Cash For Clunkers: Do You Mind Paying For Someone Else’s Car?
August 3, 2009 / 10:02 am • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierReally, the Cash for Clunkers deal is another government program where one part of the population subsidizes another part of the population.
First, banks.
Second, houses.
Third, car companies.
Fourth, extended unemployment.
Now, cars for citizens.
Part of me doesn’t mind the last one because there is at least something tangible coming out of this subsidy and each car is probably taxed at $4,000 when it’s all said and done, so it’s like a tax-free weekend for cars. Still, one part of the population is being taxed to give the money to another part of the population.
Cash for Clunkers is another redistribution of wealth. Period. It is immoral, even if the consequences are helpful in the short term. Imagine writing a $4000 check to your neighbor to buy his car that he likely can’t afford anyway. Suddenly, the program doesn’t seem so nice.
And actually, if the President gave a rats ass about the economy and believed that stimulus was the way out of the misery, he’d put forth more programs like the Cash for Clunkers deal–something that infuses the economy immediately. Still, the stimulative effect will last only as long as the incentives are in place. The economy itself feels so unstable, people don’t want to take risks. They are hoarding their money…until lulled out of their saving with enticements like Cash for Clunkers.
What the Cash for Clunkers deal illustrates is that money in the Free Market makes a difference. Had the government given every voting citizen a sum of money, instead of bloating the bureaucracy, the recession would be over, jobs would be created and the government would be smaller. But the goal of the President isn’t to end the recession, it’s to end the concept of small government. The goal is to empower the state. And Cash for Clunkers is just one more way Daddy Government Man controls the purse-strings and the livelihoods of Americans. Their happiness depends on Uncle Sam’s cash. That’s where the equation goes wrong.
Note: As an aside, should John McCain and the Republicans come out against this program? It is popular and it is tangible. Strategically, I think the Republicans should note what I have and save their fire. I put this in the same category of Sotomayer. It’s going to happen, might as well make the most of it.
Also, I think the lesson learned here, is that people with money in their pockets will do more for the economy that stupid “shovel-ready” (really unready) projects. It’s called trickle down…..it works….in the short term, at least.
UPDATE: Fiery Dog says Americans are selling their souls for $4000.
16 Responses to “Cash For Clunkers: Do You Mind Paying For Someone Else’s Car?”
August 3 2009 / 10:24 am
Reply
Great minds think alike–or at least on the same wave length. I blogged on this an hour or two ago. I have to disagree with you, though. Despite its popularity, conservatives should oppose it for what it is, a stepping stone to full-blown socialism. If 80% of Americans loved the idea of capping all incomes at $100K/yr and giving the rest to Congress to redistribute, would we say, “well, this is popular and it’s going to happen, so let’s go along for the ride and hope it translates to votes later”?
The cancer attacking Lady Liberty these days does not have to be terminal. If we citizen-doctors do nothing, hoping it will fade away, then surely she will die. What good are future votes when the choices will be socialist #1 or socialist #2?
August 3 2009 / 11:00 am
Reply
I think it’s more along the lines that the Libs and Dems do ACTUALLY know what will get this economy going – CASH in the hands of the PEOPLE. It’s HOW it either:
a) gets there after being taken from others and “given back” by the gubment (with social engineering in mind).
or
b) STAYS in the hands of the people who EARNED it by NOT taxing them so much and letting them keep it to use (the way the one who earned it sees fit).
Most all Conservatives KNOW “b” is the correct way to do it, while most all Libs WANT “a” to be the way it’s done – especially with the social engineering part.
August 3 2009 / 3:33 pm
Reply
I’m a big fan of Obama but think this Cash for Clunkers things is pretty silly.
August 3 2009 / 5:51 pm
Reply
Who is this piece of dogspit John Hawkins and why does he want to look at naked photos of people’s mothers? What does he do with his other hand?
August 3 2009 / 6:29 pm
Reply
Mr. Griffith,
Can I ask “Why are you an Obama fan?” I’m not trying to be rude or start anything other than a civil conversation. From my persepective, the only thing he has done so far is further saddle future generations with insurmountable debt and appoint a large number of tax-cheats and radical leftists to positions of power where they answer to no one except him. Even most of the people I knew who were gung ho Obama are now slacking off on their love affair with him.
