The problem IMHO with what Will writes is that a voluntary
clunker bill will not remove all those old Delta 88's-with-the-
bungeed-on-bumper from the road. Remember, those people are
driving those cars because they can't afford anything better.
They can't sell the cars for $500 because they won't be able to
buy anything much better with that money. Sure, some people will
sell a second car, and some might sell their only car and switch
to public transportation, but by and large I do not think a
clunker bill will eliminate all clunkers because most people will
not be able to sell. I agree with what Gavin from OZ said. If
the problem is dangerous cars on the road, the solution is
inspection and enforcement. A clunker bill will have only
peripheral effects. And becasue it has zero effect on polution
(by definition), why support it.
The pollution problem is a different story. In Michigan,
oxidation will take care of the old pre-polution-control cars on
its own. A real safety/emmisions inspection should do the rest.
The real problem is in So-Cal where big polluting 60's cars live
on forever with no rust. But a clunker bill that buys up these
cars, only to allow an equal amount of pollution from the stacks
wont solve that.
If the Clunker Bill actually eliminated polution from our
country I would support it, but as it stands now I do not.
Michael Hering
|