If all these progressives are going to sell their supplemental votes, shouldn’t they actually get something useful for it?

Here’s Adam Siegel on Cash for Clunkers  (which will be added to pork-riddled supplemental to "sweeten" the deal for progressives):

1. It doesn’t even meet CAFE standards for the vehicles. The CAFE standard for passenger vehicles: 27.5 miles per gallon, the Cash for Clunkers ($3500) begins at 22 mpg. The CAFE standard for light trucks: 23.1 mpg and the “compromise”’s benefit begins at 18 mpg (for light vehicles) and 15 mpg for 6000 to 8500 lbs.  The full ($4500) incentive is achieve by buying vehicles at the CAFE standard. Thus, the compromise does nothing to encourage car buyers to buy truly fuel efficient vehicles. [UPDATE:  Evidently, the plan is CAFE compliant.  There is a difference between EPA window stickers and NHTSA values for mpgs. The agreement keys values to EPA window sticker values (since that is what the consumer will see in the showrooms) which is, as above, in the fact sheet.  Thus,  is indicated on our fact sheet. 27.5 mpg in CAFE/NHTSA world translates to 22 mpg in EPA window sticker land  (27.5*0.8 = 22 mpg). The light truck CAFE std is 23.1 mpg which works out to 18.48 mpg in terms of EPA window stickers. EPA rounds anything below 18.5 down to 18 because they only do window stickers in round #s, hence the EPA window sticker equivalent of 23.1 mpg is 18 mpg. Okay … not as bad as originally suspected, but still not enthused.  Thus, the $3500 comes from meeting EPA window sticker equivalencies to CAFE and the extra $1000 from exceeding it. The ‘trade-in’ vehicle, one would have to assume, would be similarly constrained. (Thus, the 18 mpg limit is the the equivalency of roughly 22.5 mpg in CAFE/NHTSA standards.)

2. There is an equity issue. Those who bought horribly fuel-inefficient vehicles, in the past, will now receive incentives for buying somewhat less fuel inefficient vehicles. Those who bought more reasonably have no such support. Why not, as part of this, offer a ‘cash for clunkers’ for vehicles above a certain age (let’s say Germany’s nine years) where the new car is at least some X% more fuel efficient than the old vehicle’s performance? (How about $3500 for at least 30% fuel efficiency improvement and $4500 for at least 50% fuel efficiency improvements?)

3. There is an interesting other problem.  In essence, the basic model is broken. “MPG” is far less valuable for an approach for a “FeeBate” or gas guzzler turn in then using a “GPM” or gallons per mile. (Difference between 10 and 20 MPG and 20 MPG and 30 MPG same in MPG but not in GPM. 1st is move from .1 to .05 GPM while second is move from .05 to .033 GPM.) GPM is a much faster tool for understanding actual fuel use (and, therefore, CO2 emissions) impacts of differing automotive performace. GPM is a MUCH better measure if we are worrying about incentivizing, somehow, lower fuel use.

Thus, targets are laughably (crying?) too low; there are real equity issues to question; and the basic measures used are open for questioning.

To Adam’s #2 –  one Pennsylvania resident writes that since they bought a 40mpg car in the first place, they won’t be eligible for the rebate.  But their neighbor, who drives a Hummer, will.

Call your representatives. Tell them if they want to come up with a reason to sell out their anti-war principles, they better have a better one than this.