Cash for Clunkers: It's Still a Clunker

Regular readers of this site will know that I am no leaping cheerleader of Cash for Clunkers, the government's auto revitalization program that gives away up to $4500 for new cars. We shouldn't be paying people do destroy working capital, it's rotten for used-car dealerships (who actually do something with the old cars besides junk their engine) and its apparent popularity is, I think, the product of historic pent-up demand for cars, which means we're paying people thousands of dollars for cars they might have bought later this year anyway.

Today I've stumbled upon two pieces of information that make me proud of trying to sound the alarm of C4C -- but also a bit sad for those billions of taxpayer dollars.

1) How environmental, again?
The environmental bonafides of this program have long been under question. Even though the program requires buyers to update to a more efficient vehicle, it's much easier to qualify for a rebate if you're buying an SUV than a car. On the one hand, a small miles-per-gallon upgrade among hoggish SUVs will make a bigger net difference in emissions than a medium-sized MPG upgrade improvement among cars that are already fuel efficient. On the other hand, the program seemed stacked to encourage more SUV purchases.

The first figures from the government on C4C-purchased cars surprised me. It said that the most popular new cars were almost exclusively small ones like the Ford Focus and Toyota Prius. But via invaluable commenter "ed," I've stumbled upon this report from, which placed two trucks in the top 10 most popular vehicle list and named that crossover SUV Ford Escape the number one purchase.

2) Suffer the charities.
I always suspected that C4C would be bad for used car dealerships (no surprise, it is), but I forgot to think about the charities. Sounds like I'm not the only one:

Volunteers of America and other charities that receive tens of thousands of cars each year said such donations have quickly fallen up to 12 percent -- and fear a 25 percent drop eventually, or over $100 million -- as owners rush to trade gas guzzlers for new fuel-efficient models while federal rebates last.

So look, not to be all nah-nah about it, because I understand that the government has a legitimate interest in not only boosting car sales but also perpetuating the idea that consumer demand is on the rebound, but I still think Cash for Clunkers is getting too much praise in the media. Also, consumer spending still stinks overall. In fact, non-auto consumer spending was down in July at a 0.6 percent clip after rising by 0.6 percent in June. Could Cash for Clunkers actually be hurting non-auto consumption? Meh, I won't go there. Not yet at least.

Presented by

Derek Thompson is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where he writes about economics, labor markets, and the entertainment business.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register with Disqus.

Please note that The Atlantic's account system is separate from our commenting system. To log in or register with The Atlantic, use the Sign In button at the top of every page.

blog comments powered by Disqus


Photos of New York City, in Motion

A filmmaker animated hundreds of still photographs to create this Big Apple flip book


The Absurd Psychology of Restaurant Menus

Would people eat healthier if celery was called "cool celery?"


This Japanese Inn Has Been Open For 1,300 Years

It's one of the oldest family businesses in the world.


What Happens Inside a Dying Mind?

Science cannot fully explain near-death experiences.

More in Business

Just In