Cash for Clunkers

What do you think about this proposal?:

A Modest Proposal: Eco-Friendly Stimulus, by Alan S. Blinder, Economic View, NY Times: Economists and members of Congress are now on the prowl for new ways to stimulate spending in our dreary economy. Here’s my humble suggestion: “Cash for Clunkers,” the best stimulus idea you’ve never heard of.

Cash for Clunkers is a generic name for a variety of programs under which the government buys up some of the oldest, most polluting vehicles and scraps them. If done successfully, it holds the promise of performing a remarkable public policy trifecta — stimulating the economy, improving the environment and reducing income inequality all at the same time. Here’s how.

A CLEANER ENVIRONMENT ... A California study estimated that cars 13 years old and older accounted for 25 percent of the miles driven but 75 percent of all pollution from cars. ...

MORE EQUAL INCOME DISTRIBUTION ...Most [clunkers] are owned ... by low-income people. So if the government bought some of these vehicles at above-market prices, it would transfer a little purchasing power to the poor.

AN EFFECTIVE ECONOMIC STIMULUS With ... the economy weakening, Cash for Clunkers would be a timely stimulus in 2009. ... And the quickest, surest way to get more consumer spending is to put more cash into the hands of people who live hand-to-mouth. ...

People who sell their clunkers would ... be free to spend this money as they see fit, whether on a new car or truck or some other form of transportation — or anything else. ...

Cash for Clunkers is not the pipe dream of some academic scribblers. Local variants are either now in operation or have been tested in California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Texas, Virginia and several Canadian provinces. So there is no need for a “proof of concept.”...

The big need to date has been money, which is why the scope of Cash for Clunkers programs has been limited. And that, of course, is where the need for stimulus comes in. We now want intelligent ways for the federal government to spend money.

Here’s a high-end cost calculation for a national program. Suppose we took two million cars off the road a year, at an average purchase price of $3,500... Including all the administrative costs of running the program, that would probably cost about $8 billion. ... For stimulus purposes, it would, of course, be better to run the program on a larger scale, if possible. There are over 250 million cars and light trucks on American roads, and ... at least 75 million clunkers. At five million cars a year — an ambitious target, to be sure — the program would cost less than $20 billion,... cheap compared with the $168 billion stimulus enacted in February.

And what would all this money buy? First, less pollution. ... Second, the ... direct income transfer to the owners of clunkers, who are mostly low-income people. Third, these folks would almost certainly spend the cash they receive — not just the subsidy, but the entire payment, giving the economy a much-needed boost.

Oh, and I left out a fourth possible goal. By pulling millions of old cars off the road, Cash for Clunkers would stimulate the demand for new cars as people trade up. It need hardly be pointed out that our ailing auto industry, like our ailing economy, could use a shot in the arm right now. Scrapping two million or more clunkers a year should help. ... Cash for Clunkers is an idea whose time may finally have come. Write your congressman.

Comments

[dWj]

I would count myself in favor of the idea, no thanks to the fourth "benefit", which doesn't really seem like an appropriate target for government policy to me. I wonder how quickly it could get up and running, but the biggest concern I have is whether the definition of "clunker" would end up creating an incentive to produce clunkers or cars that are more likely to become clunkers, either by raising the relative demand of shoddier cars vis-a-vis better made ones or by encouraging poor maintenance or hard driving on a car that might be more valuable if it were in a bit worse shape. Still, I bet that concern is small enough a factor that the program would be a net positive.

[don]

Too bad much of the stimulus effect would go to Japan, since they seem to have a strong position in the market for fuel-efficient cars.

[Noni Mausa]

This sounds dandy. The only problem I see is the sudden, mass removal of affordable vehicles from people who may depend on $500 "maybe cars" (maybe I'll be driving home, maybe I'll have to walk) to get to work, school, home etc. I predict many of the working poor will have to sell their junker to cover immediate needs, and then find themselves stranded when the lowest used car price suddenly rises by $2000.

Back in my college days, my husband and I went through a succession of maybe cars before we could afford something which could be counted on to make it home again. Cumulatively I am sure they cost us far more than a single decent used car, but we couldn't have gotten a loan for such a big purchase, whereas we could afford Raymond the Pontiac, or a station wagon called The Red Menace, or my Pinto "Zomby" (because bits kept falling off).

Perhaps just give each car owner a choice of the money or a 4 year old hatchback? American made, of course.

