‘Clunkers’ Pile Up on Auto Dealer’s ‘Death Row’ - by Elizabeth Shogren (NPR, August 5, 2009)

The Shaky Economics of ‘Cash for Clunkers’ - by David Kestenbaum (NPR, August 6, 2009)

Critics Say ‘Clunkers’ Program Isn’t Very Green - by Christopher Joyce (NPR, August 3, 2009)

Clemency for Clunkers - by Ron Marlette, Executive Director, Mission Solano (Christian Newswire, August 12, 2009)

“The art of economics is looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy: it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”

—Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson (San Francisco: Laissez Faire Books, 1996 [1946]), p. 5

Several months ago, when I first heard of cash for clunkers, I anticipated most of the problems discussed in the items above (excluding the harm to non-profits who lose out on auto donations). Sure enough, those problems and plenty more arose because Congress failed to anticipate unintended consequences.

But even more important is the questionable ethics of the law. What persuades us that it’s right for government to take money from some people and give it to others to replace their cars? If that’s okay, how about so they can buy more comfortable clothes? or take a vacation? or buy a bigger, newer house? Does the government exist to take from some and give to others?

The Eighth Commandment doesn’t say, “You shall not steal, unless you are the government”—and that’s just what happens when the government forcibly (by taxes) takes your money and gives it to me to subsidize my purchase of a new car. Cash for clunkers is an exercise in wealth redistribution, plain and simple. It benefits the few who replace their cars and the few who make the replacements. It harms the many who are forced to subsidize those few.