opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
John Stossel
John Stossel
3 Feb 2016
Political Arrogance

After the Iowa caucus results, it looks like Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio in November! They lead the … Read More.

27 Jan 2016
Running on Empty

Cars run on fuel. Politicians run on votes, and they'll do almost anything to get them. That includes … Read More.

20 Jan 2016
Economic Myths

Hillary Clinton: "Of course we want to raise the minimum wage!" Donald Trump: If we trade with China, "they … Read More.

Clunker Legislation


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.

John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." He has a blog at To find out more about John Stossel and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at




1 Comments | Post Comment
Dear John Stossel. Good Article. All Taxpayers should have known these 'blood-sucking ticks' are 'pulling straws', and this 'Cash for Clunkers, or any other 'hyped up' jazz the politicians can drum up. I have a feeling that dealers will never see any money and they'll all be on their way out, unless they start by using their own common sense and their own money.

This "Clunker" garbage is like everything the politicians come up with. More lying and stealing and selling people a 'bill of goods' that's not going to benefit American people!

It's like shipping goods, back and forth, to foreign countries is cheaper and best forAmerican jobs!
“Show me don't tell me” as I quit believing in! Does this look like our world today? Taxpayers are
loosing because the mentality of politicians thinking “Bigger is Better” by creating Nafta and Cafta,
thus causing closing of many companies! The old theory “Spending more than you earn” goes back
to bigger government. This started the privately owned companies to When folks think about
what's happened in America, the following comes to mind. I'm sending along the following!

Only 'YOU' can bring Prosperity back to your families.
Only 'YOU' can help strengthen yourself and family.
Only 'YOU' can build Character and Courage.
You cannot bring about Prosperity
By discouraging Thrift!
You cannot strength the Weak
By weakening the Srong!
You cannot help the Wage Earner
By pulling down the Wage Payer!
You cannot further the Brotherhood of Man
By encouraging Class Hatred!
You cannot help the Poor
By destroying the Rich!
You cannot keep out of Trouble
By spending more than you Earn!
You cannot build Character and Courage
By taking away Man's initiative and Independence!
You cannot help men Permanently
By doing for them what they could and should do

Taxpayers, of all races and politicial status, have lost their stability with the ‘Tax &
Spend' bureaucrats. Illegitimates having illegitimates. Slums created by promoting welfare and
social programs. Taxpayers know politicians 'are the problem' and not the ‘solution'! Politicians
aren't promoting a good, safe, healthy, and clean environment for our future generations!

Comment: #1
Posted by: Shirley deLong
Sun Sep 6, 2009 11:32 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
John Stossel
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 10 Feb 2016
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 9 Feb 2016
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 9 Feb 2016

9 Jun 2015 Green Lies

21 Nov 2007 The Tragedy of the Commons

6 Sep 2011 Ten Years After