Just curious as to your position.
August 3 2009 / 7:08 pm
Reply
Hi Lane, thanks for the question.
The short answer is that I believe Obama shares my values, and that those values will translate into good policy, at least to the extent that the political process allows.
For example, I’ll take a few issues. I think health care reform is by far the most important issue in the country. No close second, IMO. In the contentious Democratic primary I was fully in Obama’s corner against Hillary. With Obama, I think we are better positioned to change the system for the better. With Hillary it would have been tougher and the Republicans (IMO) are just clueless on the issue (not trying to be rude but that is how I see it).
With respect to energy, Obama recognizes that we need to change the incentive structure. Oil/coal/etc are just too entrenched and has too much of an (explicit) cost advantage for a variety of reasons. With higher gas costs, the more incentive the private sector has to find alternatives. Even a lot of conservatives recognize this (see Krauthammer on gas tax, for example). I’d prefer a straight carbon tax, as do most economists, but for political reasons Obama has to go the Cap & Trade route.
My point being that Obama has the right priorities, in the broadest sense.
And on international issues I’ll admit I’m more of an internationalist than most probably on this board. I support the UN, talking with Iran and Syria, etc..when the time comes. Obama is a great American spokesman. To quote an Oxford professor: “Obama represents everything that Europeans admire about America.”
August 3 2009 / 7:58 pm
Reply
Mr. Griffith,
Thanks for your reply. I think our paths part very quickly on the issues. To me, the primary concern is and always should be American Liberty. I would rather die of some expensive disease a free man than live a slave to a bloated and tyrannical government. From my perspective, any government regardless of its beneficent or altruistic intentions, is despotic if it refuses to obey the laws of the land–in our case, the Constitution (USC). If there must be reform of health care, then it should be done at the state levels. There are no provisions in the USC for the federal government to interfere with health care. Whether it is socialized medicine or something as simple as HIPAA, any foray by the federal government into health care is a violation of the USC. Further, it is federal laws and intervention that have brought this mess to us. I do not believe the problem can also be the solution. As for your commentary on republicans, I take no offense. I consider myself an independent Conservative thinker. Too many republicans (like democrats) lick their fingers and stick them into the air to check the voter wind current before speaking. In that sense, both parties fail their primary duties which are first defending and upholding the USC and second, representing the people or states in their constitutional pursuits.
As for energy, we have many alternatives to foreign oil, including our own resources. For some reason, our government fails to take advantage of them. States, which receive a percentage of gasoline prices, have no incentive to push for reduced rates, because it would cut into their income. High oil prices are also good for federal politicians. By maintaining the status quo, the neosocialists and democrats can blame big business for America’s oily woes and republicans can blame democrats who refuse to drill. Both see it as a great way for garnering more votes come the next election cycle. Besides drilling offshore and in ANWR, we have shale deposits and natural gas. Nuclear energy is also an extremely clean, safe, and cheap alternative. Where nuclear power becomes an issue is if we attempt graphite cooling rods which, once spent, can be used for warheads. This was what was used in Chernobyl. Three Mile Island was never in danger of anything like that, despite the hype surrounding it.
All the same, where energy is concerned, rather than the federal government penalizing the people through high prices and heavy taxation to curb activities, groups who want an alternative mode of transportation should post large bounties for inventions. For example, Alec Baldwin and Julia Roberts can give $25 million to someone who creates a car that runs on water. Of course, the patent and profits also remain the inventor’s.
I’m uncertain about the Oxford professor. Quotes one way or another are cheap. There are British authors who call Mr. Obama a pantywaist and despite Mr. Obama’s apologizing to the world for all of its ills–which are primarily America’s fault–the same countries who despised our freedoms under Mr. Bush still despise them. International tyrants are no different than domestic tyrants. They loathe dissention and criticism. They cannot and will not find satisfaction until everyone does things in the manner they prescribe. For example, until America falls totally into submission to Allah and institutes sharia law, we will be a “heathen” nation. We will only stop being the great satan when we succumb to the desires of our enemies.
I apologize for the length of this, but I wanted to share my sentiments on the issues you raised.
