Remember when everyone was saying that the Cash for Clunkers program was merely siphoning off demand from future months? Turns out that’s exactly what’s happening:
Edmunds.com reports that “September’s light-vehicle sales rate will fall to 8.8 million units . . . the lowest rate in nearly 28 years, tying the worst demand on record. After the cash-for-clunkers program boosted August sales to their first year-over-year increase since October 2007, demand has plunged. In at least the last 33 years, the U.S. seasonally adjusted annual rate has only dropped as low as 8.8 million units once — in December 1981 — with records stretching back to January 1976.”
But at least the program was a net benefit, right? Um . . . no:
Burton Abrams and George Parsons of the University of Delaware evaluate the efficiency of the recently introduced ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program and conclude that the cost exceeds the benefit by approximately $2000 per vehicle.
(Via: Volokh Conspiracy)
September 22nd, 2009 | 9:36 am
Is it really now the purpose of First Things to just be as conservative as possible and oppose Obama as often as possible, without regard for discussion of the things that really are supposed to be first? Do you really want to be National Review with a small amount of religious content?
I’m not saying you’re wrong on this issue, by any stretch, but in my mind, posts like this deeply threaten the credibility of First Things, turning it into yet another “we support all things Republican” publication.
September 22nd, 2009 | 9:49 am
Chris: . . . posts like this deeply threaten the credibility of First Things, turning it into yet another “we support all things Republican” publication.
I’m not sure what you mean. How is this a supporting Republicans? Isn’t bad policy that costs the American people millions (billions?) of dollars a legitimate policy concern?
September 22nd, 2009 | 10:56 am
Considering that the “Cash For Clunkers” program has a fairly obvious direct affect on the working poor–a decrease in the supply of low cost used cars, a decrease in the availability of parts from junked cars, and a decrease in the supply of cars for the charitable organizations that depend on donations of used cars for either funds or the provision of workable vehicles for the poor to use to get to a job–then I think the long-term effects of the economics of the program is a very appropriate topic for a journal that considers the junction of religion and public life. This is especially so at a time where concepts of “social justice” as espoused by the hierarchy of our religious institutions are clearly in flux and evolving. Thank you for posting this item.
September 22nd, 2009 | 12:20 pm
Tom – awesome point, and I’m glad you made it. Those are exactly the kinds of connections that need to be made, and I’m grateful.
Joe, I think there is a danger among conservative Christians to oppose all things Obama in a fairly knee-jerk way, and, in doing so appear to be no more than right-wing hacks, at the beck and call of the Republican party. While it may be that, for the most part, we agree with the Republicans or, at the very least, recognize that the things on which we agree with Republicans take precedence, it is important, I think, to (a) criticize those positions taken on the right that are inconsistent with a Catholic/Christian worldview; (b) not take the Republican positions on every area where prudential disagreement with the Church is permissible; and (c) when criticizing those on the left for positions not obviously related to the big moral issues, to explain how they are related, as Tom so ably did. To fail to do those three things risks a loss of credibility because it indicates that one is less concerned with the demands of Christ and the Church and more concerned with fealty to the Republican party; it makes it look like the publication is less concerned with right thinking than with punditry.
September 22nd, 2009 | 12:26 pm
“Isn’t bad policy that costs the American people millions (billions?) of dollars a legitimate policy concern?”
Yes, because as President Obama opined, the truest test of our national character is how we treat the least green of those automobiles among us.
His solution was to crush them. At our great expense. Thanks Mr. Carter.
By the by, as Obama goes down in flames you will hear the all-too-expected criticism of “Is it really now the purpose of First Things to just be as conservative as possible and oppose Obama as often as possible, without regard for discussion of the things that really are supposed to be first?” frequently. Become accustomed to it. Remember, you sit firmly in the Public Square. Folks should know that a most credible moral argument can be made that President Obama violated the Constitution when he took over GM and Chrylser. (And fired Rick Waggoner who I always liked as he was decent and knew cars.)The O Adminstration’s Cash for Clunkers program was designed to help out those two failing companies as well as help the environment. When you see the list of the top 20 cars purchased under the program (in today’s Det. News) you will see that Obama failed to help GM and Chrylser. He helped their competition -big time. More than that, some folks purchased Hummers through Cash for Clunkers. Hummers help the environment exactly how?
(Personally I think all Hummer drivers ought to drive around town with 10lbs out of each tire like I do with my Jeep…)
September 22nd, 2009 | 1:01 pm
Chris: Joe, I think there is a danger among conservative Christians to oppose all things Obama in a fairly knee-jerk way, and, in doing so appear to be no more than right-wing hacks, at the beck and call of the Republican party.
I completely agree. I think there are currently three main groups on the political right: conservatives, libertarians, and anti-liberal populists. Although there is some broad overlap between the three, they differ significantly in their philosophy and approach to politics. The anti-liberal populist wing is currently the most vocal and, in my view, least helpful in their omnicritical view of Obama.
Still, I think we have to separate the idea that criticism of Obama equals approval/support for the GOP. While electoral politics may be a zero-sum game, political debate is not.
(a) criticize those positions taken on the right that are inconsistent with a Catholic/Christian worldview;
I agree with this too. The mission of this magazine is to provide a religiously-informed public philosophy. As best as I am able, I try to ensure that my own positions are so informed. Sometimes that is an easy task (i.e., I’ve been one of the most vocal opponents of torture from the right-side of the blogosphere) but on some issue there can be disagreement about what is acceptable for a Christian to take. Hopefully, no one confuses that positions taken on this blog as being the Christian view on issues where there can be disagreement.
(b) not take the Republican positions on every area where prudential disagreement with the Church is permissible;
Again, I agree. And if the Republicans were in power you would see me criticizing them as often as I do the Democrats. But the fact is that the Democrats are the one’s making policy—much of which varies from bad to horrendous.
(c) when criticizing those on the left for positions not obviously related to the big moral issues, to explain how they are related, as Tom so ably did.
Here is the one area where I disagree, particularly when applied to this blog. First, most of our readers are able to make such connections themselves, so it would be condescending to have to spell it out on every issue. Second, blog posts are necessarily truncated. Most people don’t want an essay, particularly when I am pointing out what they may perceieve to be obivous. In my opinion, it’s better to write less and follow-up (as we’re doing now) than to try to cram everything in to the initial post. Third, as I mentioned before, I don’tt assume that the positions we hold are the only positions that religious folks can take (FT is ecumenical, so though I often write as a Christian I can’t assume that everyone shares my religious viewpoint.). I can’t even assume that they are the positions that conservatives would take, even though this journal is broadly conservative. So I try to avoid speaking ex cathedra and just write what I think will inform, amuse, or edify our readers. If they disagree then I can always use that to further the discussion, which is much more interesting than having me always pontificate about what I believe.
September 22nd, 2009 | 3:08 pm
Joe,
Thanks for so patiently dealing with my comments. I really appreciate it; your thoughts on the nature of blogging are well taken.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact