Don’t Destroy Good Cars!
Before getting into this, let me first make it clear that I think the cash for clunkers program was a bad idea that is clearly unconstitutional.
I was talking to a friend the other day when he pointed out that he really couldn’t afford a new car right now, even with a $4,500 discount from the Cash for Clunkers program. His own car is very old and definitely qualifies as a clunker with extremely low mileage. I became certain that I must know many others in the same position.
This made me realize a few flaws in the clunkers program. That is to say, if the program’s goals were to reduce emissions while helping people afford better cars, significant opportunities were missed.
First, the program should have allowed people to buy used cars under a similar qualification of having to get a car, under warranty, with significantly better mileage than the one traded in. Had this been done, lower income people, who probably also tend to own more clunkerish clunkers could have taken those far inferior cars off the roads (and out of our environment).
On a totally different tack, more could, and possibly still can, be done based on the program as it is. The below is a slightly altered version of an email I submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (an email response from them indicated that my suggestion has been escalated).
“Don’t Destroy Good Cars!
I just had this idea. I haven’t researched this but will make general assumptions to make the point quickly.
People with REALLY bad clunkers largely could not afford to buy a new car even with this program (I know plenty of such folks).
So, if we define a new car as 100th percentile and a car with visible smoke pouring out the back as 1st percentile, one might guess that cars turned in for destruction may be in the 40th to 80th percentile as such are the cars likely owned by people who can afford a new car under this program. This means that most of the cars turned in for destruction are probably better than half the cars remaining on the roads!
I suggest we get them back out on the road in exchange for worse cars. Consider this example, assuming newer is better for simplicity of example.
Someone turns in a 2001 car for a 2009 car. The 2001 car according to the current program now has zero or near zero (if used for parts) value. Instead of throwing it away, institute an exchange program. For some nominal fee, say $100 anyone with a car, say, 5 years older than the one that was turned in (2001) can exchange their car for the new one (a lottery may need to be established). The result, now, is that the car to be destroyed is now a 1996 car (or earlier) instead of a 2001 car!
There could be many variations of this idea, including having the cars just be sold at some percentage of blue book (say 50%) where the money goes back in to help reimburse the public for the cost of the program.
In any event, such a program to keep trading down until the cars actually destroyed are among the worst on the road instead of destroying average cars is worth doing if you care about 1) the environment or 2) getting better cars in the hands of the poor.
Personally, I think the whole program was an unconstitutional mess, but if you’re going to do it, why be wasteful about it?
I recognize my idea comes too late for many of the cars, but you probably still have thousands left that are not destroyed yet. Do something about it!”
The above mail was sent to https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/email.cfm today. If you have a better idea, submit it.
As I said at the beginning of this post, I think this program was just one more bad idea coming from the current administration and congress. But, once our tax dollars have been spent to buy these cars, these are assets we (the public) own and we should make the most of them. It makes no sense to destroy cars that are typically better, on average, than those still on the road, supposedly in the name of saving the environment. This is particularly true when the program could have been enhanced to get even worse cars off the road, while helping the poor, at no additional cost!
On a related note: I heard that the amount of energy required to produce and deliver a car would take as much as 10 to 15 years to offset with a 10mpg savings. That means, given the average life of a car, that the program really didn’t make much sense from an energy point of view, if true (I wish someone would do some research on this but I frankly don’t have the time.) And, as I have demonstrated, the “new car” limitation really didn’t do anything to help the poor who also happen to own the clunkiest clunkers. That is not to say all programs must help the poor, but the opportunity for the combination in this case was a no brainer. Hard to believe this administration missed that opportunity to buy votes. But, maybe they were more interested in Union votes than poor votes on this one.
In the final analysis, I believe this program had many shortcomings from conceptualization to implementation that scream out the fact that this administration and congress are rushing into things they aren’t really thinking through.
Stop the madness! Tell congress to slow down! … not just on the CARS program (or the ridiculous, upcomming Cash for Refrigerators program.. if that’s for real) but on everything they seem in such a mad rush to pass!
Taxation with representation requires due dilligence on the part of Congress to think things through and READ THE BILLS!
August 26th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
The program is a bribe to justify funneling more of our tax dollars into the pockets of the lenders who fund the program, and a means to eliminate viable transportation that would typically be purchased by lower and lower-middle income families who couldn’t afford a new vehicle even with the discounts.
People who bought into the program did nothing more than help facilitate their own economic demise by buying into the lie that it was a “stimulus” program. Taking more of our tax dollars and depriving poor families of transportation is not stimulus – it’s destruction.
We are being systematically dismantled and destroyed by the redemopublicratican party and most of us are too damn arrogant to recognize what is happening. Why? because the best country on earth would never intentionally do that to it’s people. That’s true, but when that country’s government has been usurped at the highest level by private and foreign finance interests, you will be robbed of everything.
It starts with our money, it transforms to our liberty, and it ends with our lives. How many trillions has TARP already stolen? Does anyone here have a right to free speech is searched without warrant under the Patriot Act? Going public over the matter is a 5 year prison sentence. Under the current regime of private interests, our Republic has been decapitated and no longer stands. What we have now is a show, perpetuated to allow the usurpers the time and opportunity to rob us blind while they use their power to establish economic control in regions across the globe.
Wake up, people. We’re not at risk of tyranny. Tyranny has arrived. We’re only seeing the beginning as it is unfolded.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Unconstitutional? Tell us exactly how the program violates the Constitution Brian. Be prepared to back up your claims, and please don’t cut & paste your answer.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:51 am
Chuck,
By don’t cut and paste, I suppose you mean don’t use any direct quotes from those who wrote the Constitution that say the federal government was to have only the enumerated powers. I’m sorry but there is just no point debating the Consitution with those who think the General Welfare clause (and/or commerce clause) means the government can do whatever it wants.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:11 am
Shorebreak, nice rant.
I’d like to expand on one interesting point you have in there that I have also thought about. Taking those “middle of the road” cars off the market (those, theoretically in the 40th to 80th percentile) mean, of course, that they won’t be available for people to buy as used cars meaning supply and demand will drive up the prices of used cars (assuming demand returns to normal). So, yes, many lower income folks who would have been in the market for used cars will find good affordable used cars harder to find in the near future.
Also, don’t want to run off without saying I like your “redemopublicratican” term (though I don’t think I can pronounce it
. Republicans brought us the dangerous provisions in the Patriot act for which we are just starting to realize the depth of our regret (I suspect) and it was under Bush that the recent vast devaluation of our dollar by just outrageous amounts of printing was accelerated… which is now just being continued by Obama.
By the way. I don’t mean to make light of you with my “rant” comment. I also believe these are serious and important times.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:25 am
No Brian, by cut & paste, I mean don’t just cut & paste verbatim from someone else’s work. Tell us in your own words why it’s unconstitutional. Also, might one might assume that you are going to argue that the proposed health care reforms that are before Congress violate the constitution as well? If so then also please tell us whether Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Section 8 Housing Assistance and the Veterans Health Administration violate also the Constitution as well.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Sorry, that should have read “also violate the Constitution.”
August 27th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Chuck its unconstitutional if its not in the constitution…Please show me where…Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Section 8 Housing is in the constitution..you cant because its not in there…The Federal Government does not have the right to enforce any of these…and just like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Section 8 Housing Government run Health care will go broke as well…
Nice to see you on this site defending Obama so please let me ask you one question…What is his plan and where can I read it…If you tell me H.R. 3200 then I can show you many things wrong with the plan…But you will not be able to because Obama does not have a plan…This is all a game and he is using pawns like you..
You have to deal in facts we are spending to much money.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Brian isn’t very smart, in case you hadn’t noticed.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I’ll take a quick stab at this one for Chuck. Congress has 18 powers enumerated in the Constitution. None of them authorize a ponzi retirement scheme, federal government provided medical care, nor federal government subsidized housing.
