Comments (57) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Clunk, clunk
Tools
Updated: Apr. 10, 2012 | 9:50 a.m.
In addition to kick-starting depressed auto sales, the other stated goal of this summer's $3 billion federal "Cash for Clunkers" program was to help the environment by scrapping old beaters and putting more fuel-efficient cars on the road.
But the most common deals under the scheme ended up replacing old Ford or Chevy pickups with new ones that got only marginally better gas mileage, according to an analysis of new federal data acquired by The Associated Press.
The single most common swap -- which occurred more than 8,200 times -- involved Ford 150 pickup owners who took advantage of a government rebate to trade in their old trucks for new Ford 150s.
The fuel economy for the new trucks ranged from 15 mpg to 17 mpg, an improvement of just 1 mpg to 3 mpg over the turned-in "clunkers," The AP found.
In scores of deals, the government reported spending a total of $562,500 in tax money for new cars and trucks that got worse or the same mileage as the trade-ins -- in apparent violation of the program's requirements. The government says it's investigating those reports.
The new data, obtained by The AP under the Freedom of Information Act, include details of 677,081 clunker trade-ins processed by the government through Oct. 16. More than 95,000 of the new vehicles purchased under the program -- about one in seven -- got less than 20 mpg, according to the data.
"If we're looking for the environmental story here, we're going to be disappointed," said Jeremy Anwyl, chief executive at Edmunds.com, an analyst firm. "It might have started out from the perspective of improving the environment, but it got detoured as a way to stimulate the economy."
What did the taxpayers who paid the $3 billion in taxes get?
Recall that even the minimal environmental "gains" credited to transactions where the new vehicle gets somewhat better mileage have to be weighed against the fact that, under terms of the government subsidy, dealers were supposed to take the traded-in vehicles and run them with toxic chemicals in their radiators till they seized up, thus reducing those engines to scrap.
If those vehicles are now replaced on our roads by new vehicles -- albeit marginally cleaner ones -- doesn't that require new iron ore to be mined, transported and turned into steel in steel mills, somewhere? Don't all those procedures inevitably generate new pollution and other environmental costs?
How can destroying perfectly good trucks and cars that many would have loved to buy at used car prices -- in order to "bail out the auto industry" and those who can afford fancy new trucks -- make any more sense than slaughtering livestock and pouring tons of milk on the ground in order to "prop up" food prices?
Common sense tells us both examples of wanton destruction are just plain nuts. Some might even say they're a sin.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Can local law enforcement, in the course of their other duties, check to see whether an individual pulled over for a traffic violation has paid his federal taxes?
The right wing extremists really are funny sometimes you know; on one hand they will argue that the big bad boogie man government is STRICTLY LIMITED in their powers to do ANYTHING, and then on the other hand, they will tell you that those same big bad boogiemen from the government should NOT be limited by any laws or restrictions when it comes to some things.
either law enforcement should in the course of their other duties, verify citizenship, or they should discontinue checking for outstanding warrants. warrants from any law enforcement agency.
same with any branch of the gubmit from dmv, welfare services, schools, or health care facilities which receive *any* gubmit funding.
the leftist alternative is to write a motorist up for a burned out license lamp but not to check if he is an escaped convict at the same time.
Anyone know a law giving anyone other than federal officials the right to enforce federal laws regarding immigration? I mean, you wouldn't have local law enforcement go around checking to see whether people were paying their federal taxes would you?
Cause, unless you can, suggesting that local law enforcement has this authority is without any support and seems to argue that local law enforcement should violate the law.
Ironic.
poster shameless apparently overlooks the continuing agenda from the radical left to deter law enforcement from enforcing existing immigration laws. those who aid, abet, facilitate illegal activity are guilty as well.
why aren't there sufficient assets devoted to controlling the borders ? don't we have enough unemployed citizens already ? or aren't the schools, prisons, welfare offices, hospitals already bulging with legal u.s. citizens ? do we need to import more leaf blower operators or car was attendants ?
the radical left as harry osama reid's spin of "pre-citizens" says it all. the "progressive" agenda is to provide "sanctuary" for illegal infiltrators. who doubts that ?
"Jon Stewart wrote on November 06, 2009 12:41 PM: Dude! I haven't been funny for at least 10 years."
Isn't that FUNNY?
A Glenn Beck devotee cannot bring itself to defend Glenn Beck, so it attacks Jon Stewart.
Another PATHETIC con.
Anyway, did you see Jon Stewart's impression of Glenn Beck? It's absolutely hilarious. Remember, Glenn Beck is Fair and Balanced. He has to be, he's on the Fox "News" Channel!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-5-2009/the-11-3-project
Maybe we'll just plant some bugs and spy on some Americans, and bomb Cambodia instead.
tommy:
Hey, you're back, and only to happy to do the opposite of just what you did yesterday.
So, yesterday the 10,000 figure was a laugh, and even more so because it was "merely" below those "dumb" expectations, and today, substantially the same number higher than the "expectations" becomes...what; bad news?
Come on man, get your story straight here.
And, I think you musta confused me with someone else cause I NEVER said that how "great" the economy was. In fact, what I said was that things are merely BETTER than the were, but STILL they are not back to normal in any sense.
You seem to be one of those people who at 3 pm in Las Vega would say "Well it looks like its going to continue to get hotter forever, cause the temperature rose again during the last hour".
And although President Obama has given lots of speeches, and said lots of things about the economy, the bottom line is that he is actually doing something to effect a better economy for the entire country tomorrow; now that's change I can believe in.