Cash For Clunkers' Clunky Website

Auto dealers the nation over are praising the cash-for-clunkers program for filling their showrooms with folks ready to buy. According to most estimates, somewhere between 700,000 and 800,000 units moved in connection to the program. How many of them would have moved anyway absent government incentives which allowed dealers to make more money per car? Er, not clear. What will the effect of the $3 billion in tax dollars being sucked out of one end of the economy and thrown into the backseat of a new Prius? Also not clear (though shouldn't all cash for clunk receipients be forced to give rides to anyone who asks for as long as they own the car?). Exactly when and how the trade-ins will be destroyed? Also not clear (though would make great video, for sure, especially if Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood personally destroys all vehicles).

This much, however, is clear: The government's website that was supposed to handle all dealer claims sucks worse than your grandpa's Pinto:

"We continue to address technical problems with the CARS Web site, and have determined that the Web site will not be fully functional before [this] morning," the Transportation Department said in a statement sent to dealers late Monday evening. "Dealers should be assured that they will be provided time to submit pending deals equivalent to the time that was lost this afternoon while the system was down."

The feds have made various noises about not reimbursing dealers who are either late with paperwork or can't access the broken site in a timely enough fashion. Expect the followup on this "successful" stimulus program to be about as dogged and high-profile as news from the war in Afghanistan. Here's a Dallas dealer's lament from yesterday, the last day of the program:

"Any deal you do today, there's certainly a high risk of not getting paid," he said. "Unfortunately, there will be some dealers who will be hurt financially by this program. There are probably some nervous lending institutions, too."

Dallas-area sales are down 37.5 percent from last year, btw.

More here.

And do get ready for cash for washers, dryers, and refrigerators.

Comments

[Bill]

I heard from a friend of a friend - so who knows how reliable or completely accurate this is - but anyhow, I heard that no only is the government ass-dragging on sending out cash for ckunker payments to the dealers, but they're also applying the $4,500 to judgements against the customers. I.e., the gubmint is subtracting money owed for child support, back taxes, etc. BEFORE sending it to the dealer.

So basically if a dealer sells a car to someone thinking he will get $4,500 back from the gubmint, he's screwed if the government has secured a judgment against that person for back taxes, ect.

Again, dunno if it was an isolated case, based on fact-specific circumstances or what - this is just what I heard.

And I would be shocked - shocked, I say! To learn that our beloved federal gubmint would F a small businessman in the A.

[John-David]

Don't tell the Kossacks that C4C is anything but an unmitigated success. Unless you want to watch them cry, which is always entertaining.

[Mad Max]

You'd never believe what else the administratio wants to pay cash for:

the Factcheck Web site, maintained by the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center, confirms that the administration's health-care initiative covers abortion.

Of course, it takes no ghost, come from beyond the grave, to tell us *this.*

[*]

Bill | August 25, 2009, 9:53am | #

I heard from a friend of a friend - so who knows how reliable or completely accurate this is

Let me guess. Not very?

[Atanarjuat]

I haven't heard GM ask for another $30B lately (unless I missed it), so maybe C4C was a bargain...

[aelhues]

I haven't looked into it, but it seems as though dealers have no way to check if they are within the available cash window. So, if I'm a dealer, and sell do 400 c4c deals, and then find out that all the money is spoken for, I'm then out 1.8mil? That seems to be a very plausible scenario. If there was no way to verify that the deal was eligible prior to finalization, that's being seriously screwed.

[Joel]

"Any deal you do today, there's certainly a high risk of not getting paid," he said. "Unfortunately, there will be some dealers who will be hurt financially by this program. There are probably some nervous lending institutions, too."

Poor babies: It's so unfair. 'We ran to the trough, but the trough run dry!' I do weep for them.

What's that old saw about what happens when you deal with the debbil?

[David Pinto]

As a Pinto, I object to your comparison of the car to a lousy web site. My uncle, not my grandfather, drove a Pinto. I also do not explode on rear-end collisions.

[The Libertarian Guy]

The state can't spend money wisely, how can we expect them to put together a website in a competent fashion?

[Hugh Akston]

Two things occur:

First, If I recall correctly, this Greatest Economic Crisis Ever OMG was caused in large part by overinvestment in instruments whose viability were not only uncertain, but whose risks were also largely unmeasurable. On one hand, if the Gov't sticks to its guns about timely submission of C4C claims despite having a clunky website, dealers who thought they had a pretty safe bet in these deals are now left with substantial losses to show for it. If, on the other hand, the Gov't extends the deadlines for claims (which it undoubtedly will), then there doesn't seem to be any credible limit to the amount of time a dealer has to redeem these claims, meaning the taxpayer could be on the hook for these things for years. We can only hope they're not interest-bearing.

