California wants you to ditch your dirty cars. Again.
In its effort to establish (impose) its green-utopian-alternate-universe, California lawmakers introduced Assembly Bill 165 in February, which is a proposed expansion of the cash-for-clunkers program. The gist is this: residents turn in their “old, dirty” cars and get either $1,000 or $1,500 in return depending on income bracket. This is stupid on a monumental scale. And here’s why.
First, can someone tell me what the definition of “old, dirty” car is? Right now, no model years have been given. We only know that the cars are old and dirty. This is typical logic of the left. Great big idea, no real oversight or knowledgeable assessments driving a “solution,” just, well, ideas. Most of the old and dirty cars California lawmakers are afraid of aren’t on the road very much. Sorry California, they just aren’t. IHS Automotive consultants figures that the average age of cars on the road is about 11.5 years. That would put most old cars in the 2004/5 model year. Most cars were pretty fuel efficient by then.
Second, this law assumes that only middle class but especially lower income vehicle owners will benefit and be eligible for the program. Okay, so we want to get old vehicles off the road, we presume mostly lower income families will use the program and then those lower income families will need to incur more debt on a newer, greener car? So how does this help the people again?
Third, how does this help? California isn’t exactly flush with cash these days and yet they are giving more and more money away. First they give rebates and tax breaks to encourage people with the economic means to buy a pricey hybrid or electric car and then the state wants to give money away to encourage people to get rid of a combustion engine vehicle to buy another newer—read more expensive—gasoline engine vehicle since those people are priced out of “green vehicles” anyway. And so with all things governmental, we must ask “what the heck?!"
Fourth, the federal program that California’s program is modeled after wasn’t a success. The federal government spent $3 billion, which means it cost the taxpayers that much. And then there is this: The original program wasn’t even a green initiative. It was a job and industry saving initiative. And it didn’t save jobs and it did harm to the auto industry to the tune of $3 billion dollars. So, there’s that.
Honestly, we could do this all day. If you live in California, tell your legislators to vote this down. It’s just another pipe dream that won’t do any measurable or lasting good.
My Final Thought:
This was an avoidable tragedy: A Texas teen was killed in a Honda equipped with a Takata airbag. The vehicle was under recall. Five notices were mailed. None were acted on. Folks, get your recalls taken care of.
And lastly, this: Norwegian Cruise Lines
has announced that its next liner will have a two-level race track for go-karts. It looks like a cruise is in my future!
But what do you think?
Post your comments on Twitter: @LaurenFix
and sign up for the FREE newsletter at: www.laurenfix.com
, The Car Coach® is a nationally recognized automotive expert, media guest, journalist, author, keynote speaker and television host. To read more of her blogs, CLICK HERE NOW.
© 2023 Newsmax Finance. All rights reserved.