As usual, Gene Taylor dances around for a minute, and never really gives a direct answer to the lady’s direct question.

In other words, it’s the government incentivizing folks to spend money on something that loses the bulk of it’s value as soon as you drive it off the lot, This, during one of the worst economies we’ve seen in a while and at a time when unemployment is over 9%.

In my opinion, the very idea of using taxpayers’ dollars to take perfectly good vehicles off the road and turn them into scrap metal is awful. But there are some very legitimate concerns by people in the auto industry as well.

According to the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA) there’s a lees intrusive way to boost the economy. The AAIA says that simple vehicle maintenance “would save consumers $30 billion in gasoline a year vs. spending $3 billion in taxpayer dollars to buy new cars.”

(AAIA) opposes the “Cash for Clunkers” program for the following reasons:

• The program destroys many vehicles that are not even close to being defined as “clunkers” with years of remaining life and use.
• Destroyed vehicles are removed from the market forever, depriving consumers who seek to purchase a used vehicle or charities in need of donated vehicles.
• It hurts the aftermarket companies that manufacture, distribute, sell and install vehicle parts on used vehicles, and those who rebuild/remanufacture vehicle parts.
• Resources and energy use is multiplied when a vehicle is destroyed and a new one is built to replace it.
• The majority of vehicles being traded in are domestic, and the majority of new vehicles being sold are foreign.
• The program entices consumers to purchase a new car that they might not be able to afford and certainly to go further in debt, reminiscent to the sub-prime home mortgage debacle.
• The program is regressive since only those at higher income levels who can afford to purchase a new car will qualify for the $4,500 voucher, while destroying used cars that could be purchased by lower income families, most in need of assistance in obtaining transportation.

The folks at Kelly Blue Book have some concerns as well. Recently they released a statement predicting “a likely bubble in used-car values, which could deflate as the Cash for Clunkers program comes to a close.”  In other words, as basic economics suggests, if you take up to 750,000 used vehicles out of the market, the price of used cars necessarily goes up in a serious way.

KBB’s senior analyst of vehicle valuation Alec Gutierrez had this to say:

If this bubble comes to pass, dealerships will end up with excess inventory of both new and used vehicles and be forced to offer deep discounts to remove surplus inventory, driving values down. Ultimately, there will be the possibility of a severe contraction in auto sales as soon as the Cash for Clunkers program runs out of funding.

Cash for Clunkers is a good example of how Gene Taylor believes the more our government intrudes into the free market, the better. Unfortunately, government’s intrusion into the free market, more often than not, leads to unintended consequences that will lead to more government intrusion later in order to fix the mess they created.

Here’s how the NTU scoring works:

The Taxpayer Score measures the strength of support for reducing spending and opposing higher taxes. In general, a higher score is better because it means a member of Congress voted to spend less money.

On the other hand, I often compare Gene Taylor’s record with that of Congress woman Michele Bachmann. Why? Because she’s one of the most conservative members of Congress, she’s always on the House floor and on tv fighting furiously for conservative values, and Mississippi’s 4th District is easily one of the most conservative congressional districts in America. She’s the kind of conservative fighter we deserve.

Interestingly, the NTU scored Congresswoman Bachmann a 86% out of 100%, giving her an “A” grade.

Like I said, Gene Taylor a conservative spender? Not hardly.

If California would stop spending themselves into oblivion, they could afford to spend their own money on saving the sea otters, or let the private and/or non-profit industry take care of it. We’re the most charitable nation in the world for goodness sake.

Bill HR 556