Cash for clunkers: A bailout for SUV drivers?

When Congress approved hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out Wall Street by buying subprime mortgage derivatives and other "toxic" assets, economists and moralists worried over the "moral hazard." Do you encourage bad behavior by saving those who have made bad decisions, and lost because of them.

Now, Congress appears close to agreement on a much smaller-scale bailout for regular Americans who made a bad choice by buying a gas-guzzling SUV, truck or sports car that they don't need. "Cash for Clunkers" legislation would pay drivers up to $4,500, according to the Detroit Free Press,if they have a gas guzzler crushed, and buy a new "fuel-efficient" vehicle.

Hey! Why is "fuel efficient" in quotes?

Because the bill Congress is considering would hand out those substantial checks to people who trade in gas-guzzlers in exchange for cars that get at least 22 mpg, SUVs that get at least 18 mpg and trucks -- get this -- that get at least 15 mpg. (The original legislation required the new car to be at least 25% more fuel-efficient than the trade-in, but now there's an anemic requirement that the new car just get a few more miles to the gallon than the old car.)

Granted, there are barely a dozen 2009 cars and SUVs that get 30 mpg or better, and only two (the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic hybrid) that get better than 40 mpg -- a sad enough fact. But why not subsidize those vehicles, to the exclusion of gas-guzzlers? Ford -- remember Ford? that other, healthier member of the Big Three? -- even makes three SUVs that get better than 30 mpg (the hybrid Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner and the Mazda Tribute).

There are exciting new (little) fuel-efficient cars (several which will achieve not 30, but 50 mpg or more) hitting the market, and the race is on to build the next-generation 100 mpg vehicle. And Congress has mandated fuel economy increases to U.S. cars that will soon make 15 and 22 mpg vehicles at the very low end of the range of vehicles for sale. A 22 mpg passenger car should already be obsolete but these developments will make this program seem even more dated.

When the "cash for clunkers" plan was first floated in January, it sounded like a moral hazard with some clear public benefits. Number one, it promised to remove old, inefficient vehicles from the road immediately, reducing their pollution permanently. It still will. But the second public benefit -- instantly boosting the market for fuel-efficient cars at a time when the bad economy and the relatively low price of gas would prompt few drivers to make the switch, or buy a car at all -- has been basically erased by this 15-22 mpg threshold.

(The original plan also included provisions that would have allowed people to apply a $3,000 subsidy to public transportation costs, for those who commute by train or bus, or for used car purchases, for those who see the inherent value -- economic and environmental -- in reuse; it appears that both provisions have been dropped.)

As designed now, "cash for clunkers" seems to be about one thing: Funneling more money to automakers. If taxpayers are going to pay people to buy new cars -- that's all "cash for clunkers" is right now -- we should only subsidize the buying of the best cars for the public good. Putting a fleet of new 15 mpg trucks and 22 mpg passenger cars on the road is hardly the best we can do, or the best even our ailing carmakers have to offer.

Do You Think a $4,500 Trade-in Credit for Gas Guzzlers Is a Good Idea?

Tell us by commenting below, or take the poll.

More from The Daily Green

The 14 2009 Cars That Get Better Than 30 MPG

How to Pay $1 A Gallon for Gas (or Less)

5 Littl Fuel-Efficient Cars that Dazzled the NY Auto Show

8 Micro Cars Set to Take Over The American Road

The Auto X Prize: Racing for a 100 MPG Car and $10 Million