New York Times Launches Cash for Clunkers Class War

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

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
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 52 comments
  • Geeber 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.
  • U mad scientist 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?
  • MaintenanceCosts It's not a Benz or a Jag / it's a 5-0 with a rag /And I don't wanna brag / but I could never be stag
  • 3-On-The-Tree Son has a 2016 Mustang GT 5.0 and I have a 2009 C6 Corvette LS3 6spd. And on paper they are pretty close.
  • 3-On-The-Tree Same as the Land Cruiser, emissions. I have a 1985 FJ60 Land Cruiser and it’s a beast off-roading.
  • CanadaCraig I would like for this anniversary special to be a bare-bones Plain-Jane model offered in Dynasty Green and Vintage Burgundy.
  • ToolGuy Ford is good at drifting all right... 😉
Next