
 |
|
May 13, 2013
David G. Savage: Church-state, literally? Supreme Court weighing public school graduation in a church
May 10, 2013
Rabbi Berel Wein: Be all that you should be
May 8, 2013
Peter Ford: Why China is welcoming both Israel's Netanyahu and Palestinians' Abbas
Warren Richey: Obama administration quietly backs out of appeal over new contraceptive mandate
Fred Weir: At Kerry-Putin meeting, US-Russia relations thaw --- a tad
The Kosher Gourmet by Leela Cyd Ross : Almost too pretty to eat, this colorful salad with Sicilian inspiration will tickle the taste buds and delight your visual sensibility
May 6, 2013
May 3, 2013
Kids, kittens the Same? With employee perks at struggling Internet pioneer Yahoo! it's hard to tell
Sandy Kleffman: Artificial kidney offers hope to patients tethered to a dialysis machine
April 29, 2013
Roy Gutman: Poland's new Jewish museum celebrates life, doesn't revisit Holocaust
Mark Clayton: Terrorism in America: Is US missing a chance to learn from failed plots?
Kim Murphy: Boston Bomber's 'Svengali' Revealed
Pete Spotts: Tiny satellites + cellphones = cheaper 'eyes in the sky' for NASA
April 26, 2013
Clifford D. May: Defense in the Age of Jihadist Terrorism
Sharon Palmer, R.D.: How to feel your best -- with plenty of energy, a healthy weight and optimal mental and physical function -- without driving yourself batty
April 24, 2013
|
| |
Jewish World Review
Sept. 2, 2009 / 13 Elul 5769
Clunker Legislation
By
John Stossel
| 
|
|
|
|
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
The economic illiterates in Washington are so impressed with the
"success" of Cash for Clunkers that they're readying Cash for Clunker
Appliances. The ludicrous "stimulus" bill gave
$300 million to the Department of Energy to provide rebates for 10 types of
appliances that have been rated energy efficient.
Before government extends Cash for Clunkers to more products, it
might be a good idea to examine the original. The fact that Washington and
the buyers who took advantage of Cash for Clunkers are gaga is hardly
evidence that it was in the public interest.
It wasn't. As usual, the program has been judged only by its
first and most visible consequences, violating Henry Hazlitt's teaching in
his classic, "Economics in One Lesson":
"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the
immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in
tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all
groups."
If you only look at the immediate effects, Cash for Clunkers
appears pretty good. People traded in gas-guzzlers for more fuel-efficient
new cars. The program cut carbon emissions slightly and gave the auto
industry a boost.
"Manufacturing plants have added shifts and recalled workers.
Moribund showrooms were brought back to life, and consumers bought
fuel-efficient cars that will save them money and improve the environment,"
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood bragged.
"American consumers and workers were the clear winners thanks to the Cash
for Clunkers program."
But wait. Shouldn't that be some consumers
and some workers? And only in the short run?
Let's start at the beginning. The government paid car owners to
trade in their old cars, which will be destroyed. But the government is
running a deficit. So it doesn't have $3 billion to hand out. It must borrow
the money, which reduces the amount of money for other investments.
Moreover, the government must raise taxes in the future to pay back the
principal and interest -- or the Federal Reserve will monetize the debt
through inflation. Either way, we pay.
That isn't all. Those car buyers were either going to trade in
their used cars soon or they weren't. If they were, Cash for Clunkers simply
moved up the schedule. The stimulation of the auto industry occurred
earlier. Big deal. But if buyers planned to keep their cars longer, the
program imposed costs that are less visible. Without the government
incentive to buy cars, consumers would have bought other things --
computers, washing machines, televisions. The manufacturers and sellers of
those products didn't get to make those sales. Why should the auto industry
get privileges at the expense of others?
Then there are the mechanics who would have serviced those used
cars. They've lost business. Some will be laid off. Nor should we forget
low-income people who depend on the used-car market for their
transportation. The cheap cars they would have bought were destroyed.
What about the alleged environmental benefits? Assuming that
cutting carbon emissions is worthwhile, was Cash for Clunkers helpful? It's
hard to see why. People who traded in inefficient cars for efficient ones
will likely drive more and therefore use more gasoline.
Even if carbon emissions are cut by a lot, economist Christopher
Knittel says the program will cost more than $365 per ton of carbon saved.
Economist Bruce Yandle points out what a lousy deal that is:
"The much celebrated Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade carbon-emission control
legislation estimates the cost of reducing a ton of carbon to be $28 when
done across U.S. industries. Yes, we are getting carbon-emission reductions
by way of clunker reduction, but we are paying a pretty penny for it".
Finally, there is something revolting about the government
subsidizing the destruction of useful things. It reminds me of the New Deal
policy of killing piglets and pouring milk down sewers to keep food prices
from falling.
Leave it to politicians to think we can prosper by obliterating
wealth.
Archives
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20." To comment, please click here.
© 2009, by JFS Productions, Inc.
Distributed by Creators Syndicate, Inc.
|
|

Arnold Ahlert
Mitch Albom
Jay Ambrose
Michael Barone
Barrywood
Lori Borgman
Stratfor Briefing
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Richard Z. Chesnoff
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Suzanne Fields
Christine Flowers
Frank J. Gaffney
Bernie Goldberg
Jonah Goldberg
Julia Gorin
Jonathan Gurwitz
Paul Greenberg
Argus Hamilton
Victor Davis Hanson
Betsy Hart
Ron Hart
Nat Hentoff
A. Barton Hinkle
Jeff Jacoby
Paul Johnson
Jack Kelly
Ch. Krauthammer
David Limbaugh
Kathryn Lopez
Rich Lowry
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Ann McFeatters
Dale McFeatters
Dana Milbank
Jeanne Moos
Dick Morris
Jim Mullen
Deroy Murdock
Judge A. Napolitano
Bill O'Reilly
Clarence Page
Kathleen Parker
Star Parker
Dennis Prager
Wesley Pruden
Tom Purcell
Sharon Randall
Robert Robb
Cokie & Steve Roberts
Heather Robinson
Debra J. Saunders
Martin Schram
Greg Schwem
Culture Shlock
David Shribman
Roger Simon
Lenore Skenazy
Michael Smerconish
Thomas Sowell
Ben Stein
Mark Steyn
John Stossel
Cal Thomas
Dan Thomasson
Bob Tyrrell
Diana West
Dave Weinbaum
George Will
Walter Williams
Byron York
ZeitGeist
Mort Zuckerman

Robert Arial
Chuck Asay
Baloo
Lisa Benson
Chip Bok
Dry Bones
John Branch
John Cole
J. D. Crowe
Matt Davies
John Deering
Brian Duffy
Everything's Relative
Mallard Fillmore
Glenn Foden
Jake Fuller
Bob Gorrel
Walt Handelsman
Joe Heller
David Hitch
Jerry Holbert
David Horsey
Lee Judge
Steve Kelley
Jeff Koterba
Dick Locher
Chan Lowe
Jimmy Margulies
Jack Ohman
Michael Ramirez
Rob Rogers
Drew Sheneman
Kevin Siers
Jeff Stahler
Scott Stantis
Danna Summers
Gary Varvel
Kirk Walters
Dan Wasserman

Tech Q&A
Mr. Know-It-All
Ask Doctor K
Richard Lederer
Frugal Living
On Nutrition
Bookmark These
Bruce Williams
|