Noni

[Anonymous]

The problem is the potential for manipulation. If the "he government bought some of these vehicles at above-market prices", it would cause used car dealers and junk yards to submit millions of these cars to the program, using intermediaries as necessary.

[Bill Jefferys]

Manipulation.

Cars have titles, and the law could be written so that titles after an effective date will not be part of the program.

[Philip Rothman]

This strikes me as quite naive: exactly what cars will replace the "clunkers" turned in by low-income people?

[elvis]

How about these ideas:

1. Trade-in for "Liberty Cars". In the same way we built "Liberty Ships". A simple open-source plan for a highly efficient car (electric?) which would be manufactured locally.
Perhaps it could be in kit form, mailed to local service stations for assembly.
Also, US-based (unionized) factories would be contracted for manufacture.

2. Instead of cash back for the old car, an unlimited-use ticket for public transportation (good for 5 or so years?)

[ReasonableCitizen]

I think the federal government should not be involved in tinkering with the economy. But they don't listen to me. Like a drunken sailor, the economy and the government lurch along without falling down. Each keeps the other upright. Everybody watches the two of them but no one tells them to sit down and shut up. So off they go caterwauling into the night taking swigs from the bottled public largesse. Soon they will both pass out; if they don't fight each other first.

[cm]

elvis: The small problem with your public transit "solution" is that the 20 min "clunker" trip will be replaced by a 1-2 hours bus/train ride (figuring in that most people will have to switch lines 1-2 times, and walk to/from the stations). Even when it's "free", and the time of "low income" people is presumed to be worth very little, their day still only has 24 hours. For a good number of people it will practically mean being unable to hold on to their (often remote) job.

[outsider]

My first car was a 1964 Karmann Ghia I bought new for $2800. I sold it after one rebuild ( aided by a software engineer friend who helped put the first soft landing on the moon) in 1984 (21 years) for $6,000. Great buy.

As much as I hate
cheney"s current rule with the help of his sock puppet, why enable the process of subsidizing waste? in this case, I support the "market". Cut consumption of fossil fuels to allow you to get takeout from McDonnels.

[mp]

If people took care of their automobiles the same way airplanes are maintained, meaning "as new," we'd all be driving '57 Chevys. And we'd all be better off. All of this talk about "economy" is a canard.

The problem with Americans is that they are "users." Think of all the energy and raw materials that go into the production of econoboxes, which seem to get replaced every three years. They don't maintain a damned thing. If they did, they'd know about true economy, not just gas prices.

One of my favorite vehicles is a 1980 Chevrolet C20 3-speed pickup rated to carry 3,000 pounds. I bought it from a friend in California who was being coerced into selling it to the state for $800. I wouldn't hesitate to drive it from coast-to-coast tonight.

[David]

Terrible idea. This would remove the cheapest cars from the economy, which happen to be the only ones some people can afford to buy.

As for the electric car, the couple grand for an old clunker wouldn't even cover the downpayment on the battery.

[a]

"That would probably cost about $8 billion. ... For stimulus purposes, it would, of course, be better to run the program on a larger scale, if possible. "

Gosh, after the housing bill, there's a desire to spend *more*? That bill will probably cost American taxpayers in the hundreds of billions, if not greater.

And don't you think some money should be kept in the till for supporting the FDIC when it goes broke some time next year? The U.S. is going to need a few hundred billion there, too. Or, when that time comes, is the government just going to tell small depositors, "Sorry, we've run out of money?"

[Robert Waldmann]

It's been done in whole countries including Italy (where I am typing). My only complaint is that they made the cutoff for the cash 10 years and my car was only 9 years old.

As to maintaining cars better -- people will not maintain their catalytic converters. No benefit to the driver, no incentive to maintain.

Someone asked what will replace the clunkers ? How about bicycles ? I mean no one has to sell their clunker. Used car dealers sending in clunkers ? No problem. They won't be able to get them cheap if the Feds are buying. As for junkyards well, as Bill J said, we keep track of cars. I'd say clunkers can only be traded in if insurance paid on it recently (provides an incentive to drivers without liability insurance to get some pronto).

Now, as Noni points out, there is a problem with poor people who need a car and whose current clunker has finally clunked its last clunk. No policy is perfect. A very low price for clunkers (say $500) would remove this problem. It would also get few clunkers off the road. I'd say $ 3,500 seems high and $ 500 seems low and there is a right price somewhere.

