H.R.2751 Cash For Clunkers comes to the floor today.

[Gold Metal Flake]

Bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR2751:
Info:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=147509

Up to $4500 voucher for turning in a car that gets 18mpg or less for a new, more efficient car. Not sure how they figure the 18mpg, if that is average or what. If your new car gets a minimum of 10 MPG better than the old, you get the full amount. Limit of 1 million vouchers.

According to http://www.fueleconomy.gov, my 1990 Mercury Colony Park wagon (still in the crate) gets an average of 18 new. It has over 120K on it now.

[imdjh]

1. It was a stupid idea 20 years ago and it's a stupid idea now. nt

[Javaman]

2. please explain? nt

[MindPilot]

3. Why do you think it is a stupid idea?

Gets old, dirty, not-so-safe rides off the road and may even stimulate some car sales. Where's the problem?

[WhiteTara]

4. only problem I can see is

some publican can't bear the idea of someone getting something besides themselves.

[imdjh]

5. Are they old? Dirty? Past their mechanical limits? Clunker would imply that, wouldn't it?

But read what it says:

Passenger car or minivan: The old vehicle must get 18 mpg or less city/highway combined. New passenger cars or minivans with mileage of at least 22 mpg are eligible for vouchers. If the mileage of the new car is at least 4 mpg higher than the old vehicle, the voucher will be worth $3,500. If the mileage of the new car is at least 10 mpg higher than the old vehicle, the voucher will be worth $4,500.

How old does my car need to be? There is no age restriction on vehicles eligible for trade in. For work trucks however, it is any built before 2002.We anticipate that most cars traded in will likely be model-year 2000 and older.

How long do I need to have owned the vehicle I'm trading in? The vehicle must be registered in your name and in use for at least one year.

When is the program expected to go into effect, and will it be retroactive? The language of the bill hasn't been finalized, but the program is expected to have a retroactive date of March 30, 2009. However, you must be able to prove that you were the registered owner of the vehicle and that the old car has been scrapped.


The reasons I think this is stupid:

1- There is no requirement that the car be old, dirty (whatever you meant by that), or a clunker. It can be a perfectly serviceable vehicle with another ten years of life in in. How does it make sense from an environmental standpoint to "scrap" a vehicle that is only halfway through its useful life? And then buy a brand new one which has brand new impact of production?

2- The $4500 voucher is only for a significant improvement in gas mileage. The $3500 could easily provide for a person to buy the exact same model they currently own with the slight improvement in mileage that a newer model year would have. So you could go from an old Lincoln to a new Lincoln.

Let's allow that my sister is not unique. She has a large pick up truck, a 1993 Ford F-250 king cab if I am not mistaken. It's well maintained. She drives it short distances about once a week to get feed or haul horse trailers. She has a Volvo that she uses for everything else. Why would you encourage her to trade in that old truck for a new one? It's not eating anything, it's not hurting anything. It's also not consuming the amount of energy to build a new one and destroy the old one. Someday, it will need to be replaced, perhaps. There are old trucks still in service that are 40 years old. But in encouraging this "clunker" program, we are quite possibly adding to the number of vehicles a person will own in a lifetime. How is that a benefit to the environment?

[MindPilot]

7. Newer vehicles are cleaner.

Those 40-year-old trucks may be in perfectly serviceable condition, but they are emitting at 1969 levels. Clearly your sister would not be a likely candidate for this program, but there are many who could benefit especially those who might be right on the edge of deciding whether to replace their current clunker with another or a newer, cleaner, more efficient, safer vehicle.

And if you are concerned about the environmental impact of manufacturing a new vehicle, are you equally concerned about the environmental impact of keeping horses? Horses which apparently require the regular support of at least one large fossil-fuel-powered vehicle?

[anigbrowl]

9. It's meant to benefit the economy rather than the environment

The reason they're doing it is that a similar program in Germany this spring has worked out well (in terms of getting people to spend and keep the auto industry/dealer networks functional.

I am not that enthused about it personally, since I don't have a car and so have no chance to benefit (plus this will drive up prices of new cars). Meantime our transit agency is both cutting services and raising fares. I wonder what happens the old ones - scrapping does seem extremely wasteful. Ho hum.

[ctaylors6]

6. TX already has a similar law for several counties (urban areas)

Car being traded in has to be at least 10 years old or have failed emissions test.

Link: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/comm_exec/forms_pubs/pubs/pd/020/08-01/tradeuptoacleanerride.html

[Gold Metal Flake]

8. Approved

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-06-09-house-approves-cash-for-clunkers-bill_N.htm?csp=34

WASHINGTON — The House on Tuesday approved a "cash for clunkers" bill that aims to boost new auto sales by allowing consumers to turn in their gas-guzzling cars and trucks for vouchers worth up to $4,500 toward more fuel-efficient vehicles.

President Obama has encouraged Congress to approve consumer incentives for new car purchases as part of the government's work to restructure General Motors and Chrysler. The House approved the bill 298-119.

Supporters pushed for the measure to stimulate car sales and increase the fleet of fuel-efficient vehicles on the nation's highways. The auto industry has sought the incentives after months of poor auto sales. In May, overall sales were 34% lower than a year ago.

There is a similar bill in the Senate.

[michreject]

10. Not worth it

I paid 42,000.00 for my 07, 3/4 ton PU. I get 12 mpg. I would lose money with the credit.