David Tufaro, Baltimore developer, civic activist and sometimes Republican candidate, says I'm selfish for taking the Cash For Clunkers deal, as explained in today's column. He has all sorts of problems with the program and I guess he thinks I should have seen them, too, and just said no to $4,500 for my clunker. He also finds the program flawed because his daughter couldn't take advantage of it. You can read Tufaro's comments below. I'll just add this: Any developer who's been successful must have, at some point, received some kind of tax break from governmment. I doubt Mr. Tufaro just said no to governmemt-backed incentives or benefits on his various projects -- Montgomery Park, for instance, where his biggest tenant is still a government agency. (Montgomery Park is also located in an Enterprise Zone, an Empowerment Zone, and a Revitalization Area of Baltimore City -- read that, tax break!)

Anyway, here's Tufaro's letter:

First, any program or policy when driven by selected goals is likely to have important adverse affects.  This program is no exception.  It is driven by the twin goals of supposedly helping the environment and pushing new car sales.

Second, the $4,500 taxpyer subsidy is only available for a new car.   You obviously could afford a new car.  But isn't that really selfish?  Many other people would like to get the subsidy too, but cannot afford a new car.  My youngest daughter just graduated from college.  She just started working for CASH in Baltimore, through the Americorps program.   We went shopping with her last week for a used car, and on Saturday she bought, with our assistance, a 2000 Honda Civic with 129,000 miles for $6,000.  Her transaction did not qualify for the subisdy because she was buying a used car.  The people who are being helped by the subisdy are by and large those with higher than average incomes.  The rest are left out.

Third, what about the person who needs to replace their 20 year old refrigerator, or washing machine?   They cannot avail themselves of the taxpayer subsidy.

Fourth, the Maryland emissions testing program is another program that allegedly in the name of the holy grail of the environment at all costs, directly adversely affects the lowest income segments of our state.  If your 10 year old clunker fails the emissions test, and lots of poor people and elderly have such cars, and your car is worth $500 or $1000 dollars, you may have to pay $300 to $500 to get it fixed to try to pass the test.  If it doesn' pass the test after that expense, you get a waiver.  So the environment is no better off, and the poor sucker has had to lay out $500.  That is called a "lose/lose" proposition, not a "win/win".  I would also love to see an accurate cost/benefit study of the reduction in emissions resulting from the emissions tests and the costs of the program including what the car owner pays in testing fees, time and gas mileage.  Don't we have a right to know that?

Fifth, it is positively crazy to reduce the clunkers to junk.  I have donated around 4 old cars to charities - the Boy Scouts and The Salvation Army.  

Sixth,  I do not necessarily agree with your conclusion that the program has been successful.  I have read that that is not the case.  Some have said that new car sales had already started to increase.

Thoughts from a thoughtful and responsible conservative.

David F. Tufaro
Terra Nova Ventures, LLC
1817 Thames Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21231
(410) 327-3200
(410) 327-3262 fax
www.terranovaventures.com