Cash For Clunkers Daily Update: D.O.T. withholding info; Senate warms to more funding
Another day, another bunch of news items about Cash For Clunkers (a.k.a. C.A.R.S.). With Friday's Senate recess date fast approaching, the Obama Administration is reportedly pushing the body's 100 members there to get their acts together and vote for more funding to keep the program alive. Two senators who had been seen as potential roadblocks to getting C.A.R.S. the quick $2 billion that the House has approved, Dianne Feinstein (D) and Susan Collins (R), have now said the Administration had "eased their concerns" and are now in favor of granting the funds.
Not everyone is pleased with how the White House is dealing with the program, though. After campaigning on a platform of more transparency, the Obama Administration is reportedly now refusing to release C.A.R.S. records on the 157,000 rebate requests that it has received thus far. The Department of Transportation is still saying it will make this information available "soon," but hasn't given any specific time at to when it will do so. Without a glimpse into the full details of which cars are being sold and which are being traded in – and where all of this is happening – it won't be truly clear to see who is winning and who is losing with the initiative. We have some ideas, of course, but we'd like to see the big picture already.
[Sources: The Associated Press; Reuters | Image: Kevork Djansezian/Getty]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Rick 8:03PM (8/04/2009)
$4500 is a lot of money. I wonder if they should have maxed out at $1000 on this program and get the real junk off the road without paying so much for it. Free money is always nice though. Good thing we have money fairies and so we won't have to pay for this in the future.
Reply
polo 10:36PM (8/04/2009)
"$4500 is a lot of money. I wonder if they should have maxed out at $1000 on this program and get the real junk off the road without paying so much for it."
Small thinking that wouldn't have yielded much results. If someone is driving in a car that is worth less than a $1,000 what do you think the chances are they are in the market for a brand new car?
"Good thing we have money fairies and so we won't have to pay for this in the future."
Yeah. They're called income taxes, and when people are employed that money goes back to the government and other businesses in the lock community. I don't know what country you live in but $2Billion is a tiny amount of money for a program that will stimulate business in one of our last remaining manufacturing sectors. Someone should tell you republicons that you don't stand still in choppy waters.
Tim 10:59AM (8/05/2009)
The “Progressives” are a compassionate lot, aren’t they…
Too bad they use their hearts instead of their minds!
This Cash for Clunkers program is an assault on the working poor who have no credit, and don't have the cash to afford a new car. This program will lead to FEWER used parts and FEWER inexpensive used cars available which is the ONLY way many of the "working poor" actually get to and from work.
So, the Progressives just print up more money and run up the public debt which will cause inflation so that the things the poor need such as food, utilities, clothes etc. cost more. Then the progressive increase the minimum wage so they poor can afford these higher prices but the small businesses just lay off employees or don’t expand because labor is too expensive. Then the progressives just tax the small businesses in order to pay for more redistribution, welfare, unemployment and so on…
Not only is this program a socialist redistribution, it actually HURTS the poor.
Eco-Fascism at it's worst!
(Unintended consequences! Progressives are deaf, dumb, blind AND stupid!)
KM 9:20PM (8/04/2009)
"Ford Motor Co.’s Focus was the top seller, followed by Toyota Motor Corp.’s Corolla, Honda Motor Co.’s Civic and Toyota’s Prius and Camry, data from the department showed today."
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=am1mj6R6tAcg
Reply
polo 10:38PM (8/04/2009)
Yeah, I don't know what the point of this article was, alot of this data is already out and it looks like the only people demanding C.A.R.S. records right now are rethuglicans who are trying to find anything they can to sabotage the bill.
Matt 11:02PM (8/04/2009)
Well, you know how us Rethuglicans are... always interested in facts and logic; wanting to know the truth 'n all. We gotta make sure the Demoncrats don't give away too much of our money.
Rick 1:06AM (8/05/2009)
It would be nice if you could borrow for a living but it fails eventually
What this program is actually doing is slightly delaying a dead market for automakers. It's just a delay. This program causes all the people who would have bought a car in the short term future (1-3 years) to rush into their purchase to take advantage of this plan - fine - then the program ends and the purchases that would have happened in 1-3 years don't exist anymore.
it's just another case of borrowing.
Hey - lets all max out our credit cards and live like Kings for a few months! - what could possibly go wrong?
Reply
Jon 3:24AM (8/05/2009)
Not everyone has a car with the necessary age or mpg to qualify for CARS.
