Now, I don't know Claire's stance on "the CFC" but I have to believe she supports the Combined Federal Campaign (a path for Federal workers to have donations directly deducted from their paychecks). And, it is unlikely that she is a big supporter of CFC destruction of the Ozone layer. However, when it comes to CFC, Cash For Clunkers, @clairecmc simply has it wrong. She has twittered away with her opposition to reinforcing this massively successful federal program.
We simply cannot afford any more taxpayr $ to extend cash for clunkers. Idea was to prime the pump, not subsidize auto purchases forever.
Claire must see a parallel between the auto industry and a literal reading of the Biblical explanation of creation, because anything that lasts more than seven days seems to, for her, border on "forever".
We put a billion $$ in cash for clunker program.That's 250,000 cars. We weren't sure how long it would last,but a billion of your $ is alot.
Well, the original concept was for a 1 million vehicle program or sparking about a 10 percent increase in car sales. That would take about $4billion and the cut occurred in the Senate (sparked by "moderate" Rs but, as I understand it, supported by Claire). As discussed elsewhere, there are plenty of issues with the C.A.R.S. Program. But, with $1 billion, we are talking a 2-3 percent increase in annual car sales, a "prime the pump" that seems unlikely to do anything serious. A 10 percent boost in annual cars sales actually could help some dealers stay alive, have workers back on assembly lines, and otherwise have a meaningful impact.
While I still have serious concerns about the legislation's structure, Claire should recognize that the $1 billion dollars is having a real stimulative impact within the economy, hitting "Main Street" (or whatever street your local dealer is on) and having other benefits as well.
I will consider using EXISTING stimulus $ that has already been appropriated to finish up cash for clunker program. No new $.
The one-week old 'forever' program is having real impact on Main Street, unlike the $100s of billions sent to help out Wall Street. (The Federal subsidies to Wall Street bonuses are easily an order of magnitude larger than the Clunker program's cost.) Thus, perhaps Claire can find that "already been appropriated" cash in some Wall Street executives' pockets?
In any event, yet again Claire McCaskill seems to be taking pride in positioning herself as some form of false moderate, placing herself between those who criticize government (at least a Democratic Party led government) every chance they meet and those advocating/fighting for sensible government policy.
And, as of four hours ago, @clairecmc reports:
No NEW spending for cash for clunkrs. May support if it is $ already appropriated for stimulus.Want to see #s &how they're gonna cut it off.
Sure, don't care that this is a program that is having clear and significant impact, quickly. Don't care that that there is some real win-win-win-win space re economic activity, auto safety, reduced oil dependency, and environmental impact. Nope, for clairecmc, now is the time to draw the line in the sand, economy be damned, to 'just say no' to a government program that is working ...
Sigh ...
The CARS Program is far from perfect on any of the legitimate grounds for judging it (economic stimulus, job creation, energy security, environmental, safety) and it merits improvement. We should be concerned that renewable / clean energy funding is being raided for the program. We should be concerned about how it is propping up auto culture. We should be concerned ... The CARS Program is, however, a working program that has had substantive impact, quickly, throughout the nation in one of the most ailing sectors of the economy.
$2 billion is on the table as the level to extend the program. It was originally proposed as a $4 billion program. Let's get that $2 billion out there ... along with an agreement to strengthen it / tighten it / improve it (along with providing a 'graceful degradation plan, so it doesn't constantly come up for 'emergency' renewal) before passing that 4th $billion (or any additional funding beyond that).
Other pieces on the C.A.R.S. Program
- CFCing toward a better economy? which began:
CFC, Cash For Clunkers (the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) Program), certainly is in the news today. Almost no one expected the massive surge of interest in the program such that, within a week, the program required more funding. Now, in the debate about how to stimulate the economy, there has been a divide between those focused on Wall Street (and some form of trickle-down economic theory) and those who argue for focusing on Main Street, getting cash into people's hands to spark retail economic activity that will be respent in the local economy and, eventually, trickle up to Wall Street.
Well,the $1 billion that the nation's auto dealers look to have gone through in just one week sparked, quite easily, $4 billion or more in sales at those dealers. Right off the top, that implies about $200 million (or more) in sales taxes, salaries (commissions) for workers in auto dealerships, work in junk yards for the old cars, etc ... We are talking a quick leverage effect, moving cars off the lots, with a trickle up occurring boosting the stock prices of auto companies and their suppliers.
- CARS Program is actually a C.R.A.P. Program This piece looks at structural problems within the draft legislation, highlighting five issues from the low mpg improvement requirements to why gallons per mile is a better measure to use. (Happily, the buying public is exceeding, on average, the $3500 bonus and going for $4500, with notable fuel efficiency improvements.)
- The Bill’s a Clunker, So is the Post’s Take on It This discussion highlights Washington Post limited thinking as to the potential systems-of-systems benefits of a clunker bill.
- A note why GPM makes for better policy than MPG ...
- A clunker of a deal This post highlights how the weaker clunker bill is the one that emerged from the House, far weaker than what was being considered in the Senate.
NOTE: A reminder, as per To Twit Claire, this post is a reproach (although some might call it a taunt) to some of Claire's "twitting" habits.
twittwit·ted, twit·ting, twits
To taunt, ridicule, or tease, especially for embarrassing mistakes or faults.
n.
- The act or an instance of twitting.
- A reproach, gibe, or taunt.
- Slang: A foolishly annoying person.
Evidently, ClaireCMC is disgruntled at some of the Tweets she receives. As per Sunday morning,
On Sunday morning I'm praying for my few followers who are so mean & negative.It's easier to listen & learn when people are calm &thoughtful
Thus, if you choose to "Twit" Tweeting Claire, perhaps do so in a "calm&thoughtful" manner ...
Please also see To be Claire for a discussion of an alternative legislation approach that Senator McCaskill could follow re energy and climate change legsilation.