Letters / A letter to congress - RE: Cash For Clunkers [8]

I tend to be a bit wordy, but I like to be thorough.

Many have told me that I need to condense my letter to one page. After all, our legislators barely do their job and read the bills they have to vote on, what makes me think they're going to read my letter if it's too long.

I put a copy up on my Facebook page and I've had a lot of positive feedback but many of my friends are car guys. I'd like to see if I get too technical for less mechanically inclined people.

Here's what I've got:

<Home Address>
<Date>

<Address of Elected official>

Dear x,

I am writing to you in extreme disappointment at your support of the Car Allowance Rebate System, otherwise known as "Cash for Clunkers". This program requires the destruction of a usable vehicle based solely on the EPA Estimated average fuel economy. Many of these vehicles still pass safety and emissions inspections. Many still run properly and have all accessories working. Some even have good shiny paint. It is senseless and wasteful to destroy something that has serviceable life left in it (Based on the requirement that the "clunker" must be driven to the dealership for trade in and have been registered and insured as a road legal vehicle for a period of one year prior to trade in.); especially when there are many people that do not have cars.

Some other less fortunate people may be keeping a car that leaks fluids, has a worn out engine, dysfunctional emissions equipment, or may be potentially unsafe on the road; however, their car does not qualify due to its mileage when new. Many of these people might not have been able to afford payments on a new car loan.

There are those of us that simply choose not to purchase new vehicles and opt for more economical used vehicles for personal transportation. Reducing the supply of used vehicles increases prices on the ones that remain. Similarly, destruction of the engine and restriction of the sale of driveline components increases prices on used parts. This causes a hardship on the lower class and those of us with older cars.

Additionally, a lot of resources go into production of a new vehicle; many more than would be used in keeping a used car in decent operational repair. Oil is used in the production of plastics that are used more frequently in newer cars. There are heavy metals in the batteries used in Gasoline/Electric hybrid vehicles.

The destruction of the vehicles that were traded in involves draining the oil from the engine, adding an abrasive sodium silicate solution into the crankcase, and running the engine until the internal components grind to a halt from lack of lubrication. This presents the hazard of internal components of the engine (pistons, connecting rods, etc.) breaking free and exiting the side of the engine block injuring bystanders. Additionally, this shrapnel may cut fuel hoses, causing fuel to leak onto the hot engine and start fires. The added friction caused by intentionally operating the engine with an abrasive in place of lubricant causes excess heat which may rupture the cooling system of the engine and severely burn bystanders or at the very least, cause spilled coolant to leak onto the ground.

Because the program required that a new car be purchased or leased for five years, many of the vehicles have been financed. This puts many people under fiscal burden in an already tough economy. I have to ask, of those that paid for the car in full at the time of purchase or those that have good credit scores required to get a good rate on financing, how many of them needed that $3500-4500 credit as incentive to purchase a car? These are the same people that scoffed at the previous fuel price spike and still opted for a high fuel consumption vehicle.

I understand that the car dealers and manufacturers have been under the stresses of the recession too, but I feel that the free market would cause them to adapt. I suppose nothing stimulates the economy like consumer debt. Will there be a bailout for those that default on these loans in the future?

The program also did not restrict the manufacturer of the new car. Most drivers equate Korean and Japanese manufacturers with fuel economy and most of the vehicles being traded in have been larger American SUVs and Trucks. Even though I believe GM and Chrysler have gotten enough handouts from the government, I believe this does them a disservice. It's only a matter of time before they realize this and ask for another assistance package.

I urge you to read the "Parable of The broken Window." It is a short story that illustrates the fallacy in the thought that willful destruction which causes the circulation of money is beneficial. If these vehicles can be economically repaired, I believe jobs can be created by employing more mechanics to repair them and put them to use elsewhere. Many of these vehicles are 4x4 trucks, Park Rangers, Surveyors, Cartographers, and other government workers can use them. They can be shipped to third world countries. Or they can be donated to the less fortunate here in the United States.

By supporting this program, you have made it evident that you do NOT care about your constituents fiscal responsibility (lowering consumer debt), you do NOT care about the environment, you do NOT care about the safety of blue collar workers (mechanics), you do NOT care about used car owners or low income individuals that cannot afford a car, and you do NOT care about automotive hobbyists. How much of your voter base is made up of a combination of any of the above groups? You have also made it clear that you do not care or were ignorant toward the fact that tax dollars were spent on reckless destruction.

But you DO care about new car dealers and car manufacturers. You DO care about using public funds to give a credit to the upper-middle class. I hope their votes are enough to support you in any future campaigns. Productivity has, as its root, Produce. Destruction is the opposite. That is what you've shown your support for and as such, I cannot in good conscience have confidence in your ability to lead. I do not believe that you will have the public's best interest in mind.

Sincerely,

Me