August 3 2009 / 7:58 pm
Reply
So basically, Mr.G, you are against everything this country and the Constitution stand for. If you are so worried about Europe liking us, then go move there. We kicked them out of ruling us almost 250 years ago, and a few times after that. That might sound harsh, but there’s a reason we had to go RESCUE them during two World Wars, and a long cold war.
Our Constitution and Country was created to NOT be like Europe. If you want to change this Country, then do it LEGALLY – by Amending the Constitution. But see, that wouldn’t work, because then you (and others like you) would find out that a VAST Majority of Americans LIKE what the Constitution REALLY stands for (not what a activist Judge “says” it stands for).
I really hope that it doesn’t take more American’s killed to prove how wrong you are on “talking” with evil rulers and countries, but from everything you’ve typed, it probably will. And don’t get me wrong, you have the right to believe whatever you want, but you don’t have a right to enforce it on the rest of us thru government fiat (especially when most of it is specifically against the Constitution – and there are some Republicans who get blame for this also), even if as some say “we won the election”. Which is they way the Dems in Congress and the Pres are doing – we won, so we can “do” whatever we want.
The key that they do know, is that when they do this and everything tanks, they WANT Republicans to be blamed also. If they were “so” confidant in what they want, why are they worried about getting Republican support? They do know what will help fix this economy – cash in the PUBLIC’s hands – but even then, they want to greedy fingers there “directing” it.
August 3 2009 / 8:27 pm
Reply
Dave says don’t get him wrong you can believe whatever you want, just move to Europe if you don’t agree with Dave and the other true-blue sons
Nice bit of ankle-biting Dave.
August 4 2009 / 1:16 am
Reply
Lane, it’s okay, parting company on issues can be good. We don’t get stuck in the “dailyme” and maybe can learn.
First, where we agree: I agree that the US probably was wrong to not more aggressively pursue nuclear power, and the Democrats deserve most of that blame. On oil I disagree though. It is a global commodity and and doesn’t matter who produces it. The supply/demand dynamics remain the same. Apart from environmental problems it has caused us to support status quo regimes in places like Saudi Arabia which just builds resentment and has a military cost (effectively a subsidy for the price of oil). And let’s face it, the internal combustion engine is old technology. We can do better but we’ve got to get the incentives right.
Two broader disagreements: I don’t believe things like universal healthcare and a gas tax are unconstitutional. If they were, there are hundreds of similar-type programs on the books right now that are unconstitutional. Why aren’t they being shot down in courts? This strikes me as a frivolous argument akin to saying that paying income taxes isn’t required, or the Federal Reserve is some grand conspiracy.
We also appear to disagree to some extent on markets. I’m both a liberal and a big advocate of markets. As I noted, the biggest market (labor) is pretty good as are the vast majority of them. However, in a limited number of cases markets bring sub-optimal outcomes. For example, healthcare and energy. In these cases, public policy can be used to advanced public good while maintaining competition in other vital parts of the economy.
Hey, this post may be as long as your last one! But sometimes it takes a bit to give ideas some justice.
August 4 2009 / 1:21 am
Reply
DaveR: “So basically, Mr.G, you are against everything this country and the Constitution stand for.”
——————————
Dude, that was funny.
August 4 2009 / 8:27 am
Reply
Mr. Griffith,
I confess, you got a snicker out of me with the paragraph beginning Two broader disagreements…” A gas tax is not unconstitutional as Congress has the power to collect taxes, duties, imposts, & excises to pay our debts. Any tax was supposed to be uniform, which is why income tax was ruled unconstitutional in 1893 after less than 1 year. (Licoln actually instituted the first income tax that lasted from 1862-1872 I believe, but the courts rarely cared about his unconstitutonal measures). Yes, they ruled against the admin in ex parte Milligan, but that was after the war. And Justice Taney spoke out against Lincoln early on, but quickly hushed. Many people say Lincoln threatened to have him imprisoned or deported like he did Vallandigham.
