It’s kind of pretty isn’t it?
Well, believe it or not my car qualifies for the Cash for Clunkers program. I was more than a little surprised, and maybe even a little offended, when I checked THE LIST and saw it on there. See, my car is actually kinda awesome. It’s in perfect condition and I find it pretty funny that it’s rated at 18 mpg or below since I’ve been getting around 22 or so mpg. It’s all power, including the sunroof and everything works perfectly.
And, even at 150,000 miles, I think this car has much more of a future than a lot of the dinky little new cars that I would be expected to replace it with. And it is in NO WAY a good candidate for being taken off the road and crushed. In fact, the thought of this car being smushed and tossed away rather than be a great car for someone who needs it makes me tear up a bit. It would be a great candidate for some cars for the poor program or used to deliver meals on wheels or a college student or whatever. Actually, it’s a great car for me and that’s why I wouldn’t trade it even if I could afford to make payments on a new car.
Now, I’m not completely opposed to the Cash for Clunkers program. I do think there are a lot of “flaws” with it. Mostly the part where you only have to get a new car that gets 22 mpg. That’s a pretty low number to me and it should be more like 26 or so if they really want the program to be about the environment. Which it really isn’t, even if they keep claiming it is.
But, as a stimulus program Cash for Clunkers is actually not bad. At least considerably better than I thought it was going to be. In fact, I’m glad that I deleted a post where I was going to trash this whole thing as useless last week. It is doing what they wanted it to do in that area. It’s moving cars off of showroom floors, lowering inventories and giving the auto manufacturers a shot in the arm.
A lot of people don’t like the program for a number of different reasons. Some of those reasons are good and some are just based on their irrational hatred of Obama. Many people say that a tax credit would have been more efficient. This is true, but a tax credit wouldn’t have been as effective as a stimulus. But, in general tax credits are always more efficient in terms of gov’t costs to administer the program.
Anyway, everyone has their own reasons for opposing or supporting this program. Some of those reasons make sense, and some don’t. But, I think we all know why so many of our elected officials are not supporting the extension of this program.
Of course for most republicans it’s starts with “If Obama is for it, we’re against it.” Don’t get me wrong, the democrats certainly played this game when Bush was president too. But, the idea that what’s good or right or best is set aside just because one side is worried that the other will get “credit” for it is part of what’s really wrong with our system. And let’s face it. The republicans talking about trying to filibuster Cash for Clunkers is about all the proof we need that it’s a pretty darn successful program. They wouldn’t be that desperate to stop, or this angry about it, if it wasn’t.
But, what’s most wrong with our system right now, and it’s the real reason that so many senators are not liking this program has nothing to do with whether it’s efficient or too expensive or any of that. See, this is a direct stimulus program that everyone can take part in. It isn’t exclusive to one class of people or to specific brands (other than the 22 mpg thing). And it’s not a tax break or a gov’t subsidy to CEO’s or anything like that.
In other words, there’s no way for our elected officials to enrich themselves off this program. There are no kick-backs to their campaigns available. This is just straight up aid to people. And THAT is what our elected officials are pissed about. If there’s no way to get something for themselves, or to target programs specifically to their districts or corporate sponsors, they don’t want anything to do with it.
Take a look at these people. When they are talking about the Cash for Clunkers program as being “inefficient” or costing to much, ask yourself what programs they do support. Like maybe massive corporate welfare programs for already very profitable industries such as the oil industry. Thirty billion to the oil companies? No problem, we’ve got it. Billions for obsolete weapons systems that the pentagon is begging congress to eliminate? They’ve got money for that too. Billions to subsidize ethanol? It’s there. Farm subsidies? They’ll write you a check. A big tax credit for buying a huge, gas-guzzling SUV? Absolutely!
The list goes on and on and on. But, two billion for a program that has no potential to direct money to supporters and then get some back in the form of a campaign contribution? Oh hell no!
Don’t kid yourself people. Our elected officials opposition or support of any program has NOTHING do with it being a “good” or “bad” program. It’s all about what they can get out of it for themselves. Or whether or not the other side is getting credit for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment