The Great SUV Baillout?
Is cash for gas-guzzlers good policy - or just a PR gimmick?
There seems to be no limit to the amount of money the federal government is willing to spend to prop up our broken financial system. But when it comes to putting money in the pockets of average Americans, or support policies that will foster energy independence, Washington cries broke.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Congress is throwing weight behind a so-called "cash for clunkers" program, whereby owners of SUVs and trucks can receive a kickback for scrapping their gas-guzzlers in favor of more energy-efficient vehicles. The catch: The handout is likely to be capped at far less than the clunkers' trade-in value.
To be sure, the program is a step in the right direction. The fewer Escalades (GM) and old Suburbans clogging up our freeways and spitting out carbon dioxide, the better. Not to mention, cars aren't exactly flying off the lot at American dealships - a few new purchases wouldn't hurt the forturnes of GM, Chrysler and Ford (F).
But the initiative would be a lot more effective if it made economic sense. In an environment where making the mortgage payment, putting food on the table, and paying the bills on time are the top financial priorities, eating a few grand to save the trees is barely on the radar.
Sure, a policy that paid full trade-in value for pollution-spewing trucks wouldn't be cheap - but neither is dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into insolvent banks. And it might actually do some good. I mean, insuring more than $300 billion of Citigroup's (C) bloated balance sheet is nice - but my credit line still got cut.
There's clear lesson here: If you want to get on the government dole in a meaningful way, make sure to come as close as possible to bankrupting the entire country. Anything less just won't cut it.
Take GM, whose former CEO Rick Wagoner was fired by the Obama Administration for poor strategic decisions and a turnaround plan that wasn't up to snuff. Meanwhile, Bank of America (BAC) CEO Ken Lewis ran his firm into the ground so thoroughly that he would have taken the entire financial system down with him - had Washington not stepped in with over $200 billion in bailout money and federal guarantees.
The government doesn't seem to have a problem overpaying for toxic financial assets -- in fact, it's encouraging pension funds to do just that -- but when it comes to handing over taxpayer money to, well, taxpayers... The well suddenly runs dry.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.
Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

VIDEO



















