Measuring Success

Wouldn’t a successful domestic program not require more money? In the realm of defense, a successful program would increase security, advance the national interest, and reduce the threat U.S. forces face — in which case one would want to steer additional funding to a successful program at the expense of programs that do less to achieve those goals. But domestic spending is a little different. There are programs that serve as an investment in productivity — programs in which every dollar spent creates greater downstream revenues for the federal government. A successful infrastructure program might increase the tax base in a certain area, for example. But a government giveaway? Cash for clunkers is more like food stamps (or supplementary defense spending) than infrastructure spending. It’s a giveaway like stimulus checks. You spend more money only because you have to, because things are getting worse. You spend less money when things approve, and no money at all once you’ve achieved your objective.

Would Democrats call the war on drugs a success because the government considers appropriating more money for it to continue? Would they call the war in Iraq a success because we keep spending billions of dollars there every month? If GM were to become solvent — or even become less insolvent — because of cash for clunkers, the left might be able to make a case that the program is a success and not a boondoggle, but I haven’t seen anyone actually make that argument. As best I can tell, the biggest beneficiary of cash for clunkers has been Ford. It’s a corporate subsidy, which like all corporate subsidies, has limitless demand — and could suck up limitless Congressional spending.

And by the way: the Washington Post reports today:

Four of the five top-selling cars in the government’s “Cash for Clunkers” program are made by foreign automakers, according to new data released Tuesday by federal transportation officials.