Also, this scheme only works for people who can pony up the rest of the cash (or have a decent credit rating) which probably isn't many, given the current economic climate.
The initial $1 billion was enough for 22,000 people so it's fair to say that the total number of people funded by CARS will be 66,000. That's a drop in the ocean. That's maybe 2 months-worth of sales in a good year - do you seriously believe this will dry up demand for the next 3 years?
Matt 9:40AM (8/05/2009)
Ooooh, Jon with the misquoted numbers... $1,000,000,000 ÷ $4,500 = 222,222 rebates, 10x as much as you've stated. I believe you're referring to the Autobloggreen article that reported the rebates filed at the time when they were talking about ending the program. That was due to a huge backlog, and hardly any rebates had gone through.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're right. What are the implications of $1B spent to get 22,000 rebates? That means that about 10% of the money actually made it to consumers, and for every $4,500 in rebates to a tax payer there were $40,954.50 that went to a politician. Take your pick as to which case is correct, but in my book neither one is a winner.
Rick 11:56AM (8/05/2009)
hey - maybe they'll expand the program and continuously fund it - an ongoing auto bail out - wouldn't surprise me. It's just going to be more money from that magical place called the future.
Chris 2:10PM (8/05/2009)
Rick: You've missed one of the biggest points of this program from the manufacturer's standpoint: inventory. All manufacturers have cut production but the problem is they have a very crippling surplus from before production was reduced (or when people weren't buying cars). These vehicles sit on lots, loading docs, and storage facilities only to depreciate. What happens when you have a ton of 2009 models and it's time for the 2010? Demand (along with price and profit) go down from the manufacturers point of view.
From a Green standpoint (and this is a green based forum after all), one of the great effect of CARS (C4C) is that it will help reduce the inventory load on the manufacturers. With that burden reduced, they can proceed with making all those new EV and other more efficient models they have in the works.
Jon: Your numbers are off... the article even states that there have been over 157,000 dealer submissions (and there are more coming in every minute). Your 22,000 number is way off. The initial request of $4B when CARS was originally introduced was enough for aprox. 1 million cars. It was the Senate that knee-capped the program with its initial $1B budget (or enough for aprox. 250,000)
As for the financing on this deal, I think I prefer it to the $13.4B that went straight to GM/Chrysler under the Bush administration. At least this time there are 157,000 new cars in some taxpayers hands (and more every day). What did taxpayers get for that $13.4B? Stock in GM? HA!
roflwaffle 1:58AM (8/05/2009)
$4500 per vehicle does seem daunting, but if we're replacing vehicles that get 15mpg for those that get 30mpg, even with gas a couple bucks less than it was last year, the drivers are still saving about $1500/year, and more importantly IMO, can have 2/3rds (1/3rd of oil consumption is local, so it's not all leaving the U.S. economy) of that spent on whatever else as opposed to sent overseas to OPEC.
Over a decade, assuming oil stays at $60-70/bbl, that's $10,000 in the economy as opposed to $10,000 sent to OPEC. If oil goes to $140/bbl again, then it's $20,000. Not to mention oil's short run elasticity (staying away from price spikes tends to be a good thing) or any savings due to fewer pollutants and GHG emissions.
It's like solar panel rebates. Sure, people complain about government "give-away's", but they also didn't look at the levelized cost of the solar panel rebates compared to the cost of electricity from peaker plants. There are, believe it or not, win-win situations when we're looking at government spending on incentives.
Reply
Knuckles 8:12AM (8/05/2009)
The manufacturers learned the lesson the Demo-dingbats (for polo) have yet to figure out. Years of REBATES nearly destroyed the new car market. Like Rick said, rebates and "cash for clunkers (CFC)" just pulls in sales at the expense of future sales. As with rebates, when CFCs dry up sales will sag and the dingbats will want more. The public will be trained to wait for the next round of CFCs, just like they await rebates.
Reply
Mark Kiernan 8:44AM (8/05/2009)
Politically it is not a good idea to try and block CFC but economically and environmentally it is. CFC should have stipulated 100 - 150 g/km CO2 levels for cars to be traded up to. It is a farce to allow people to swap a SUV for and SUV. Also I think the money should have been kept until we have EVs on the road, as it will be difficult to get people to exchange 2 or 3 year old cars for EVs in 2012.
Reply