Skip to main content

Cash for Clunkers as failed CPR for the auto industry, or: look, folks, a lot of your money is not coming back

Despite all the hoopla over the supposed economic success of Cash for Clunkers [you don't need links for that, just go check all the usual suspects], WaPo reports today that a Congressional oversight panel says--surprise, surprise--we're not going to get all the auto industry bail-out money back:

The federal government is unlikely to recoup all of the billions of dollars that it has invested in General Motors and Chrysler, according to a new congressional oversight report assessing the automakers' rescue.

The report said that a $5.4 billion portion of the $10.5 billion owed by Chrysler is "highly unlikely" to be repaid, while full recovery of the $50 billion sunk into GM would require the company's stock to reach unprecedented heights.

"Although taxpayers may recover some portion of their investment in Chrysler and GM, it is unlikely they will recover the entire amount," according to the report, which is scheduled to be released Wednesday.

The report also recommended that the Treasury Department act with more transparency and provide a legal analysis justifying the use of financial rescue funds for the automakers. The report was prepared by the Congressional Oversight Panel, which is overseeing the federal bailout programs.

In all, the government has invested $74 billion in the nation's auto industry, including $12.5 billion into auto financing giant GMAC and $3.5 billion into auto suppliers, according to the report.


But it's OK, you see, to have thrown the money out there to support two gigantically mismanaged companies after all:

The panel said the government may have averted economic catastrophe by taking on the rescue. The automotive industry represents about 6.5 percent of the manufacturing jobs in the United States.

"Preserving portions of Chrysler and General Motors might have resulted in savings for the government in other ways," the report said.


We need to be clear about this little bait and switch comment: The automotive industry represents about 6.5 percent of the manufacturing jobs in the United States.

According to the Congressional Research Service, GM and Chrysler account together for less than 40% of the automobile industry employees in North America [US plus Canada], and so--even had both companies failed so completely that everybody lost their job all at once--the result would impact 2.6% of the manufacturing jobs in the US, not 6.5%.

Since it is not like GM and Chrysler weren't selling any cars at all, the other companies would very probably have seen significant upsurges in their own sales and need for new production capacity. Unfortunately, the government decided to privilege GM and Chrysler over the other companies for what we now know was a free-money give-away.

I love it when we get spun: Yep, we almost certainly dropped billions of your tax dollars into GM and Chrysler that we'll never get back--and we're not even real certain where they went--but we did it to avert disaster and it worked, so be happy.

Comments

What I find most disturbing about this program is that it essentially created false demand: demand that probably would have come about of its own course in a matter of time.

Also, all of these people with car payments now will probably be cutting down on their holiday and back-to-school spending.

It created a momentary influx of cash for some (I'm thinking of blogger Alphecca who was able to catch up on some bills due to the commissions), but now that has dried up.

Cash for Clunkers was actually one of the least insidious of the various bailout programs, but I don't think shock treatment is going to work for this economy. It never lasts.
Cars4Charities said…
There are many better ways to stimulate car sales. One way is to simply increase the tax deduction one can take when they donate a car to charity. Most car donations come from people who are purchasing a new or newer car and don't want the hassle of selling or trading their old car.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?