The basic premise is simple: give people money to scrap their old, crappy, barely held together rides for something newer. Obviously selling more new cars is good for carmakers and car dealers. Heck, selling any car, even a decent used car, is good for car dealers. And certainly the consumer wins out, getting a “new” car on the government dime – all in the name of economic stimulus.

This matter has come up a few times before, with past bills focusing on environmental issues vs. economic. The thought then was to curb exhaust emissions by taking the worst offenders of the streets. Still, not that bad of an idea.

So various groups are lobbying away on the latest Cash for Clunkers proposal.

SEMA is vehemently against, but you gotta do a bit of reading before you get to their real point. SEMA worries that Cash for Clunker dollars won’t actually go toward replacing crappy cars, and that the environment won’t really benefit by eliminating smoke belchers, and that those with low incomes may not even be able to afford buying a new car even with a government subsidy. I get that last part, but the other points, to me, really aren’t relevant.

Finally, paragraphs into its outline of objections, SEMA gets to the point: “Auto restoration, customization and repair shops nationwide would suffer with the loss of older cars, trucks and parts that they need to supply and service their customers. An unchecked Cash for Clunkers program risks destroying classic, historic and special-interest vehicles. America safeguards its artistic and architectural heritage against indiscriminate destruction. Our automotive and industrial heritage deserves the same protection.”

Now, I’m trying to envision just how a rusted out K-car is part of our “artistic and architectural heritage.” Or just how many truly valuable cars would be lost to crushers. But that’s SEMA’s take.

Over at ASA, they have a different view – and it is pretty neutral. Keep in mind, ASA represents a lot of bodyshops and independent repair shops – the same folks who might benefit by taking a shot at restoring said K-car. Likely with a shotgun or light artillery.

ASA thinks C4C is basically an OK plan. The only thing ASA offered – and I think it is a wise position – is that Congress add a provision giving consumers a repair options. And give them the dollars to make the repairs. If the consumer is that married to their car and it can be fixed for a reasonable amount, I think that’s a fine plan. If the car cannot pass muster, though, scrap it out and get another one.

You’ll be hearing amore and more about this subject, I am sure.

If you have comments to share, send to me at [email protected].

– Jim Smith