Most who try to justify these do so using the general welfare clause (forgive me for doing a cut and paste from the Constitution itself).
“To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
To me, as the first enumerated power, it is authorizing the ability to raise funds for the other 17 powers. I find it to be a tortured reading of the language to infer “general welfare” to mean Congress can do anything it wants if they find it good for the country. In fact, if that were the case, there wouldn’t be any need to enumerate 17 other powers.
Now, of course you’re likely to bash me for wanting to end those programs. You’ll tell me that the consequence of a sudden end to those programs would be drastic and dislocating to the people that depend on them. And I would agree completely, but that isn’t an excuse to extend them forever. It’s just a reason to make sure the wind down of the programs is orderly and measured so that people have time to react and prepare for the changes.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Why don’t some of you wingnuts bring a lawsuit against the government challenging Social Security & Medicare? How about it, all of you wannabe lawyers??
BTW I will be linking to this thread all over the internet telling folks that the Tea Party’s official position is that Medicare & Social Security are in fact unconstitutional and thus should be disbanded. I’m sure that this fact will “galvanise” the seniors who are being misled to support you.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Well despite my weekly bout of insomnia I got a great laugh at your responses. I’ll spare you the opinion of someone who actually has studied the Constitution, has obtained a JD and is a practicing attorney-for now. Why don’t some of you ersatz ‘lawyers’ bring a lawsuit against the government challenging the constitutionality of Social Security & Medicare? How about it?? Any takers???
I’ll be linking to this thread all over the internet informing folks that the Tea Party’s official position is that Medicare & Social Security are unconstitutional and should be disbanded. I’m sure that this fact will
“galvanize” the seniors who are being misled into supporting you.
August 28th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Chuck – You can do better than that. You know as well as I do that a JD doesn’t translate into lawful interpretation of the Constitution. The Patriot Act is Exhibit A in that respect. A flock of JD’s worked in tandem to build the legislation, and many times more JD’s are working today to implement and defend it.
Don’t take my criticism the wrong way. My point isn’t that you’re wrong. My point is that you’ve provided no argument to support your claim, which I respectfully disagree with BTW.
The fact that legislation is drafted, approved, and implemented is no reflection of it’s validity under our Constitution. Neither is the popular opinion of the voters. The fact that existing non-enumerated functions of the federal government are either popular or unchallenged is no reflection of their Constitutional legality under our federal system. As a JD you know better and you can do better.
If our Constitution is a buffet or if the flavor can be changed depending on the direction of the wind today v. yesterday, why not simply abandon it?
August 28th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Shore-
in law school we spend a great deal of time studying the Constitution and Constitutional Law. Here’s how the law school that I attended defines the coursework:
“The broad topic of constitutional law deals with the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. As the Constitution is the foundation of the United States, constitutional law deals with some of the fundamental relationships within our society. This includes relationships among the states, the states and the federal government, the three branches (The Executive, Legislature, Judiciary) of the federal government, and the rights of the individual in relation to both federal and state government. The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution. Consequently, study of Constitutional Law focuses heavily on Supreme Court rulings.”
Certainly some attorneys are better than others, such as the John Yoo’s of the world with their flawed understanding of the Constitution and laws of this nation. However lawyers are uniquely qualified to understand and interpret the Constitution due to their education of not only the Constitution itself, but the ensuing court rulings that have interpreted this living document over the past two centuries. That’s not to say that a layman cannot have an understanding of constitutional law, but I would ask where or under what circumstances you have studied the matter?
Now, can you cite some case law that supports your interpretation that the social security, medicaire, health care reform et al violate the constitution? Here’s a hint for you: Law suits have been filed and heard concerning this very question. It’s a matter of well settled law at this point.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Chuck – I understand your points and I don’t disagree with the importance of precedents established by case law – especially in terms of the Supreme Court. We can all agree that the SC is the foundational element in maintaining accurate interpretation of the Constitution. But the findings of the SC are not infallible.
