While most legislation is debated for months - if not years - the "Cash for Clunkers" legislation went from idea to law in a matter of days. Many of the proponents asked "what could go wrong?" with a plan to subsidize the purchase of new vehicles, while taking older gas guzzlers off the road. With little fanfare, Congress allocated $1 billion to fund "Cash for Clunkers" through the end of October. However, that budget was blown out of the water after seven days, as way more clunkers were turned in than expected. Instead of making it through the end of October, the billion dollar budget didn't satisfy demand through the end of July.
And chaos ensued. Dealers couldn't access the government database. Customers were forced to sign releases, agreeing to pay back funds if the feds pulled the plug. Auto companies became concered about commercial time they had already purchased. Etc., etc., etc. And so Congress hurriedly authorized two billion more for the program (hey - if one billion was exhausted in seven days, do you still think two billion will get you to the end of October?). Just to be clear, this government-run plan has already cost triple the original projections, and could go even higher.
Congress underestimated both the demand and the cost. In this one dumb little program, they blew the projections about as bad as they could be blown.
So when you hear Congress say that they know exactly how the demand for healthcare will work under ObamaCare, be very suspicious. When they say they have all the funding figured out - or that it's deficit neutral - or [hilariously] that it will make money, be even more suspicious. If ObamaCare ends up costing three times as much as projected (like "Cash for Clunkers"), the country will go bankrupt.
As a country, we can withstand a botched program to recycle old cars. But we can't afford to have our entire healthcare system become an unfunded clunker.
This was just another example of a program designed to help people being taken advantage of by people who had no business taking advantage of it. Businesses using it to update their vehicle fleets, persons with 6-figure incomes trading in a Hummer because it used up too much gas and dealers wouldn't offer much of a trade using the money to buy a new Lexus, persons finding someone with a qualifying clunker and having that person buy a car they want and then immediately transferring it over while pushing off their old 2000 Dodge Neon on the person because it got better gas mileage, etc. It was so poorly drawn up that it was basically guaranteed to be problematic (you know, like anything related to the Democrats is!). And you know what? Most people driving "clunkers" couldn't afford a new car anyway, which is why they drove the clunker. $4500 off a new vehicle is not going to get them into much if they didn't want to spend $7000 in the first place just to get into a used Cobalt or something. This program was not designed to get a rich SOB out of his Hummer, but that's what it seems has been the case all too often.
ReplyDeleteJust another example of why the the Democrat mind is a perfect thing to be wasted.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the requirements of the program. Perhaps you should have done a little research. A "clunker" is only eligible for trade-in if it has been owned and continuously insured by the same person for one year. Only one car per owner is permitted. Persons of all income levels have participated. The money ran out so quickly because the program is successful at doing what it is intended to do--stimulate new car sales. Are you against that?
ReplyDeleteJust another example of how the Republican mind can't comprehend the facts.
I love my tax dollars going for something stupid as this, clearly if somebody can afford to go out buy a new car then they don't need the money, yet myself and many other Americans can't afford to go out a buy a new car even with the rebate. Now that this program was put into action, then there could be ahortage of used cars for these Americans to buy when needed, thus driving up the cost of used vehicles.
ReplyDelete