Cash for Clunkers: Far from a Success

Now that the Cash for Clunker's program is over, the government is touting it as a success. On their website, cars.gov describes the program:

"The CARS program has been a wild success. It has not only helped tens of thousands of consumers purchase new more fuel efficient vehicles, but has provided an economic boost to the car dealers, the auto manufacturers, the people who provide consumer loans and scrap yards."

"A wild success?"

These are pretty strong words for a program that was touted as being energy efficient, but showed nothing but a blatant disregard for the environment, as well as common sense. Cash for Clunkers, with its "energy efficient" approach, encouraged drivers to throw away their existing 18 mpg car in order to upgrade to a much more "efficient" 22 mpg car, resulting in a net gain of exactly 4 mpg. Cash for Clunkers, with its eye on the welfare of Mother Nature, asked drivers to toss away their old workable car, for a brand new one. Used cars, even hybrids or those with more than 22 mpg weren't part of the deal. Cash for Clunkers, a beacon of energy efficiency, then forbid dealers from reselling or using these cars. Instead, the Cash for Clunkers cars were demolished, using a sodium silicate solution. According to The CARS Act, the vehicles were to be crushed or shredded. While some parts were potentially sellable, the engine and drive train were not.

By what standard are they judging this a success? All we've witnessed are large amounts of waste, encouragement for more credit spending and boosts in an industry that is now controlled by the government, i.e the auto industry. Can we really believe that this is a success, or is this just a way for the government to look good in these changing times? While a flashy new car may feel good, nothing says any of the vehicles purchased will be more reliable or efficient than their recently discarded counterparts. Much of this country was built on the hard work of the automobile industry. How can we now throw away so many vehicles, many of which are in perfect working condition (after all, they had to be drivable to qualify), that so many families here and in other countries could use to drastically improve their quality of life.

Many of the benefits of this program are touted as being environmental. Is there an environmental advantage to destroying cars? Is there an environmental to selling someone a new car they might replace in four years with another new car?

This program is touted as helping people financially. Is there a financial benefit in getting rid of a reliable car (that may have been paid off) for a car you know nothing about (that you will have payments on)? Many cars purchased were hybrids, which are not only more expensive to buy, but the repair costs for these vehicles are drastically higher.

This program was spawned partly out of the economic downturn. How is it a positive move for the people of our country to have a government that encourages them to go into debt? We could have avoided all of our country's financial problems had no one in this country had any debt. Instead of encouraging our citizens to take on more debt, we should have put all of these resources towards enforcing the negative elements of debt and encouraging our country as a whole to take more financial responsibility and less debt.

If anyone needs a good use for an old car, donate it to someone who needs it.