For example, in a recent well publicized death penalty case where the plaintiff was granted a stay of execution, the dissenting opinion written by Justice Scalia stated:
“This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
Thank God that was the dissenting opinion. It demonstrates that the interpretation and wisdom that is sometimes displayed by the SC is often clearly directed towards the law as its own end, rather than directing findings towards the meaning and purpose of the law.
Before I continue, I’m not dodging or evading your questions. I’m leading to a foundational point that needs to be addressed, related directly to the drafting and approval by Congress of legislative material that falls into the scope of non-enumerated powers. I’ll refer you to McCulloch v. Maryland, where Chief Justice Marshall wrote:
“This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted.”
And now for the point that I’m leading up to. The Congress was established by the Constitution as a check and balance between the people, the states, and the will of the executive. Can you tell me where the check and balance resides today between the will of the states and the will of the executive or of the people? The answer to this is foundational in understanding the emergence of these non-enumerated powers that remain in flux. If we ignore it we risk being fundamentally flawed in our opinions.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
So, what does any of that have to do with the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of social security, medicare, Veteran’s health care etc? How do these programs violate the constitution??
I’ll give you another hint that should help you formulate a response:
-Hamiltonian View
-Doctrine of Implied Powers
Hope that helps you.
August 28th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
You are really all over this…See you make this way to hard…and miss the simple point that they didn’t teach you in school…you have to run a business to understand..its called profit and loss and a expense account.. We are broke our debt is higher than the income…I don’t see why all you so called smart guys cant get that…If you have to borrow more money than you take in you will go bankrupt…They could not even sell the 30 year bonds this time and we are now monetizing the debt that makes the dollar worth nothing..so before to long there will be no programs and the Country will come crashing down. So keep rambling on and on about a meaningless point that in a short time will not even matter as there will be no money left to spend…What Obama is doing now has been tried and failed many times…latest was Japan and there recession has lasted 20 years… Plus why come to a site like this anyways you not going to change our minds and make us see the communist way is right…
August 29th, 2009 at 11:43 am
@Shorebreak – thanks for joining in
@Chuck – Well I guess I was successful in predicting you would bash me for saying the programs were unconstitutional. A phase out of the programs (or a transfer to 100% state control) over a long enough period of time would be my preference. I think we need to live up to the promises we made as much as is possible. The problem here is that regardless of the Constitutional argument (which I’ll address momentarily), we are heading towards a demographic time bomb which makes the programs unsustaintable. We can “save” all the money in the world, but dollars are meaningless unless someone provides goods or services to spend them on. At some point in the future, our overall standard of living will stagnate or decline as people drop out of the work force to become dependant on the state. This is a valid choice for us to make. It isn’t the one I would make, but we can talk as adults about the tradeoffs one makes for having such programs.
So anyways, back to the Constitutional question of the programs. I reject your elitist notion that only a lawyer has the ability to interpret the Constitution. I agree that having a JD is an advantage, but many of us laymen are quite capable of reading and understanding the nuances of the historical document.
I recognize that case law has validated that those programs do not violate the Constitution. I just think that the case law is wrong. Yes, the doctrine of stare decisis requires a presumption that previous decisions are correct, but it is not inviolable. In fact, I think many are very happy that future decisions have righted historical wrongs. We had settled case law for years that essentially validated segregationist laws that I am grateful was eventually overturned with Brown V. Board of Education.
So now to address Hamilton vs. Jefferson and implied powers. I favor the Jeffersonian approach which reserves more power to the states per the 10th amendment and a more limited central government. I start from a foundation that the enumerated powers are in place to limit the reach of the federal government. As I said before, if “general welfare” + “necessary and proper” = Congress gets to do anything, then our founders wasted time enumerating other powers.
If you can explain to me how Social Security or Medicare are implied or related to any of the actual enumerated powers, I’m all ears. I’m willing to change my mind when persuaded (even by those crass enough to call me a wingnut). I assume you are also Uncle Teddy’s Ghost considering the same ending to both of your posts.
