I don't even vote here, so why am I defending Obama's policy???
Well, I don't, I just think CARS is a program in the right direction.
A teenager can always buy a car for a few $$$. The cars in the 1-3K range are typically the old camrys focuses civics and so, that don't qualify as clunkers because of their (relatively) high mpg (higher than 18).
Now if a teenager wants to buy a 1990 Wrangler (that qualifies as a clunker), well he (or she) shouldn't!
The old guy from Cleveland with the 30 years old Caprice is driving a car for 30 years with an average millage per day less than 30 (30 miles * 300 days * 30 years = 300K miles => the engine is dead or will die very soon). His Caprice doesn't qualify as a clunker because of the 25-years-old upper limit of the CARS program. It shouldn't because it's not being driven a lot and it will die soon (if it's not almost dead, left in a backyard, waiting for some stupid government to call it a "clunker"
). These cars will not have a significant effect on tomorrow's oil consumption.
The CARS program, is a tax brake. When we trade clunkers between us, generally when we buy a used car, we don't pay tax (or at least is negligible). So, when you trade your 15 years old 16 MPG clunker for a 12 years old 18 MPG better clunker and the government pays you $4000, then it's me and you who are actually paying that money. Do you want that? I don't...
And finally, the clunkers are not supposed to be sold because the whole point is to stop using them! If the government sells them for (say) $1K, then the concept of CARS is lost... The inefficient clunkers will still be used...
The beauty of the program is endless IMO
. The only thing that is wrong is that a low MPG "clunker" typically costs $3-5K anyway... So, the $4.5K are not as tempting. If you are going to make an omelet you need to brake some eggs (pay a few extra $$$, so the customer is really tempted for change) ....