[btg]

Here in Canada there is aprogram called "Car Heaven" which tries to get old cars off the road - it is sponsored by government and the private sector.

Part of the program is that if you trade in a 1995 or earlier car (is has to have been licensed and driven for all of the previous 6 months) then GM will give you a credit for $750 towards a new GM car (it used to be $1000).

$3500 is to much - suddenly, every old clunker would go up in value - a windfall affecting the prices off all used cars.

Essentially, any old car is worth maybe $50 to $75 as scrap -but giving $1000 increases the trade-in value and encourages people to trade it in instead of spending money to fix the car and keep it on the road for another year or two.

So, this is an idea that has merit, in my opinion, if done correctly.

[Ryan]

I'll preface the following question with a statement about my own views; I don't believe a government subsidy or intervention is necessary. However, assuming a government act absolutely positively has to happen, how about providing "free" maintenance instead? Most "clunkers" are perfectly efficient vehicles that just need some upgrades or minor maintenance.

Likewise, replacing "clunkers" with new cars may provide a marginal efficiency improvement, but the amount of fixed new pollution needed to make a new car is going to outstrip the marginal gain anyway. A lot of energy is used to make new vehicles.

[cm]

Robert Waldmann: Are you riding a bicycle everywhere? You are quick to recommend bicycling to people. I suppose the kids are riding on the carrier or the handle bar?

[Farrar]

This was used twice in France about 15 years ago mainly for economic stimulus, but I have never seen an evaluation of its effectiveness.

The new program is a tax on gas guzzlers and a small subsidy for fuel efficient cars. The Germans are protesting because their strength is in the top of the line models.

[Invisible Hand]

It would be better public policy to get rid of the gas-guzzling SUVs and F-250 pickups that are a drug on the market.

I have a 96 Cavalier and a 96 Civic and both get over 25 mpg and they pass the emmissions test every 2 years. I would much rather see these clunkers (?) on the road than a 2005 Expedition that gets 12 mpg.

[elvis]

cm,

The small problem with your public transit "solution" is that the 20 min "clunker" trip will be replaced by a 1-2 hours bus/train ride

I hear you loud and clear.

I once took the bus from LA airport to my final destination (in 1990).... very painful.

[Lafayette]

It works

Article: Here’s my humble suggestion: “Cash for Clunkers,” the best stimulus idea you’ve never heard of.

Been there, done that, works fine.

France offered this program at the beginning of this year, one of a series of measures that were introduced by its Grenelle Initiative to reduce CO2 emissions. "Grenelle" (the Parisian street whereupon is located the Ministry of Environment -- yes it’s a Cabinet level position) was a half-year study of the various means available to the French state to address the problem of global warming.

It was very ambitious in its scope. So ambitious that Al Gore was at its inauguration in Paris suggesting that ALL countries embark upon such a bold program. (Hint, hint, BO. Get onto this idea, it’s got legs …)

The cash-payments have proven highly popular, incentivizing owners to retire their inefficient vehicles – to buy efficient vehicles (which have tax rebates based upon engine efficiency in terms of emissions).

[Organic George]

I bought a new car in 2004, but I still have my 1991 Audi 100, in-line 5 cylinder, 5 speed stick. The Audi still runs like a scaled dog.

I would also support repairs for clunkers as a stimulus package it would go directly to local economies. Local repair shops would to the upgrades keeping the cash in the community.

The clunker replacement is only good for auto manufactures, not poor people.

Just more corporate welfare.

[robertdfeinman]

I liked this idea myself so much I proposed on June 18.

Here's my version Quickie: Crush Gas Guzzlers

Can I get part of Blinder's salary?

My version involves the car companies as a way to get their political support.

[Don Thieme]

This is not really an economic policy but an environmental one. The goal is to improve air quality.

I think that the program needs to be compared with alternative expenditures which might accomplish the same objectives. For example, the same money might be more effectively spent on mass transit or on a rebate for upgrading to hybrid vehicles and fuel-efficient cars. We already have a working infrastructure for scrapping automobiles. Most poor people will scrap their clunkers if they have an alternative means of getting back and forth to work. With the price of scrap metal these days, I am not certain they need this incentive.

[ken melvin]

CA has a clunker buy out ($650, I think), but they require the cars be smogged and running, so it sounds to me like they plan to resell the cars or salvage the engines, etc.

[bdbd]

How about the inverse (razor and razor blades) program: OPEC buys Ford and GM (they're cheap), and hands out free SUVs and big pickups all over the country. All you have to do is fill 'er up!

says...