August 29th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
chadp71: This ’smart guy’ happens to run a business, btw, a medium sized law practice. And didn’t Dick Cheney say that ‘deficits don’t matter, Reagan proved that’? (he did btw: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/03/27/deficits/ )
Mike: I thought that Brian wrote that post, as his name is on it. And I don’t understand your reference to ‘Uncle Teddy’s Ghost’.
You will note that I did in fact say that a layman can understand the Constitution. What most laymen cannot do, however, is understand the ensuing two centuries of case that interprets the Constitution. It’s not an elitist statement, its a simple fact. You are certainly entitled to your opinion that SS etc are unconstitutional, but you are on the losing side of the argument. The courts have repeatedly ruled in favour of these programs. But if you feel so passionately about it, and since you have confidence in your layman’s ability to understand the law, you should bring suit against these programs and argue your case in Federal Court.
August 29th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
@Chuck – Brian did write this post. I just felt like jumping in as I saw the comments come in. For the reference to Uncle Teddy’s Ghost, check out comments 10 and 11. The second paragraphs are essentially identical and even the first paragraphs are similar in style. I therefore infer that you and he are one and the same.
Your suggestion to bring suit in federal court is a straw man. I would waste much time and money in such an effort. I recognize the current judicial landscape is hostile to my current view.
While I may be on the losing side of the argument with the lawyers of the world, you should recognize why that profession is so often despised by the rest of the country. We are offended by those who decide what the Constitution should do and then find a way to parse the language to support their arguments. The rest of us read the language as it was written and wonder how you get there from here.
I’d love to respond in more detail, but I’m off to go swimming with my family. I’ll try to elaborate more on your point about federal courts later.
August 29th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
You are correct about one thing; that you would waste much time and money in such a lawsuit, because you are wrong.
That “language” that we lawyers “parse’ in has a name: The Law. It’s a difficult “language” to read, write and speak, which is why we have these places that are called law schools, in which persons that wish to practice the law toil for at least three years of their lives to learn how to “parse” that language.
Unless you are a time traveler or a clarivoyent, you cannot always know what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution. What might mean one thing one person often reads differently to another person. This is why we have a judiciary, whose tasked with the job of interpreting the constitution. Now am I reading words into your post, or are you advocating a dissolution of the judicial branch of government, which the constitution has anointed a co-equal branch of government? If so, that is a profoundly Un-American position to take.
Yes, everyone hate attorneys. Until they need one. If (god forbid) your child is hurt by a defective product, or someone damages your home or property, or if a person fails to pay you or your business for services rendered or items purchased, or if your civil rights are violated, I know that you will come running to an attorney for help. That attorney will “parse” legal language and (hopefully) do his damnedest to advocate for your rights.
August 29th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
If the intent of the Constitution was to enable government to become our nanny, why was the Constitution written in such a way that taxes were only on income (profit) and not on wages? Wouldn’t they have had enough sense to begin redistributing wealth if they intended that it was their role to economically provide for everyone who didn’t measure up to a pre-defined standard?
If that was part of the intention, I’d say that the founders certainly missed the boat. They didn’t even come close to implementing the government that they intended. What a bunch of failures.
August 29th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
The Sixteenth Amendment Constitution, ratified on February 3, 1913, allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment overruled Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. which limited the Congress’s authority to levy an income tax. In other words, it’s part of this nation’s Constitution. The Constitution is a living document that evolves along with this nation. Sorry that you don’t approve, but you still have to pay you taxes.
August 30th, 2009 at 6:01 am
Short time to stop in… Three thing in catching up…
1) Thanks to those who took up the comments battle.. personally, I’ve got more per day to do than I can so I’m trying to let things go when I see others may be able to pitch in.
