Cash for Clunkers -- Just Say No

[aliza250]

I'm glad Cash for Clunkers is dying -- if you want to give a boost to the car industry, there's got to be a fairer way to do it than by handing $4500 to a semi-random group of people to buy new cars. Why not hand out transferrable vouchers by lottery? That would be fairer

Comments

[cellio]

Bingo. But it's not just Obama; the attitude of taking from the careful to give to the careless goes back decades -- arguably back to FDR, though he was dealing with a real crisis so maybe the blame falls to his successors.

I bought a home within my means, am saving for my retirement [1], and didn't have more kids than I can afford. I am paying for people who bought McMansions while working at Wall-Mart, people who squandered their income when working and had nothing when not, and people already on welfare who produce yet more mouths to feed. Are all or even most recipients of welfare (or mortgage bailouts) slackers? Of course not -- and the legitimate cases are why those programs were able to get implemented in the first place. Societally, we are willing to trade fairness for compassion. But it sets a dangerous precedent which the government has been unable or unwilling to manage appropriately -- the damage done by the unfairness is real.

[1] I, like you, will pay twice, paying fully into social security and collecting nothing from it. And if financial misfortune should, say, halve my 401(k) (ahem), the government isn't going to be sending me a check because I still have something. At some level, taking care of yourself is contra-indicated, fiscally speaking. (Ethically, on the other hand... well, not going change my behavior.)

[Edited because I failed my saving throw against pre-caffeine rants. Sorry.]