Second, if I were going to stimulate the economy, I would do so by lowering the barriers to investment and savings, not by devaluing durable consumer goods. You can make a frog carcass twitch by hooking it to a current. But that doesn't mean you've brought it back to life.

[nobody]

I think you meant to say that your mom drove a Pinto.

Eh?

Eh?

[nobody]

And I'll be tasteful enough not to mention anything about her rear-end collisions.

[nobody]

Or the ensuing explosions.

[P Brooks]

This makes me wonder: are the dealers sitting on the "clunkers" (not wrecking the motors, et c) they take in trade until they are certain the deal will go through? I sure as hell would.

If the govt price support loot doesn't come through, you can at least recoup something out of the deal by treating it as a garden-variety tradein, and sell the damn thing on your used car lot.

[Chinny Chin Chin]

though shouldn't all cash for clunk receipients be forced to give rides to anyone who asks for as long as they own the car?

Best idea I've heard wrt Cash for Clunkers. And I need to make a grocery run today, too.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Still boggling that non-running cars weren't allowed as trade-ins, considering the whole idea is to DISABLE THE DAMN ENGINES....

[P Brooks]

Second, if I were going to stimulate the economy, I would do so by lowering the barriers to investment and savings, not by devaluing durable consumer goods.

I think this effectively explains why nobody in Washington has consulted you.

[creech]

Let's see - "normal" vehicle sales, in the recession, were down to about 750,000 per month. The average car on the highway is more than nine years old. Therefore, a good percentage of those 750,000/month sales are for clunkers anyway. So, if those with clunkers heard about the pending program and waited several months to buy, and those who were going to buy anyway in the next several months ran to take advantage of C4C, then aren't we just shifting deck chairs on the Titanic? Now, of course, those working poor who never buy new cars are going to have far fewer clunkers to choose from, so demand will drive up the price to the working poor.
What a country!!

[hmm]

And do get ready for cash for washers, dryers, and refrigerators.

The circus is here. Kicking the opportunity cost of retarded program after retarded program to the next quarter until hell freezes over. There will be another program for Q4 to ensure the companies that rely on Q4 profit don't suffer from the profit robbed by C4C.

I wonder what C4? is going to occur after we run out of durable goods to C4? It's also interesting that these goods are generally financed with debt. (which could be coincidence due to durables often being expensive) Instead of pulling money from savings we're creating another, although smaller, bubble like economy based on debt. Debt to finance shit that isn't immediately needed at that.

The palm of my hand and my forehead can't take too much more of this.

[Jason Kirk]

Were both links supposed to go to the same article?

[brotherben]

hmmm, that would be the C4S program. The government will pay you higher than market value for your underperforming stocks and give you in trade a deep reduction on the purchase of stock that is performing well. This program will make all participants rich beyond their wildest dreams(not you Suge) while at the same time stimulating the market and making the U.S. the monetary envy of the world.

[hmm]

I guess you can't get much farther from durables than equities. Maybe C4Air?

[oldtimer]

Is the $4500 gonna be charged back as taxable income?

[Paddy]

"Don't tell the Kossacks that C4C is anything but an unmitigated success. Unless you want to watch them cry, which is always entertaining."

Last night Ed Schultz played a clip of some politician pointing out that the Nazi's nationalized Germany's healthcare, financial institutions and auto industry in the 1930's.

His response: "Can you believe these idiots who compare a successful program like C4C to Nazi Gremany?

No comment on the GM / Chrysler takeover, the attempt at taking over healthcare or the nationalization of banks and insurance companies.

Strange days indeed.

[hmm]

Shultz and Hannity need to do a gay porn flick.

It can be marketed with the Coulter and Klein lesbian flick.

About what all four of them are worth.

[hmm]

Hannity bangs the Shultz out of Ed part 1

[Don King]

"Hannity bangs the Shultz out of Ed part 1"

Only on Pay-Per-View!

[PR]

C4Nothing and Chicks For Free!

[The Libertarian Guy]

Ed Schultz is the long-lost twin cousin of Rush Limbaugh, and one of them is the analogue to the "evil Spock" from the mirror-universe Star Trek episode.

Trouble is, it's difficult to tell which one is MORE evil. Maybe they both are.

[Joseph C. Moore, Cpo USN Ret.]

Enough with the sardonic, satyrical comments. Lets have a little more truth and less posturing. More transparency?

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

Hugh Akston,

You can make a frog carcass twitch by hooking it to a current. But that doesn't mean you've brought it back to life.

No, but in politics that twitch sure does make some nice video footage that proves your worth.

I'm gonna have to remember that line.

[jhenry]

I beleive this new legislation is a big win for consumers who is ready to buy a new car with fuel efficient models

Jhenry
Blogger
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

You believe that?

Huh.