soundstripe.net

Alan Blinder (a professor of economics) wrote on Sunday about an idea some state and local governments are trying out--Cash for Clunkers. These programs' primary goal is to increase air quality by taking older, more polluting cars off the road. The programs function by providing incentives--either cash or some other incentive with monetary value--in exchange for these older cars. The incentive is worth more than the market value of the car (otherwise the owner would just sell the car).

Increased air quality is an excellent goal. In practicing good stewardship we should certainly use our resources to take care of this world God gave us. Should we, however, destroy the free market economy that we have worked so hard to create?

Blinder suggests that the US should start offering this program nationwide, at the federal level. A stated goal is "MORE EQUAL INCOME DISTRIBUTION." Yes, that's right. By allowing low-income families to sell their cars at above-market value, "it would transfer a little purchasing power to the poor." How could this be a goal of the US government? Is the government responsible for providing income to its citizens? And if so, why not all citizens equally, instead of specifically targeting one subgroup?

He continues laughably that another goal is "economic stimulus." Blinder's reasoning is that by giving lower-income families (he says "those who live hand-to-mouth") this extra money, they will be able to spend more and stimulate the economy. If your goal is economic stimulus, you cannot accomplish it by simply redistributing tax revenue. Taxes come straight out of the income of people who would already otherwise spend it (or invest it, or donate it, etc). By redistributing tax revenue to low-income families, you are destroying the spending power of the people that do actually have money--those who could otherwise be employing those same low-income families, donating to charities, etc.

I must have missed the part in the Constitution where it says that the US Government is responsible to provide livelihoods to all Americans. I hope that the title of Blinder's article, "A Modest Proposal," means that he was writing with the same sarcasm and irony as Jonathan Swift. If it does not, would that make it that much more ironic?