How the Senate Republicans Can Be On The Right Side of “Cash For Clunkers”
“Cash for Clunkers” – or, if you prefer, CARS (Cash Allowance Rebate System) – is the popular program by which consumers can trade in their fuel-inefficient vehicle and receive a credit toward the purchase of a more fuel-efficient vehicle.
This program has proven popular among consumers who were on the fence about purchasing new cars, and among dealers who had been previously trying desperately to move cars off their lots. “We’re selling cars like candy bars. It really, really is a good program and I hope they keep it going…it’s good for the consumer,” said Bobby Soldano, of Arrigo Dodge Chrysler Jeep in Sawgrass, Fla. Of course, the program also has its detractors among the auto sales community: “They’re forcing the dealers to front the program…it reaches a point where, for us, it doesn’t make good business sense,” said Nate Mercer, of Spitzer Toyota in Monroeville, Pa. They’ve stopped doing “Cash for Clunkers” deals. [1]
The program also has mixed reviews in Congress. Most Democratic lawmakers have heralded the program as a great stimulative measure: “Dealers are packed and sales are booming,” said Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow. However, some Republican lawmakers have reservations on the program. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C, has called the program “inept” and “poorly run”, and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, has threatened the possibility of a filibuster.
One has to wonder if this would be a good idea. A certain amount of resistance is good and certainly wanted in a two-party government. However, even the threat of a filibuster raises the stakes, and as has been noted frequently over the last two weeks, this is a popular program for consumers and dealers.
But how popular is it really? Rasmussen Reports recently performed a telephone survey of 1,000 adults, and found that 54% of those polled thought that “Cash for Clunkers” should not be further funded, with 33% polled favoring further funding, and 13% unsure.[2] These results are virtually the same as a similar poll done in mid-June by Rasmussen, which showed 54% opposed and 35% favoring, and close to 12% unsure.[3]
The Republicans, by not venturing politically into an absolute melee, can make this a net positive by following three steps. By cautioning on the cost of this program (which DeMint and Coburn seem to be doing), and by having qualified support for this program coming from the more moderate wing of the party, perhaps from a senator like Susan Collins of Maine, who has already declared her support for the cash infusion, and by constant questioning as to the efficiency of the program, the Republican party can be seen to be responsible caretakers of the government coffers, and it may go a ways towards removing the fiscal stink of the last eight years. This would have the added positive effect of making the Senate Republicans seem less obstructionist than they have been thought of. There are not many situations in which it might be possible to have your cake and eat it too, but this might be one of them.
Please note, as this is a young blog, that this post is not in any way an endorsement of either party, but merely a passing thought supported by a bit of evidence.
The Guardian UK did a more neutral poll (in terms of its questions) and found a majority for the program. This seems to be a program that is working – sales are up, manufacturing is up, the environment is improved, there is ripple job impact. I would not buy the message of one poll.
“The government initially planned to spend $950 million on the cash for clunkers program. That money has run out. Should Congress authorize additional funds to keep the program going or should it be cancelled?”
I don’t know that I would call this a bias question. The initial plan was just under a billion dollars, and that money has run out, or will very soon. The question seems fair to me. I wish that the Guardian would have been more in-depth with their questioning, and not just put up a quick poll.
Also note that the question before this was “Was the “cash for clunkers” program a good idea or a bad idea?” The majority said that it was a good idea.
And, for the record, I like the idea of the CARS program, though I wish it would have been better funded and had stricter emission standards.