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.
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):
"Cash for Clunkers".
In the US, the period comes inside the quotes.
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.
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 "clunker
s " must be driven to the dealership
for trade in and have be
en registered and insured as
a road
- legal vehicle
s 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.
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 keep
inga car
s that leak
s fluids, ha
ve a worn
- out engine
s , dysfunctional emissions equipment, or
may be
potentially unsafe on the road; however, their car
s do
es not qualify due to
its the gas mileage when new.
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.
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.
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?
Put this in with the other section on the financial impact to individuals. Mention that bail-outs are a slippery slope.
Many of these vehicles are 4x4 trucks, Park Rangers, Surveyors, Cartographers, and other government workers can use them.
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.
constituents fiscal responsibility
Add an apostrophe after the "s" in
constituents because it is a possessive.
blue collar workers (mechanics), you do NOT care about used car owners or low income individuals
Add in a bunch of hyphens here ... blue
- collar workers (mechanics), you do NOT care about used
- car owners or low
- income individuals
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.
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.
I hope their votes are enough to support you in any future campaigns.
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.