2) Chuck, I believe along the lines of the James Madison approach that the Constitution provides for enumerated powers of the federal government, and there are plenty of Constitutional scholars who agree with me. But, I suppose that’s not good enough because I must have been a life long historian and lawyer to have a valid opinion. I’m sure that all those out their protesting in favor of public option healthcare, for example, meet with your approval with regard to their constitutional prowess. Somehow I can’t envision you out there asking them “but how do you know that what you’re asking for is constitutional… in your own words.” I wish there was some room for respectful agreement or even disagreement here but it seems you are convinced that your JD proves you right in all cases by default. It should occur to you that you have set an unproductive tone by being condescending at the start… in your own words.
3) Ed, Impressive contribution!
August 30th, 2009 at 6:26 am
Ahh.. gee Chuck… you mean there was an amendment regarding income tax? Wow! I wish we had known!
(I don’t mean to be mean… just a little ribbing to make a point)
Sure Chuck, we know the 16th Amendment was for the direct income tax. That’s part of the point.
Shorebreak’s point is that had it been “original intent” to make government the nanny, then an amendment wouldn’t have been needed for income tax because heavy wealth redistribution would have already been built in.
Further, saying that the 16th instituted a change in governmental and constitutional consensus such that government was, from that point forward, to be a nanny is poor logic. Altering a source of income does not, by definition, alter the intent for which it is to be used.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:15 am
@Chuck – There is no need to talk down to me. I may have a minority viewpoint, but that doesn’t mean that I’m wrong. It just means that I have to persuade others that I’m correct.
Yes you are reading way too much into my post. As I said, the issue I have is those who decide the answers first and then go looking for a way to justify them.
You are being disingenuous if you equate this with a desire to dissolve the judiciary or if you assert that all of this is without controversy.
These battles have been fought before. A particularly good example is what happened under Franklin Roosevelt. He chafed against Constitutional limitations to the point where he threatened to pack the court in order to browbeat the sitting 9 justices into allowing his agenda to proceed.
To the final point about people needing lawyers, there is truth in that statement. I’ve already admitted to seeing their value. The problem is when lawyers become a first resort and we create this very legalistic society where sue sue sue is the first instinct when someone becomes offended. I think we have a vast oversupply of lawyers.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:36 am
“I think we have a vast oversupply of lawyers.”
I thought that you were an advocate of the Free Market Mike? If there were a ‘vast oversupply of lawyers’, then there wouldn’t be enough work to keep all of us employed. Many of these unemployed lawyers would drop out and find other work. That doesn’t seem to be happening, so the Free Market must be working it’s magic.
If something bad (again, god forbid) happens to you or your family due to someone else’s negligence let’s how long it takes you to sue the responsible party. We’re an overly litigious society until you are the wronged party, then it’s off to court. What if your tea party had been denied a permit for your rally in Downtown Cincinnati? I bet you would have turned to an attorney, perhaps Chris Finney.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:38 am
“there are plenty of Constitutional scholars who agree with me”
…and there are plenty more who disagree with you.
August 30th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Yeah but Chuck… the Constitutional scholars who agree with me are smarter.
So there!
August 30th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I’d like to take a quick time out here to point out one thing.
The basis for my post was the fact that I proactively shared an idea with the NHTSA (too late for most cars or not) to try to salvage more value from the program, get worse cars off the road, and help poorer people.
I wasn’t looking for high praise or anything, but it did occur to me that someone might say.. hay.. yeah its a pity the idea is late because that could do more good for the investment that was made… or maybe someone could have had an add-on idea and mentioned they took the opportunity to also send it to the NHTSA. Call me an optimist, but I’m often looking for common ground.
Granted, I did make the point about constitutionality. I’m not saying that had to be ignored… But, I still find it telling that not one Liberal commenting has shown any concern or interest regarding what they’re supposed to care all about (i.e. helping the environment and the poor). All the Liberal posts have been about defending how right they are because, while actually doing something to help, I dared question the rightfulness of the program to begin with.
Okay… intermission over… we can all go back to arguing now. Or better.. I’m going to go remedy the fact that I’m about a week or so overdue cutting my grass again.