My point above is that, if you really want to lower the carbon footprint, you've got to have a total change in mindset. Oil is only a part of it.

If everyone trades their electric magicmobile every three years for yet another one, I sincerely doubt you are reducing the footprint all that much.

At the end of the day, I just don't see all of this happening. One doesn't easily reconcile "conservation" with "production" and "consumerism."

[save_the_rustbelt]

If I remember correctly 20% of the autos (the old ones) contribute 60% of the emissions (numbers could be off).

Problem is, except for collectors and eccentrics, people who drive older cars do so of economic necessity.

I see no way to design a program that would achieve the objectives without causing another mess somewhere else.

[Lafayette]

OG: The clunker replacement is only good for auto manufactures, not poor people.

Because poor people don't breath the air the rest of us do?

Poor people don't get skin cancer due to sunlight overexposure from a thinned atmosphere, the consequence of CO2 emissions?

Poor people don't see their houses disappear into the sea because water levels are rising due to polar cap meltdown?

Poor people's houses (especially) don't burn when climatic changes foster forest fires?

Wow ...

[Lafayette]

Farrar: The new program is a tax on gas guzzlers and a small subsidy for fuel efficient cars. The Germans are protesting because their strength is in the top of the line models.

Yes, the Germans would do.

Many believe that changes in attitude are absolutely necessary ... as long as it doesn't begin with them but with their neighbors.

[cm]

ken melvin: Some years ago, somebody I know got rid of his junk car (and BTW I picked him up from the fairly remote junkyard he was sent to). At the time, the buyback when passing the smog check was $500, more when you don't pass the smog check (I forgot the actual amount but it was not under $1000) -- so I was told. The guy got a bit miffed as he had not known this in time and had just spent some money getting the car fixed so that it would pass when the latest check was due, probably at least a few hundred.

[piglet]

The idea is not bad but I agree with those who say that the price for the clunkers should be low. More important in my view is to invest serious money in public transport. That would address Noni Mausa's objection. The right way to get rid of highly poluting trash cars on our roads would be with mandatory emmissions tests for cars exceeding a certain age. Alas, this suggestion would be highly unpopular with Americans, who just don't like the idea very much of taking responsibility for the consequences of their own life style.

Btw I am driving a 10 year old Honda Civic with > 150 000 miles and I intend to drive it for many more years.

[piglet]

Poor people don't get skin cancer due to sunlight overexposure from a thinned atmosphere, the consequence of CO2 emissions?

You are mixing that up with CFC, which damage the ozone layer. And high CO2 emissions is probably not specifically a problem of old cars.

We could settle on "poor people suffer from smog caused by vehicle pollution" etc.

[Dave]

I think the motivations for this proposal are good, but I question the overall environmental benefit. I currently drive a 19-year old car (a clunker as defined above), which gets better mileage than most new vehicles on the road and just passed the state emissions test with flying colors. So, under this "green" program, the government would pay me to turn in this perfectly good car before its time, only to purchase a new vehicle, which entails all kinds of environmental costs from its manufacture (mining, energy, transport, etc.)

I'd surmise that for average Americans, next to a home, the purchase of a vehicle is the one that contributes the most environmental costs. It seems to me, that generally we are kinder to the environment if we make things last longer, rather than continually replacing them. Any government policy that counteracts this should not be sold as "eco-friendly".

[btg]

I thin that the objectives of the program need to be clear when it is designed and implemented...

New cars are something like 90% cleaner than one from 15 years ago see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_emission_standard

- but this is mostly in terms of emissions other than CO2 - which is not covered. Cars are cleaner in terms of reducing smog and improving air quality...

When it comes to CO2, it is a case of "carbon in - carbon out" - the more fuel a vehicle burns, the more CO2 that comes out the back end.

So, if the idea is to address global warming, then a prgram should give credit for junking gaz guzzlers, and/or credits for buying fuel efficient vehicles. Trading in a 1990 Honda Civic for a new pickup truck is actually counter-productive in terms of global warming.

The Ontario government instituted a program about 15 years ago that based an extra sales tax on fuel consumption - $0 on the most efficient cars, $75 on most small and medium size cars, and up to $7000 on gas guzzlers - see http://www.greenontario.org/strategy/autos.html

The federal Conservative government bought in a program, which it is now phasing out, that gave credits for the most efficent cars - up to $2000 - see http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/ecotransport/2008ecoautoeligibility.htm

And articles in the newspapers show that the Honda Civic is going to be the top selling car in Canada this year, replacing the Ford F series.

