Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In

The House is poised this week to take up the so-called "cash for clunkers" bill, which aims to boost the slumping U.S. auto market by giving out tax credits of $3,500 and up to anyone who trades in a gas-guzzling car for a more efficient model.

fein.jpgSen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is backing a stronger version of "cash for clunkers". (Photo: Out in Hollywood)

The plan was originally touted as environmentally friendly, given that it would theoretically encourage the use of more fuel-efficient vehicles, but it has long since morphed into a thinly disguised gift to the auto industry. The "cash for clunkers" deal that the House will vote on, sponsored by Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH), offers money to truck drivers who improve their ride's fuel economy by as little as 1 mile per gallon.

The likely passage of Sutton's bill this week could be bad news for a stronger "cash for clunkers" plan that's being promoted by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who displayed welcome candor last month in calling the Sutton plan "the auto industry's version" of "cash for clunkers" and "unacceptable" to American drivers.

Feinstein's proposal would require drivers to achieve a 25 percent fuel-efficiency increase before receiving a tax credit for ditching their clunkers. But Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) is pushing for a trade-in tax credit that's very similar to Sutton's -- truck owners would only have to increase their fuel efficiency by 2 miles per gallon to be eligible.

The requirements for car trade-ins aren't much better under the Stabenow and Sutton plans, with a mere 4 mpg increase in fuel economy triggering the $3,500 tax credit.

If Sutton's plan wins House approval this week, Stabenow's Senate counterpart could potentially get a leg up over Feinstein's.

Meanwhile, the larger question of whether the whole idea of "cash for clunkers" makes sense is getting much less attention than it should. The Obama administration continues to support Sutton's effort, despite the fact that it would give drivers new incentive to buy trucks getting as little as 20 mpg and cars getting 22 mpg. Doesn't this risk undercutting the president's plan to force trucks to reach an average of 30 mpg and cars to reach 39 mpg by 2016?

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

Wednesday’s Headlines Say Smaller is Better

Driving is not ideal, but if you need a car or truck, it would be nice to have a reasonably sized and affordable option.

April 30, 2025

Breaking: House Moves to Rescind $3.1B for Reconnecting Communities Divided by Highways

The House Transportation Committee wants to slash funding for one of America's most critical equity-focused grant programs — unless advocates speak out and get them to reverse course.

April 29, 2025

Op-Ed: What Amtrak Privatization Advocates Miss

Americans overwhelmingly want modern passenger trains operating on a system that connects cities efficiently, reliably, and faster than a car. This writer argues that privatizing Amtrak won't get us there.

April 29, 2025

This Parking Bill Could Help Solve the Housing Crisis

Washington state just passed a package of reforms that could juice housing production and get landlords to give non-drivers a break on their rent. But will other states go even further?

April 29, 2025

Tuesday’s Headlines Stand Up for Transit

Transit needs investment, not defunding, Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib writes in The Hill.

April 29, 2025
See all posts