I'm about as non-political as you can get. However, while many don't like to mix cars and politics, these days, it's kind of hard not to, especially when the latter is starting to have a huge impact on the former.
Back in the February issue, I offered up a little editorial that was intended to gauge some reader "statistics". For the most part, many of the points made regarding the Cash for Clunkers program were true-or at least roughly based on truths at the time-while others were, well, a bit exaggerated. Why? The intent was to see where readers stood, as well as to find out just how much they knew about it to begin with. I'd expected there'd be quite a few responses; all told to date (early December), those expectations have been far exceeded. Good, bad, or indifferent, they all mean just one thing to me: You guys are paying attention!
Among all the feedback received, there was a distinct opposition between "pro" and "con" viewpoints. Interestingly, of the cons, few argued the program and pointed out key facts (or opinions based on reasonable interpretation). One of those went so far as to elaborate on quite a few points-like what it's ultimately going to cost taxpayers per vehicle for the scrapped participants, or what little impact the program will have on the environment, fuel consumption (what does the machinery used to crush all the clunkers run on?). I found that very intriguing, but more importantly am curious to see if any or all is true, and if so, how long before we actually starting seeing the effects ... or ill-effects. The majority of those against Cash for Clunkers were simply just against it; the ones who were/are for it wasted no time pointing out the editorial's so-called shortcomings. Speaking of which, when I said the government "owned" all the vehicles turned in, I wasn't implying that literally (when one gives another monetary compensation for something, they in turn are rightfully the owners of said something, regardless of what they ultimately do with it, right?).
For what it's worth, that editorial was "not" based solely on editor's opinion. If it were, as many of you did not hesitate to point out, I would have taken the time to adequately research the entire program-from conception by Jack Hidary to the final vehicle tally when all was supposedly said and done. Besides, I'm about as non-political as you can get. However, while many don't like to mix cars and politics, these days, it's kind of hard not to, especially when the latter is starting to have a huge impact on the former. That said, you can bet that, on occasion, I'll mix the two up a little, if for nothing more than educating readers on things that can (and often will) impact our hobby.
Oh, one last thing. The images of the '58 Impala and '39 Master (at least I think it was a Master) were, for the most part, shown for shock value. Hopefully, the fate of those two-along with at least a dozen other '40s-60s classic vehicles-isn't spelled "S-C-R-A-P"! I was fortunate enough to encounter those in Southern California not too long ago in a yard the city had taken over and was cleaning out; but not fortunate enough to submit a sufficient bid in which to acquire them all.