[BJ Feng]

This is a really bad idea. Basically the government is creating a floor for used cars. Any car below that price will be turned into a "clunker" even if it is clean enough right now not to qualify. And that means a whole lot of cars would become unaffordable for the poor, no one would accept a price below that of the government's. Those looking to buy so that they can drive to work will be out of a car and out of a job. This is a horrible idea that hasn't been thought out properly, again, unintended consequences transform good sounding ideas into disastrous policies.

The poor don't drive clunkers because they want to, they drive them because they have to, and for quite a few, the benefits from having a car would be more than the government can realistically offer anyway. What is the price of losing your means of transportation to work? Or adding 2 hours more time transferring between buses and lines?

I'm investigating the used metals recycling business now and people can already get a good price for their used cars that don't work. Tremendous demand from China has raised the price of any non-working cars, the most valuable are the ones that are made of metal instead of plastic. Those fetch up to $1000! People might not realize that their used non-operable cars are worth a lot more now than they used to, and the price is actually appreciating as commodities prices also increase. The only thing capping the price is the Chinese government, which requires all exporters to have an AQSIQ certificate. This is a hard certificate to get as you have to prove you have a large business with good amount of equity, and have a very clean workplace. In addition a Chinese government representative has to come to your yard and watch you load up any exported scrap metal to make sure you are following rules. To me it's a bunch of bull used to restrict trade, I've heard that most of these representatives won't show up, they'll just sign off if they receive a "gift". US regulations prohibit the export of waste chemicals anyway, so car radiators and engines are already cleaned up before export.

[benamery21]

The main problem I see here is that the cost to the government (100% of purchase price) is significantly higher than the stimulus value (something less than the amount over market, since reduced by loss of the asset and transaction costs), and the targeting of the stimulus is less direct than implied (given the market effect of the program on the price of alternatives to clunkers).

For a true eco-stimulus I suggest expansion of the weatherization program (among low-income) and tax credits for economic energy efficiency expenditures (for the middle class).

If this is really a clean air initiative then that's something else... but we are blurring the stimulus analysis significantly.
A price floor for a 15+ year old car, set above market value, would raise market value for 12 and 13 year old cars, but presumably would do so less than the premium for the 15 year old car. Since both autos are assets and buying or selling them represents not a expenditure but an asset trade, on average the parties selling the 15 year old car and purchasing the 12 year old car would receive a net stimulus, as would the sellers up the value chain (in a smaller amount). However, given the wide variance in purchasing acumen among car-owners, as well as the transaction costs, some significant fraction of participants would be in worse shape after the deals. This fraction would be smaller for increased values of premium over market value.

[Lafayette]

Facing facts

piglet: The right way to get rid of highly poluting trash cars on our roads would be with mandatory emmissions tests for cars exceeding a certain age. Alas, this suggestion would be highly unpopular with Americans, who just don't like the idea very much of taking responsibility for the consequences of their own life style.

America is beyond the pale as regards energy efficiency. ANY solution is bound to raise hackles of some vociferous Special Interest Group.

What does one do when a child has bad habits? Listen to the child in their defense of bad habits ... in order to "understand them". That only worsens the situation.

Political leadership is having the courage to address, discuss, and solve complex problems consensually. Not avoid them because they are unpopular or applying palliative Quick Fixes, which is like taking aspirin for cancer.

We're a spoiled nation, as far as energy usage is concerned. That is nothing new; the figures have showed it for decades.

Let's face that sad fact.

[Lafayette]

Old geezers

Ben: The main problem I see here is that the cost to the government (100% of purchase price) is significantly higher than the stimulus value (something less than the amount over market, since reduced by loss of the asset and transaction costs), and the targeting of the stimulus is less direct than implied (given the market effect of the program on the price of alternatives to clunkers).

You’re employing only the obvious costs. Articulate the argument with Total Costs imputed and see what happens.

Total Costs include the cost of doing nothing as regards Global Warming. Consider this (from here):

The 1995 Chicago heat wave led to approximately 600 heat-related deaths over a period of five days.[1] Eric Klinenberg, author of the 2002 book Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago, has noted that in the United States, the loss of human life in hot spells in summer exceeds that caused by all other weather events combined, including lightning, rain, floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes.

