A letter to congress - RE: Cash For Clunkers

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

Your concern about the safety of the destruction of the cars seems misplaced. I assume that will be carried out by people who know what they are doing, and who will take precautions to ensure their own safety, even if they don't care that much about bystanders.

Also, you might want to deal more comprehensively with the environmental aspect of the program. How much pollution will be prevented by having more fuel efficient cars on the roads? How much pollution will be created by the manufacture of new cars? What exactly is the net reduction/increase in pollution?

Beyond that, though, you do a good job of pointing out that, as an economic policy, the program is a poorly thought out one meant to do more to make the government seem responsive to hard economic times than to actually improve the economy in any meaningful way.

Ahhh, what makes you think that they will read your letter at all? Sorry, but the legislators themselves rarely read the letters. The interns/staff sometimes do though. I wrote a letter and sent it off to five different legislators and didn't get a single response. Disappointing to say the least. I guess that they didn't already have a form letter/position statement available that they could shoot off to me. But I digress. I would suggest making a slightly reformatted edition to send off to the editorial pages of your local newspapers in addition to the letters you send to the legislators. A newspaper letter would need to be significantly shorter, but you already have such a strong base.

I am entirely opposed to the "cash for clunkers" program. Not only for the reasons mentioned in your letter, but because I don't think that the taxpayers should be in the business of subsidizing new car purchases. During the Great Depression, our government promised "a chicken in every pot." Now that we have hit a recession, the government wants to put a new car in every garage. Ridiculous. The destruction of these vehicles is taking a huge toll on the used auto parts industry. You are right when you say that the ones benefiting are the manufacturers, dealers, and the upper-middle class.

Here are a few grammatical and other points (I am sure that there are a few weird errors in my corrections; I haven't quite gotten the hang of using the html code for crossing out and adding red letters--please overlook those oddities):


In the US, the period comes inside the quotes.


This is a long sentence that is a little difficult for the reader to slog through, but you could tighten it up a tad and it would be better:

It is senseless and wasteful to destroy something that has serviceable life left in it (Based on the requirement that the "clunkers " must be driven to the dealership for trade in and have been registered and insured as a road- legal vehicles for a period of one year prior to trade in. ); especially when there are many people that do not have cars.


This could be tightened as well. You will need to specify that you are talking about gas mileage when new (the way it reads now, it sounds like the odometer mileage).

Some otherl Less fortunate people may be keepinga cars that leaks fluids, have a worn- out engines , dysfunctional emissions equipment, or may be potentially unsafe on the road; however, their cars does not qualify due to its the gas mileage when new.


I would like to see this concept expanded a bit. Talk about how the creation of new cars and disposal of the old offsets the environmental gains of replacing a car that gets two miles per gallon more. The environmental claims mask the real reason behind the program--to benefit the special interests of the car industry. I agree with Sean that the next paragraph detracts from your main argument. Stick with the environmental hazards of car disposal and drop the safety issues. You might also want to drop the American/foreign-made argument. It would shorten the letter significantly. Besides, arguing that the government could be doing it better takes away from the argument that they should not be doing it at all.


Put this in with the other section on the financial impact to individuals. Mention that bail-outs are a slippery slope.


This sentence makes it sound like many of the vehicles are park rangers, surveyors ... you could replace the first comma with a semicolon to add clarity. The professions shouldn't be capitalized--not even park ranger in this case because you aren't talking about rangers for particular park systems.


Add an apostrophe after the "s" in constituents because it is a possessive.


Add in a bunch of hyphens here ... blue- collar workers (mechanics), you do NOT care about used- car owners or low- income individuals


This sentence is bothering me. It is probably best not to call these fools ignorant, but instead try to persuade them to your side. Think of it as "educating" them on the points they missed when they voted for this foolhardy legislation.


No you don't. You don't hope that the votes of these constituents are enough to elect these fools again. Go ahead and say, "Their votes are not enough to elect you in the future."

You are a good writer and you bring up many valid points. Tighten this up a little, take out a few points that sidetrack your main argument, and you will have a strong, persuasive piece.

Here's a tip: Most members of congress don't read their mail at all. It is read by assistants, who tally up the opinions of writers, according to the time and effort put into the communication. Pre-fabricated post-cards and email messages count much less than personally worded email messages, which in turn count less than typed letters sent by post or -- even better -- hand-written letters.

I don't know about the handwritten letter thing. I sort of suspect that such correspondence would simply mark you out as an eccentric whose opinion doesn't need to be taken very seriously. I'd stick with a typed letter, if I were you.

I got this information from a congressional staffer. Remember, many older citizens do not have computers or word processors in their homes. They donate to candidates and vote more frequently than do younger folks. The basic idea behind the ranking system, as it was explained to me, is that the greater the amount of time spent on the letter, the greater importance the issue is assumed to be to the writer. As those of us who still hand-write our personal correspondence know, it takes more time to hand-write than type a letter. But, of course, hand-written words can sometimes be misidentified. That's why I always type my correspondence to my representatives. But I am sure to send it as a real letter rather than as email.

Typing a letter also gives you the advantage of a spellchecker, not to mention much greater ease in editing and revising your thoughts. As to the issue of older citizens, I suppose there must be some who still don't have access to computers, especially among the lower classes, but that will change. It won't be long now before everyone has grown up with computers, or at least been forced to familiarize themselves with how to use one for work. It's much the same as the decreasing popularity of landlines among people under 30. One technology is being replaced by another, so that soon anyone who doesn't use the new technology will seem like a living anachronism.

Thank you all for your help in editing this letter.

I also have a professional freelance editor as well as an English teaching major looking over my work. I'm used to getting far off topic when talking with people about this and the whole thing turns into a political discussion. It's kept pretty well on course here. :)

I'm always trying to improve my communication skills, as I believe how one speaks and writes is a direct reflection on their intelligence. (And I'm not talking about grades or scholastic qualifications either. I haven't graduated college yet.)

I will combine the various edits and post the new version later.