But here is what made me snicker–yes, those hundred–thousands of federal laws–are unconstitutional. While the problem has its roots in a phoney judicial power discovered in 1803 (judicial review), the real problem comes from cases such as Wickard v Filburn (1943). In Wickard, the SCOTUS determined that a dairy farmer who grew wheat for his consumption and to feed his livestock was engaging in “interstate commerce.” The reasoning was, if he didn’t grow the food, he would have had to buy it. And if he bought it, it _might_ have come from another state. Therefore, the act of neither buying nor selling was commerce. Since that time, Congress has tied tons of ridiculous laws to the Interstate Commerce Clause (IC). For example, the current proposed hate crimes bill has IC as it’s justification for enacting the law. (The USC gives Congress only 17 areas where they can make laws). So, with hate crimes, the Congress claims a hate crime falls under the IC because 1. the person attacked may move across state lines to get away from hostility, 2. the criminal might cross a state line to perpetrate his crime, 3. the criminal may take transportation to the crime scene and that car, bike, whatever will likely have been made in another state or crossed a state line at some time 4. a weapon used may have been manufactured in whole or part in another state.
These are clear perversions of the USC. History itself and the Constitutional debates demonstrate Congress was never meant to have this type of power. In his dissent during Gonzales v Raich (a case I believe SCOTUS got wrong), Justice Thomas said, “If the Court always defers to Congress as it does today, little may be left to the notion of enumerated powers.”
A great deal of legal wrangling has happened since the onset of the War Between the States in 1861. Presidential powers were created, the foundation of our system–federalism–has been overthrown, and our government has enlarged itself with almost every administration. These growths always come at the expense of the rights of the several states and the sovereign individuals. For an example, let us return to Raich. California allowed medicinal marijuana and Raich, a terminal cancer patient, grew a few plants for his consumption to ease his pain. By using the IC, the federal leviathan destroyed California’s right to make laws for its citizens and the individuals’ rights to self determination. Both of these are protected in the Bill of Rights under Amendments 9 & 10.
I believe as long as we are willing to allow government to usurp our rights, it will continue to do so. That’s what governments do until finally the despotism becomes unbearable and the people revolt, throwing off the shackles of tyranny and instituting a new form of government designed to protect the rights of the individual.
As for the markets, I would say they rarely bring sub-optimal outcomes (even monopolies are sometimes good). Using healthcare as an example, let us consider the days before federal intervention–when doctors made house calls and patients could actually pay–out of pocket–for their care. A free market dictates a doctor in rural Mississippi cannot expect to make as much as one in NYC. Neither can he charge as much. True reform of health care will not come without tort reform. When we get the government and lawyers out of health care, reform will begin. As a comical side note. I went to the doctor once and had to sign a waiver stating that I understood medicine is not an exact science and that the doctor might miss, misdiagnose, or mistreat an ailment. LOL. I thought, “Heck, I might as well be going to an old shaman!”
August 4 2009 / 8:43 am
Reply
Dave,
I think some republicans also get the blame because they deserve it. The republicans are no less guilty of crimes against the Constitution. Look at McCain-Feingold. It is an affront to the Constitution. Parts of the PATRIOT Act and PATRIOT II are unconstitutional. The locking up of American citizens without rights to counsel or habeas corpus are unconstitutional (fortunately, this has changed a bit, but not enough). So we’re clear, I’m not talking about foreign nationals captured on the battlefield & held in Gitmo, but cases like the teenager currently in custody because the gov’t thinks he made a fake bomb threat call. It should not matter whether there is an -I, -D, or -R after a person’s name. The only measure of their value as a statesman should be the answer to the question: “Are they acting in accord with the Constitution?” Every politician, republican or democrat, who sponsors or accedes to any legislation that is clearly unconstitutional or needs a perversion of the original intent to be enacted, should be tarred, feathered, and deported to Cuba. But I guess it is this sentiment that has me on the DHS hit list.
August 5 2009 / 1:20 pm
Reply
> Where nuclear power becomes an issue is if we attempt graphite cooling rods which, once spent, can be used for warheads. This was what was used in Chernobyl. Three Mile Island was never in danger of anything like that, despite the hype surrounding it.
Uh, Lane, I mostly concur with your conclusions, but you are so far from correct in all the above that it’s not even vaguely close to “correctable”, other than scrapping your entire conception of Nukes and starting over from scratch.
On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague:
“This isn’t right. This isn’t even wrong.”
– Wolfgang Pauli
Not to be mean, Lane, but the above applies to you on this.
1) They do not use graphite cooling in commercial power reactors in the West. To the best of my knowledge, they never have (it says a lot about Chernobyl, the USSR, and Western Nuclear Power when you grasp that the tech used at Chernobyl was rejected as “unsafe” back in the “radiation is good” heyday of the **1950s**). Virtually all existing nuclear power in the west uses WATER as a “coolant” and “moderator”. The reason for this is obvious once you grasp that another term for graphite is charcoal. Does surrounding a super-hot device with charcoal sound like a good idea to you? Me neither. There are a few lessons from Chernobyl:
a) The Soviet model shows how little socialists wind up caring about their citizenry.
b) The real health lesson of Chernobyl is that the incidence of mutation is virtually zero, and the impact on cancer/health rates is actually swamped by the effect of people being told their lives would be shortened (i.e., the depressive mental effect of “Chernobyl anxiety” regarding health is greater than the direct effect of the radiation exposure on health)
3) One now has a comparison one can make — are the known detrimental effects of coal fired power (i.e., ash, nitrate inhalation, sulphur dioxide, various particulates) on health greater or less than the likely worst-case scenario information provided by Cheernobyl (which was virtually certain to be far more catastrophic than any possible nuke accident in the West)
2) The primary argument about nuclear power in the west is the final disposition of waste. Spent fuel rods (not “graphite”, but the actual nuclear materials) can be reprocessed to recover about 90% of the rod as useful fuel. The remaining 10% is what is called “high level waste” (as opposed to “low-level waste”, which is things like used gloves and clothing exposed to materials). How to dispose of this is the main debate point, and often is surrounded bya great deal of hyperbole and so on, the most obvious is the fact that the stuff is “deadly for millions of years”. In actual fact, the real challenge is to sequester the waste for the length of time it takes for its radiation level to drop to at or below that of the original ores from which it was derived, which translates to about 10,000 years. There are a number of known means and safeguards for doing this appropriately, and, finally, the Yucca Mountain site had been, after 30 years of legal wrangling and obstruction, been approved and set up for safe disposal of such wastes. So of course one of Obama’s first actions was to kill it.
You can find some information at the Wiki site regarding this, but, like several of the other “libtard talking points”, this one is constantly shepherded by liberals, and so anything negative should be taken with a grain of salt, and further external sources regarding that supposed problem or issue should be sought out to be certain one has the fullness of knowledge on the matter from which to assess the claims of both sides.
August 5 2009 / 1:33 pm
Reply
> Dave says don’t get him wrong you can believe whatever you want, just move to Europe if you don’t agree with Dave and the other true-blue sons
Nice bit of ankle-biting Dave.
Fuster, your Cranio-Rectal Insertion Syndrome is showing.
As a matter of fact, it appears you’ve gotten it so bad the head is appearing back out the top. Given the physical impossibilities of this, you might consider submitting to scientific testing. I’m sure topologists would have a field day with studying and conjecturing regarding your CRIS.
What Dave actually SAID was that
a) Emulating Europe is demonstrably an idiotic idea
b) Is blatantly unconstitutional
c) Can/should only be achievable by the constitutional amendment process.
d) Asks as simple question of “WHY?” Do those of us in America who like it as it is a favor — if you like @$%$@ Europe so damned much, just go live THERE, and stop trying to screw up America for the rest of us. Conditions like YOU want already exist, elsewhere. Feel free to move, and leave this place as it is for the rest of us not so enamored of the socialist idea.
The last part is the closest you get to your statement, Fuster, but clearly isn’t the same thing.
.
August 6 2009 / 7:49 am
Reply
O Bloody hell,
I think you misread or misunderstood what I wrote. Perhaps I did a poor job at conveying it. As you concurred, I stated we do not use graphite as a moderator like the Russians did because it is a faulty design. Perhaps it is the people with whom I talk, but the first argument I receive is always Chernobyl/TMI. Containment of waste usually comes after comments about glowing babies with three arms that live near the plant. My intent was solely to point out that Chernobyl and TMI are as dissimilar as Christmas and Labor Day–both holidays but still very different. And that nuclear energy plants in the US are safe. There is no risk of an apocalyptic “meltdown.”
Other than that, I believe we are in accord. With all the money our government blows, I believe they can come up with a proper disposal of waste if they wanted to, but politics-as-usual is too much fun and too profitable to overthrow.