Yet despite that seemingly lopsided preference for foreign cars, the Cash for Clunkers program has been a financial windfall, albeit temporary, for American automakers and the U.S. economy.
General Motors is leading other automakers in Cash for Clunkers purchases with 18.7 percent of new sales, followed by Toyota with 17.9 percent and Ford Motor Co. with 16 percent. All in all, U.S. automakers accounted for 45.3 percent of new sales under the Cash for Clunkers program while Japanese automakers Toyota, Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. accounted for 36.5 percent. And even most of the foreign cars sold through the program were built in the United States.
More than 80 percent of the vehicles traded in under the Cash for Clunkers program to date are low-mileage trucks and SUVs, transportation officials said, and consumers have been eagerly replacing them with new fuel-efficient cars that qualify for government rebates of up to $4,500 per vehicle.
So far, the five top-selling new cars under the Cash for Clunkers program are the Ford Focus, Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Toyota Prius and Toyota Camry. On average, the new vehicles get 25.4 miles per gallon, compared to 15.8 mpg for the clunkers consumers have traded in.
Congress approved the Cash for Clunkers program in June and allocated $1 billion, which was supposed to last until November 1. Cash for Clunkers didn’t actually get under way until July 24 (although it covered qualifying purchases retroactively to July 1), but consumer demand was so unexpectedly high that within a week the program was in danger of running out of money.
On July 31, the U.S. House of Representatives quickly approved another $2 billion to keep the program going. The Senate hasn’t voted on that measure yet, but is expected to approve the additional funding before the August recess begins Friday.
We'll pass cash for clunkers before we leave here," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters on yesterday.
Reid has led a successful campaign to push aside a variety of possible amendments that would change the program and force the Senate to send the altered measure back to the House for reconsideration, making the quick allocation of more funds impossible. With the Cash for Clunkers program set to expire on Friday unless it is refueled with additional money before then, the Senate is preparing for a vote on Thursday.
Also Read:
- How Does the Cash for Clunkers Program Work?
- House Votes to Refuel Cash for Clunkers Program
- Republicans Play "Chicken Little" Over Cash for Clunkers -- About.com: U.S. Liberal Politics
- FTC Warns of Bogus "Cash for Clunkers" Web Sites -- About.com: U.S. Government Info
Comments
Pretty high American made ratio all the same, given the lead that foreign auto makers have had in making such cars..
It’s a shame, though, that dealers are forced to destroy perfectly good cars.
There are deeper reasons why the scheme is wrong .
Presumably it’s to save on oil/gasolene and to lower emissions:
Yet fuel efficient cars effectively means cheaper energy which in turn means they will be used more (instead of, for example, using public transport)
Fuel efficiency is of course an advantage people can consider when buying a car – and can compare with advantages that inefficient cars can have (better acceleration, or greater safety because of greater weight, etc, as well as a probably lower price – or they would be efficient already).
As far as government is concerned, any oil shortage – for geopolitical or economic demand reasons – raises the gasolene price and – guess what – increases demand for fuel-efficient cars anyway, no need to legislate for it.
Another reason is that – as research at Georgia Tech has shown – it is possible to clean emissions of CO2 (and other substances at the same time). A fuel-neutral emission tax on cars therefore makes more sense:
If it is economical to make – or to fit current- gas-guzzling cars with emission processing then, again, there is no reason for government to try to lower the use of such cars.
Any regulatory measures should therefore focus on emissions, rather than the fuel used, and emission taxation on cars retains consumer choice, while also giving significant government income with the lower sales of high emission cars, income that can go to projects that themselves lower emissions eg. electric car manufacturing subsidies etc. (Regardless of whether CO2 reduction makes any sense, lowered emissions of course have their own benefit, for all the noxious sulphur etc substances that the emissions also contain.)
Pretty high American made ratio all the same, given the lead that foreign auto makers have had in making such cars..
It’s a shame, though, that dealers are forced to destroy perfectly good cars.
There are deeper reasons why the scheme is wrong .
Presumably it’s to save on oil/gasolene and to lower emissions:
Yet fuel efficient cars effectively means cheaper energy which in turn means they will be used more (instead of, for example, using public transport)
Fuel efficiency is of course an advantage people can consider when buying a car – and can compare with advantages that inefficient cars can have (better acceleration, or greater safety because of greater weight, etc, as well as a probably lower price – or they would be efficient already).
As far as government is concerned, any oil shortage – for geopolitical or economic demand reasons – raises the gasolene price and – guess what – increases demand for fuel-efficient cars anyway, no need to legislate for it.
Another reason is that – as research at Georgia Tech has shown – it is possible to clean emissions of CO2 (and other substances at the same time).
A fuel-neutral emission tax on cars therefore makes more sense:
If it is economical to make – or to fit current- gas-guzzling cars with emission processing then, again, there is no reason for government to try to lower the use of such cars.
Any regulatory measures should therefore focus on emissions, rather than the fuel used, and emission taxation on cars retains consumer choice, while also giving significant government income with the lower sales of high emission cars, income that can go to projects that themselves lower emissions eg. electric car manufacturing subsidies etc.
(Regardless of whether CO2 reduction makes any sense, lowered emissions of course have their own benefit, for all the noxious sulphur etc substances that the emissions also contain)