The $2 billion extension of "Cash for Clunkers" passed the Senate this evening. The vote was 60-37, with the following partisan cross-overs:
Six Republicans voted in favor: Alexander (TN), Bond (MO), Collins (ME), Corker (TN), Snowe (ME) and Voinovich (OH).
Four Democrats voted against it: Leahy (VT), McCaskill (MO), Nelson (NE) and Warner (VA).
Three Democrats did not vote: Byrd (WV), Kennedy (MA) and Mikulski (MD).
In my gut, I absolutely love this program. Partly this is because it shows stimulus can be successful. Part of it is because, like all Americans, I now have an ownership stake in a major car company. But mainly, I love it because it has exceeded expectations, and done so by a long way. The program was projected to take something like three months to sell out, but instead it took less than two weeks.
When in the last time anything the federal government has done exceeded expectations, at least in a positive sense? It seems like everything over the past ten years was worse than expected. This even goes for 2009, when the stimulus was smaller than hoped for, the climate change bill was weaker than hoped for, card-check didn't pass, D.C. still doesn't have full representation in the House, cramdown didn't pass, executives at companies receiving bailout money are still getting huge bonuses, and health care reform legislation is struggling. Perhaps my expectations were too high, but I have been frustrated none the less.
I am fully aware of the criticisms some progressives have made of the legislation:
Bad funding source: As A Siegel and Senator Bingaman both note, the funding has been taken from a pool of money previously designated for long-term green jobs. There were lots of other places where the money could have come from (like TARP) that would not have actually hurt the new green economy in the long-run.
Rewarding polluters: This is a sentiment I understand:
More than a dozen years ago, I bought a car. Even way back then, when gas was less than a buck twenty-five a gallon, I cared about how much gasoline I was consuming.
So I bought a car that got quite a bit more than 18 mpg.
Now, I've finally saved up enough money to buy another car.
And I'm getting screwed.
I'm getting shafted because I didn't buy a gas-guzzling pig. Because my car didn't contribute enough to pollution and global warming.
Much like the Wall Street bailout rewarding the same people who destroyed the economy, and much like the climate change bill is handing over tens of billions to the worst polluters in the country, "cash for clunkers" is an example of rewarding people for screwing things up. It really isn't fair that all of the people who were socially responsible in the first place are not eligible for this program, even if they were to purchase new cars with even higher fuel efficiencies.
No means testing. I also agree with Senator Harkin, who wanted to limit the people eligible for the program by income. If income isn't an issue, then aren't rich people with SUVs, good credit ratings and a lot of money in the bank the most likely to take advantage of it? I am honestly guessing on this one, because there are no statistics available to prove or disprove that hypothesis
So yes, there are some problems with the program. However, I am just going to let my emotions dominate on this one. Even if it is only with $3 billion out of $3.55 trillion, it sure is nice to see the federal government exceeding expectations once again.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
