Michelle Malkin » Cash for Clunkers, R.I.P.

Cash for Clunkers, R.I.P. – for now

By Michelle Malkin • August 20, 2009 11:01 AM

What a disaster.

A disaster from which Washington will learn absolutely nothing:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood assured car dealers Wednesday that they will be reimbursed for sales made under the cash-for-clunkers program and said the department would soon offer plans to wind down the popular car incentives.

LaHood said the department will announce by Friday how it intends to discontinue the program that offers car buyers rebates of $3,500 to $4,500 for trading in older vehicles and buying new, more fuel-efficient models. Department officials met with car dealer trade groups Wednesday to discuss complaints over a backlog of rebate payments to dealers and how the program will eventually end.

“I know dealers are frustrated. They’re going to get their money,” LaHood told news reporters.

And where is the money coming from? Y-O-U. GM is providing cash advances to dealers waiting for their C4C reimbursements. Via Autoblog:

According to GM, that should give each dealer enough liquidity to keep operating while waiting for the government to cut a check.

Of course, since GM accepted billions of dollars in federal loans to avoid bankruptcy and then, after entering Chapter 11 bankruptcy anyway, emerged as partly owned by the U.S. government, the money’s really all coming from the place. It just seems that GM has a better accounting department than the U.S. Treasury.

And this is how the government defines “success.”

Cash for Clunkers may be ending — for now. But I guarantee you, the architects of this auto entitlement subsidy will be back. The redistributionist impulse is incurable.

Posted in: Uncategorized

Printer Friendly

comments (105)

trackbacks (22)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#101

On August 20th, 2009 at 8:39 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

Roland said: … is the same as that idiotic argument Governors should have refused the stimulus money going to their states. …

Now hold on a minute! Sarah Palin outlined that very well. She took some of the stimlulus money one one hand but on the other refused some of it. On first blush you’re inclined to react ‘always take the money’. BIG BUT, the money she and other governors refused had some serious STRINGS attached to it that hijacked state sovereignty and would have ultimately hurt the state down the road.

Things aren’t always as simple as they may first appear…
#102

On August 20th, 2009 at 8:48 pm, rightwingrocker said:

As I was coming in today, I saw the report on the TV about Cash for Clunkers’ failure.

In my mail on the table was a letter from my GM dealer which started out, “Due to the success of the Cash for Clunkers program …”

All within seconds. I was SO glad the milk hadn’t been poured for dinner yet. I would have certainly made a HUGE mess!

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
#103

On August 20th, 2009 at 8:52 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

Yeah but look how it stopped global warming? It somehow even changed history making it stop back in 1999. Amazing these libs!
#104

On August 20th, 2009 at 9:10 pm, 24Klady said:

We’re so good at handing out money – financed by China to sell Japanese autos. I don’t care if they were manufactured in the U.S. – the profits are siphoned off to Japan. Way to go Moron in the W.H..I have way more admiration for Ford than any other in the U.S., but that is where it should have stopped marketing wise.

Apart from that matter, can anyone tell me how it is constitutional for D.C. to hand out $4500 to a select group of citizens (those that could afford to buy a new auto) when they have not provided that same monetary value to all taxpayers? I see this as nothing more than another subsidy to the auto industry = union workers. Every citizen/taxpayer has an equal right to benefits from the gubmint. How can this be equitable?
#105

On August 20th, 2009 at 9:25 pm, sbw999 said:

People saw this a mile away… dealers would not have the cash to front while the wheels of gov’t reimbursement took forever. The only clunker is this administration filled with socialists top to bottom. The Founding fathers spin spin spin. I pray there is a Country left to save when these bast…ards are thrown out of office in 2010.
#110

On August 20th, 2009 at 10:41 pm, Roland said:

BIG BUT, the money she and other governors refused had some serious STRINGS attached to it that hijacked state sovereignty and would have ultimately hurt the state down the road.

Good point. Thanks. I should have structured my argument differently. My objection was to the people who criticised Governors who took stimulus money even though the Governors opposed the stimulus bill.

The principle is to do your job and fulfill your obligations within the rules, not to look out for people you do not work for by undermining the well being of the people you do work for.
#113

On August 21st, 2009 at 1:04 am, Member-VRWC said:

It’s going to do more than run the dealers out of business if The Won keeps spending money like a drunken sailor on leave.

In fairness to drunken sailors, they are spending their money. The government is spending our money.
#114

On August 21st, 2009 at 1:04 am, Member-VRWC said:

It’s going to do more than run the dealers out of business if The Won keeps spending money like a drunken sailor on leave.

In fairness to drunken sailors, they are spending their money. The government is spending our money.
#116

On August 21st, 2009 at 5:12 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

24Klady said: … If our gubmint actually OBEYED our Consitution, every citizen/taxpayer would have ~~has~~ an equal right to benefits from the gubmint….

fixed
#117

On August 21st, 2009 at 10:26 am, SHoward said:

I think they call this the law of un-intended consequences.
#118

On August 21st, 2009 at 10:53 am, DBNinKY said:

On August 20th, 2009 at 11:45 am, Red State Skeptic said:

What I secretly like best about CFC is the glut of “clunkers” I want to own that are now on the used car market.

Huh? The engines have been permanently locked tight with a silicone hardener.
#120

On August 24th, 2009 at 8:30 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

Yes The engines have been permanently locked tight with silicone hardener and the cars are being crushed. This not only removes the cars themselves from the market but their parts. Removing those parts will make it harder and more expensive to keep and older car running.Elitist arrogance run wild-”take the bus you proletariat fool”. Of course if you do not live in a densely populated city center you can walk or take a bike miles to and from work– you are but the proletariat riff raff.

This Tuesday the Auto Industry reports comes out-we shall see how they are doing. With Cash for Clunkers ending and the cost of used cars up I am expecting a crash. With Cash for Clunkers quite a few people gave up their cars for less than market value and often paid full Window Sticker less pure fluff “Dealer Incentives” for the new car.

If you have to sell a decent running older car try CraigsList.com or the AutoTrader.com. You will do better.
#121

On August 24th, 2009 at 10:04 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

FYI – “Silicone”, even if it is part of the solution put into the engine, is not an abrasive and has nothing to do with destroying the engine. The abrasive and binding agent is sodium silicate that seizes up all lubricated sliding surfaces like crank bearings and cylinder walls, etc.

WSJ article