of necessarily destroying something of value in order to create more value is pretty much any urban construction project. Those low buildings where the Empire State Building now stands were probably quite valuable.

 

Apples to oranges.

 

The land those buildings are on will always have market value, although the condition of the building on the land may actually lower its value.

[swansont]

When does the benefit to the poor ever come into the equation? It would be interesting to know how many people are jobless due to lack of transportation.

 

Why does it need to? That seems to be a contrived objection. Is that a problem the program promised to address?

 

 

Scrapping/salvaging something wasteful and replacing it with something efficient is a possible red herring. Depending on who ended up with the clunker, we could see an increase in income tax revenue, decrease in wealthfare, medicaid, and the list goes on, but we will never really know.

 

Please clarify how destroying consumer goods, with any amount of market value, is good for the economy. I thought that was basic economics.

 

Because it's a strawman argument, since the goods aren't destroyed. The cars, except for the engine, are available as parts. If they get destroyed after six months of being unsold, how much of a market was there for them? New product, representing a larger increase in value of material, has been sold.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You are basing your arguement on the assumption that customers taking advantage of the clunker program were never in the market to buy a new or used car, but decided to purchase a new car just because of the govenrment incentive. It would be more likely that upgrading their used car was their intention all along, but waiting for a better financial situation. We have also seen what happens, when government encourages bad debt, in the housing market.

 

 

If they were waiting, then they were not "in the market" to get a new car. If they were going to buy the new or used car anyway, they have not reduced the existing supply of used cars since they did not buy a used car; all you can say is that they did not add to the supply of used car by not trading one in.

 

Bringing in the housing market and debt is a red herring. You have provided absolutely nothing to back that statement up. Stop it.

[iNow]

Let me clarify what I meant — a car that is traded in under the cash-for-clunkers program was not sitting on the lot at Bob's Beaters, waiting to be sold, it was owned by somebody. Bob has just as many cars on the lot for someone to buy. As for vehicles being sold by their owner, if they were going to then buy a used car, that's a zero-sum game. So again, no effect. They didn't sell their car to someone but neither did they buy a used car.

 

So I'm not buying the argument that this program has removed a whole bunch of cars from the used-car supply. And, as you point out, since the parts other than the engine are stripped and an be sold, that points to an increase in supply of these parts, not a decrease, as claimed by navigator.

Thank you. I had the sense that I was missing something key in your argument, and this was it. Your clarification is well articulated and appreciated.

[navigator]

Why does it need to? That seems to be a contrived objection. Is that a problem the program promised to address?

 

Because of the lost potential benefit to society.

 

The program could have have addressed the problem, instead of just destroying the engines and wasting whatever other parts were not sold in the six months time frame.

 

 

Because it's a strawman argument, since the goods aren't destroyed. The cars, except for the engine, are available as parts. If they get destroyed after six months of being unsold, how much of a market was there for them? New product, representing a larger increase in value of material, has been sold.

 

Salvage yards have cars that have been there for decades which still provide them revenue, because each of them have hundreds, maybe, thousands of different parts that can be sold. Your point comes across to me that you would have to own a salvage yard to be able to understand the value difference in a normal parts car and one you only had six months to sell, but I seriously doubt thats the case.

 

If they were waiting, then they were not "in the market" to get a new car. If they were going to buy the new or used car anyway, they have not reduced the existing supply of used cars since they did not buy a used car; all you can say is that they did not add to the supply of used car by not trading one in.

 

I consider myself to be "in the market" for a 52" flat screen TV. The one I like is made by Pioneer, so I follow the specials offered by different stores so when I see a price I like I can go check it out. I consider myself in the market for a TV, but haven't found the one that I like that at a price that will comfortably fit within my budget. No different than people who were in the market to by a new car, but waiting for the right deal.

 

 

Bringing in the housing market and debt is a red herring. You have provided absolutely nothing to back that statement up. Stop it.

 

Guidelines that constitue bad debt vary. This clunker program gave some people the ability to by a car that under some of those guidelines, would constitute over extending themself, allowing them to buy a car they eventually may not be able to afford. I don't know the percentage, but a small percentage of all new car sales end up being repo'ed. I used the housing market as an example of the government encouraging this.

 

However at this point its semantics anyway, take the last word...

[swansont]

Because of the lost potential benefit to society.

 

The program could have have addressed the problem, instead of just destroying the engines and wasting whatever other parts were not sold in the six months time frame.

 

By that metric, then, most government programs are failures. In fact, I think by that metric, all government programs are failures. I imagine you can find some aspect of society that does not benefit by any randomly chosen government program. Which pretty much makes it a useless metric for defining success.

 

 

———

 

 

Despite the anecdotes presented, the actual results thus far have been better:

 

The average mileage of the clunkers was 15.8; the new cars average 25.4 miles a gallon. That’s a 61% improvement

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/08/05/cash-for-clunkers-an-expensive-environmental-fix/

[padren]

Well, here's what I think may be sensible in terms of judging this program - which I'll hold off on of course until it has had some time to actually take effect:

 

1) Did the money get the right bang for the buck?

If the program runs dry when only half the target numbers were reached (not dates), then that is a major blunder. The program may have still done good things towards it's objective, but that would be a major factor in failing to get it right.

 

2) Do the car dealers get reimbursed properly in a timely manner?

This will be interesting and hard to judge in today's media, as even a single hiccup will make the 24hr news equivalent of the Jerry Springer Show, and held as "indicative" of the the woes all dealers face, with less information as to if it's systemic or isolated.

Other factors may be lost in the sauce - had the car dealership failed to pay taxes for the last 5 years, or have other issues?

It's worth noting too that at least some people will attempt to defraud the government with clunkers pulled directly out of scrapyards, and suspicious claims should be held up.

 

3) Was the program unacceptably open to abuse?

It's impossible to be 100% abuse proof, but some people will undoubtedly try to abuse it as previously mentioned. Whether through loopholes or outright fraud, this will probably be contentious because everyone has a different opinion of unacceptable vulnerability to abuse. If the Democrats are anything like the Republicans (scratch that, if the party in power now is anything like the party in power before, it's not ideological) every time someone is caught, it will be shown as a sign it's working because they were caught, and every time someone is not, it will be a sign it's working because no one can see the abuse. Legal loopholes (how long do you have to own a clunker before you can cash in, and if I buy a 'crop' now and I get good deals later?) have the largest capacity to visibly damage this program I would suspect, if they crop up.

 

4) Does it hurt people?

If car repossessions go through the roof following this program it could indicate these people should not have been trying to upgrade right now in the first place. Of course, any increase in sales will result in an increase in repossessions, but I mean specifically inline with the use of the program.

 

 

Any ideas on other metrics that may help? Are these sound?

 

As to the discussion:

I want to avoid judging the program entirely on ideological grounds, because even if I say, hate the idea of going to war with Iraq - it would be entirely unfair of me to judge the effectiveness of the surge on the basis that it's "in the wrong country, stupid" or any such dismissal that preemptively refuses to look at the actual impact.

 

Just because you don't like what a program does, doesn't mean it does that ineffectively. Just try to be clear if you disagree with the goal; whether success achieves that goal, and whether it is successful in hitting it's goal. Those can easily branch into very different discussions.

 

 

Totally aside fun-time activity:

I just tried replacing 'republican' and 'democrat' in my head with 'party in power' and 'opposition party' and tried running through all the rhetoric from Clinton through Bush through Obama replacing the party names with their position. My brain is starting to feel a strange homogeneous haze as it tries to find breaks in the constant drone even across the shifts in power.

It's not 100%, but it's interesting to think about.