New York Times Launches Cash for Clunkers Class War

by Robert Farago

Published: August 7th, 2009

new york times launches cash for clunkers class war

Never one to miss a chance to put a left/right slant on, well, anything, today’s New York Times contains an editorial claiming that the Cash for Clunkers (a.k.a. C.A.R.S.) program is a triumph of the Obama administration over Republican naysayers/hypocrites/rat bastards. Blogger Timothy Egan begins by suggesting that C4C is a Republican-style economic stimulus thingie, then excoriates the elephant party for not loving it long time. “They hate it, many of these Republicans, because it’s a huge hit. It’s working as planned, and this cannot stand. America must fail in order for President Obama to fail. Don’t be surprised if the tea party goons now being dispatched to shout down town hall forums on health care start showing up at your car dealers, megaphones in hand.” Incendiary much? I’ll have mine with a side order of sarcasm, please. “But try to give struggling families a one-time boost to buy a more fuel-efficient car, with an amount that wouldn’t pay for paper clips at A.I.G., and it’s . . . outrageous!”

That said, like many on the left who hate big business with a passion undimmed and view industry-favoring legislation as evil, Egan is way conflicted. But you don’t write for the Times for eighteen years without learning a thing or two about wiggling.

I don’t like that big agriculture gets rewarded for monopolizing rural economies while stuffing nearly every processed food with the dreaded high-fructose corn syrup. I was against giving $35 billion in federal help for oil and gas companies over the next five years, as Republicans advocated during last year’s campaign.

For that matter, I hate to see small independent book stores disappear from the landscape.

But Cash for Clunkers is a bare slight against free market chastity. It’s simple stimulus, caught up in a much larger system that’s always been there for the big money players, but holds a much higher standard for anyone else.

One should never let principles stand in the way of pragmatism. Apparently.

Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 52 comments

Geeber on Aug 10, 2009
agenthex: Context is important. He wasn’t talking about “struggling families” via comparison to other families who aren’t struggling, he was comparing families (ie the little people) in general to corporate wealth (eg. AIG bonuses). Sorry, but that is quite a stretch. By that standard, virtually everyone with smaller cash reserves than a multi-millionaire is struggling. The simple fact is that struggling familes - as most people understand the term - shouldn't be spending their precious resources on a brand-new car, unless the government is virtually giving it to them. Perhaps the blogger should write more carefully and stick to the facts, instead of using hyperbole and looking foolish. agenthex: The main goal of economic stimulus is pretty clear, and consistent with similar programs already in effect internationally. That doesn't answer the question of whether it was successful or not. agenthex: A large number of posts above discuss this, so I’m not sure why there needs to be any more confusion. In general, repeating the same winger talking points is only effective if other don’t catch on. I don't see any of those posts listing new vehicle sales figures for October, November and December of 2009, so they have no idea whether this program really boosted demand or merely moved ahead sales that would have happened anyway. I don't know this; you don't know this; neither does the blogger - unless you have been consulting with Dionne Warwick. If so, please share her predictions with us.

Like Reply
U mad scientist on Aug 10, 2009
The simple fact is that struggling familes - as most people understand the term It's pretty obvious the usage is what's called "figurative". If you don't like figurative language, that's fine, but you should be consistent and bitch to robert farago about it in all the ttac writing. - That doesn’t answer the question of whether it was successful or not. No, but it does answer the question of what the main purpose of the program is about which several people were having trouble with. This means it can be properly evaluated on its main purpose and not other peripheral goals. - I don’t see any of those posts listing new vehicle sales figures for October, November and December of 2009, so they have no idea whether this program really boosted demand or merely moved ahead sales that would have happened anyway. We know that it has increase sales significantly for now. That is its main purpose. Even in the "worse" case, where it moved sales forward, it has already served its purpose of leveling out too many peaks and valleys. In the likely event we get better results than the "worse" case, well that's just an excellent bonus, isn't it?

Like Reply

Recent Comments

MaintenanceCosts If I were shopping in this segment it would be for one of two reasons, each of which would drive a specific answer.Door 1: I all of a sudden have both a megacommute and a big salary cut and need to absolutely minimize TCO. Answer: base Corolla Hybrid. (Although in this scenario the cheapest thing would probably be to keep our already-paid-for Bolt and somehow live with one car.)Door 2: I need to use my toy car to commute, because we move somewhere where I can't do it on the bike, and don't want to rely on an old BMW every morning or pay the ensuing maintenance costs™. Answer: Civic Si. (Although if this scenario really happened to me it would probably be an up-trimmed Civic Si, aka a base manual Acura Integra.)
El scotto Mobile homes are built using a great deal of industrial grade glues. As a former trailer-lord I know they can out gas for years. Mobile homes and leased Kias/Sentras may be responsible for some of the responses in here.
El scotto Bah to all the worrywarts. A perfect used car for a young lady living near the ocean. "Atlantic Avenue" and "twisty's" are rarely used in the same sentence. Better than the Jeep she really wants.
3-On-The-Tree I’ll take a naturally aspirated car because turbos are potential maintenance headaches. Expensive to fix and extra wear, heat, pressure on the engine. Currently have a 2010 Corolla and it is easy to work on, just changed the alternator an it didn’t require any special tools an lots of room.
El scotto Corolla for its third-world reliability.