That said, here's my take:
We'll start with a listing of the rules:
The CARS Act establishes four criteria for an eligible trade-in vehicle. The tradein vehicle must:
(1) be in drivable condition;
(2) have been continuously insured, in accordance with State law, and registered in the same owner’s name for the one-year period immediately prior to the trade-in;(3) have been manufactured not earlier than 25 years before the date of tradein and, in the case of a category 3 vehicle, also be from a model year not later than model year 2001; and
(4) have a combined fuel economy value of 18 miles per gallon or less, if it is a passenger automobile, a category 1 truck, or a category 2 truck.
You know what's missing from this list that really would have made a difference? Offering a credit for buying an American car. With GM and Chrysler slopping up billions of bailout money, an extra thousand bucks would have offered quite the incentive to buy from the big three. Instead, people are buying Corollas and Civics like there's no tomorrow while Cobalts and Fusions could be moving...
And why do cars older than 25 years old not qualify? Aren't those exactly the cars we want off the road, the old "clunkers"? A 1995 Dodge minivan in excellent condition traded in on a Corolla makes the full amount of the rebate, yet a 1982 Chevy Caprice with a big hole in the exhaust and oil leaking out of every gasket does not. It seems arbitrary and counterproductive.
But that's not my biggest beef with the terms of the program. A "Buy American" incentive would have been a nice touch; it would have thrown a bone to Detroit at a time when the Big Three (or at least the ailing two) could really use some help moving cars. No, it's what happens to the cars that are traded in that really rankles:
The agency has determined that a quick, inexpensive, and environmentally safe process exists to disable the engine of the trade-in vehicle while in the dealer’s possession. Removing the engine oil from the crankcase, replacing it with a 40 percent solution of sodium silicate (a substance used in similar concentrations in many common vehicle applications, including patching mufflers and radiators), and running the engine for a short period of time at low speeds renders the engine inoperable.
Got that? They stipulate that the engine be run to failure on purpose. It cannot be dissassembled, parted-out, or removed for use in another vehicle. They are destroyed for no reason other than "the environmental purpose of the CARS Act, which is to remove these vehicles from the road permanently". Feel-good, "greener-than-thou" bullshit that's wasting perfectly good engines for no reason other than it makes a good sound bite.
But hey, it makes us feel good, and that's what it's all about, right?
That is all.
14 comments:
Amen. To me, the whole program just smacks of another political grandstand effort to make us look more environmentally sensitive. I cringe at the thougth of all the functioning vehicles being scrapped without looking at the older vehicles. Not to mention getting everyone to sign up for another round of car payments at a time when we are trying to get out of debt?
I hate virtually all parts of this program.
And why do cars older than 25 years old not qualify? Aren't those exactly the cars we want off the road, the old "clunkers"?
Yep. Not only that, but cars older than 25 years are specifically exempt from emissions testing too, at least in my area of the country. So much for environmental impact.
But hey, it makes us feel good, and that's what it's all about, right?
Apparently.
I made a similar comment to Mike, about how the bill didn't even include a Buy American component. He countered that this makes him extremely happy, because Toyotas are manufactured in America too, but NOT by the United Auto Workers.
Decrypting laws like this can actually be rather fun. For example, consider the age requirement. "Not older than 25 years" takes you back to model year 1985. Why 1985? What happened in 1985? A search provides an answer of sorts: in 1985 the EPA substantially revised its methods for calculating fuel economy. Maybe nobody was sure how to compare pre-1985 and post-1985 fuel economy ratings, so they simply chose not to deal with that problem. Hence the 25-year limit.
As for the requirement to destroy the frame and engine block: when the stated reason makes no sense, look for an unstated reason. For example, an anti-fraud mechanism. If that requirement wasn't there, then you just know that somebody would have started 'CARS fraud rings,' turning in the same cars over and over with forged title and insurance papers, collecting the cashback certificate each time, then selling the certificates for cash.
Define "American car" for me. When you can buy Japanese and German brand cars that are built in the US and American-brand cars that are built in Canada and Mexico, what qualifies as an "American" car?
Second off, the Germans tried this without the "destroy the trade-in" provision and the clunkers have been reappearing on German roads.
The "Buy American" requirement in the bill was removed because it violated trade treaties.
And as far as environmental impact, the impact of the program in one year will be that it saved 5 hours worth of the gasoline America burns on the road and about one hours worth of CO2 that is emitted by the country every day. The cost of that is 5 to 10 times the cost of carbon credits in the Cap and Tax Bill.
An amendment to the extension of the program limits participation to individuals earning less than $50,000 per year and families earning less than $75,000 per year. Lets see how many cars are sold under those conditions.
I doubt if it will even be that much, P/E.
Setting up a program in which richer car-owners could "trade down" so that a poorer family might get a better minivan (and everyone get a mileage increase) would be harder.
But it would have been a better idea.
That way, we might have ended up with a chain of "for clunker" transactions, in which a suburban family of four upgrades their 1995 minivan, and a family which has been hard up for cars since they bought a used '90 Taurus wagon might get the minivan, and the poor sap with the '85 Bronco that blows oil might be happy to swap for a '90 Taurus...and the Bronco gets parted out.
But making fraud hard in such a
system would be invasive and messy.
This way, the people who benefit are the people well-off enough to buy new cars, and the people who are hurt most are the people who can only afford used cars in the 15-25-years-old range.
(That is the age range which will likely see the most depletion of stock from this program.)
If you want to make sure that the CAR doesn't get re-used, tag the destruction to the FRAME.
There's no need whatsoever to ruin perfectly good engines over the APPEARANCE of being "green".
Any "clunker" traded in should be reduced to component car molecules, have the frame scrapped, and all the parts sold - under governmental auspices to reduce the likelihood of fraud - to recoup some of the costs.
Instead, you give the scrap guys a little extra business, and in 3 years new car sales have gone over the cliff...
Nope, my '81 Caprice, at 237k, doesn't qualify. Then again, I wouldn't buy a new car if held at gunpoint. Especially not from GM or Chrysler.
"Got that? They stipulate that the engine be run to failure on purpose. It cannot be dissassembled, parted-out, or removed for use in another vehicle. They are destroyed for no reason other than "the environmental purpose of the CARS Act,"
Yep, and all one needs to do is type in "Cash for clunkers" into Youtube and you'll get videos of this being done.
Note the black soot created as all the plastic and rubber components start to burn from excess engine heat.
The boys killing these cars might as well take up smoking for all the shit they're breathing in.
I wonder if their coal miner's lungs will be covered in Obamacare?
I know where I'm betting!
Try and take my 64 vette off the road. Kiss my ass, I'll hopefully keep it running until I die.
How about the new trucks that get piss poor gas milage that dont'e qualify. Just moe bullshit government grandstanding.
Most clunkers are driven because that's all the person can afford. The insurance on some are more than the car is worth, but beats walking, and the old saying: Kiss my ass it's PAID FOR!
See Ya
Not that I'm a fan of this program- but if I'm eligible and I can be safer on the road- I'm going to JUMP at the chance.
Or so I thought.
Apparently one arm of the Gov't is excluding another arm based on guidelines. Military spouses are told not to be on registrations for cars for a variety of reasons- this is coming to bite me in the behind.
Not that I'm a fan of this program- but if I'm eligible and I can be safer on the road- I'm going to JUMP at the chance.
Or so I thought.
Apparently one arm of the Gov't is excluding another arm based on guidelines. Military spouses are told not to be on registrations for cars for a variety of reasons- this is coming to bite me in the behind.
Post a Comment