The European heat wave of 2003 cost 14,800 lives.

So, impute the nominal cost of these lives lost and do tell us what measures to reduce Global Warming are “not sufficient stimuli”.

PS: It ain't that expensive. Most people who die in heat waves are old geezers. (No great loss, right? ;^)

[BJ Feng]

Most of the deaths during the European heat wave was caused by neglect. Europeans were too busy vacationing to be bothered with saving their parents, after all, that's the job of the State.

And reversing global warming to 1980's levels will not prevent tornadoes, hurricanes, and heat waves from occurring. People will continue to die of old age and weather related events, they'll just stop blaming it on global warming. I don't think that's much of a benefit.

[btg]

"Total Costs include the cost of doing nothing as regards Global Warming."

As I noted, CO2 is not covered by emissions tests.

"The right way to get rid of highly poluting trash cars on our roads would be with mandatory emmissions tests for cars exceeding a certain age. Alas, this suggestion would be highly unpopular with Americans, who just don't like the idea very much of taking responsibility for the consequences of their own life style."

Again, Ontario put in place a "Drive Clean" program - when you renew your car license every second year (for cars older than 5 years) it must be tested for emissions - the limits are based on the rules when the car was made, cars over 20 years are exempted. It has got some clunkers of the road, but it is a very expensive for the benefits obtained.

[piglet]

Lafayette and some others, you are still mixing up two different issues. The issue addressed in this article is smog-causing pollution, which is said to be disproportionately caused by older vehicles. Therefore, taking odler vehicles from the road seems to make sense although I would prefer to simply outlaw vehicles that don't meet minimum emissions requirements rather than targeting vehicles just because they are old. In my state, vehicles are never inspected and there are no emissions requirements that I am aware of. I understand this is different in CA. I don't quite get why this doesn't solve the problem then, at least in CA.

The other issue is energy efficiency and (directly connected) CO2 emissions. This issue is not addressed in this article. In fact, many new cars are less energy efficient than older ones. Let's keep separate issues separate. Well, too late anyway.

[Tom L]

Yes, let's get on with it. This is a better idea than most floating around DC these days.

BTW, in my great state of Georgia, very old cars are exempt from emissions testing. I am sure this is a common feature of testing programs.

[Lafayette]

Administrated by dolts

BJF: Most of the deaths during the European heat wave was caused by neglect. Europeans were too busy vacationing to be bothered with saving their parents, after all, that's the job of the State.

Most of the deaths were caused by a heat wave. Neglect was a consequence of the extreme heat, which scientists say is a consequence of CO2 emissions.

No one is shirking the blame as regards how they handled the situation. France has instituted a new system of surveillance in months of heat wave occurrence. They learned and reacted.

But humans seem to want, anyway, to continue a lifestyle totally ambivalent of its effects upon Nature. So, heat waves will continue to have their deathly consequences. Neglect or no neglect.

People will continue to die of old age and weather related events, they'll just stop blaming it on global warming. I don't think that's much of a benefit.

The problem is that you don't think at all.

Of course they will continue to die. That is obvious. We can learn to mitigate that circumstance, however. And it isn't the profit-based Market Solution that will provide the means. It is Public Services that will be asked to put its finger in the dike.

And, like Katrina, we will understand the Total Inadequacy of such services in some parts of our country. And certainly in a Federal Government administrated by dolts.

[cm]

Lafayette, BJ Feng:

Of course, the mainstream socioeconomic paradigm cannot be questioned.

In need of a culprit, try the following as indicated by the situation (not necessarily in this order):

* "liberals"
* "big" government
* "socialist" policies/regulation
* excessive taxation
* individual irresponsibility
* next of kin
* "boomers"
* (extend as needed)

[BJ Feng]

CM, what is the alternative paradigm? Yes, Katrina showed the ineptness of government. People like Lafayette believe that government can almost always do better. I believe that government almost always cannot do better. And certainly not for less cost. There lies the difference.

[Lafayette]

BJF: People like Lafayette believe that government can almost always do better.

Good government can. We have Katrina-like storms that inundate coastal cities or mud-slides that bury entire villages in the mountain. People die, but nobody is asked to go live in a hotel for three years -- without the slightest prospect of returning to their property.

Katrina was not only a natural disaster, but a rip-off. Or, as some in New Orleans have said, "Accelerated Urban Renewal".

You know what you can do with your faith in the Market Solution, do you?