I actually have really strong opinions about this. I think anybody should be able to buy/drive any vehicle they want, but within some reasonability, just as I think people should be able to do what they want...but not have anarchy. I don't care what people do in their private lives, as long as they are not killing people, stealing things, etc. So by the same token, I think people should be able to drive what they want, as long as it has some non-anarchal effect on other people.
Here's where it gets sticky for some people. Most of us are young enough to not really remember life before the Clean Air Act. I have seen pictures of NYC in the 50's with air thick enough to cut with a knife. I can remember how much worse the LA air was 30 years ago, I can't imagine what it was like in the 50's or 60's. Today a lot is said about the national security implications of dependence on foreign oil.
So, these issues seemed to be for the common good in the 70's. The government created regulations to reduce the emissions of vehicles dramatically, get lead out of the fuel, and improve fuel economy. There were a lot of hard years, with a lot of crappy cars. Cars got smaller, etc. The fuel economy regulations plateaued in 1985. By then, or a few years after, I think cars were pretty good. They were mostly front wheel drive and much lighter and more space and fuel-efficient (albeit smaller) than the cars at the time of the '73 Arab Oil Embargo. Although emissions regs continued to be tightened after 1985, fuel economy regs remained flat until just recently.
There was a huge loophole, however, in that vehicles above 6000 lbs. GVW were exempt from the fuel economy, emissions, and safety regs that were enacted in the 60's and 70's. Why? Because those vehicles were considered work trucks that were so small in number as to be insignificant. However, when fuel prices didn't rise in the 80's and 90's as expected, passenger vehicles began to grow bigger, as well as the cash cow the Big 3 had in taking those 60's design trucks, putting leather seats and stereos in them, and selling them as "luxury SUV's". Ultimately 50% of new vehicles were classified as "trucks" and were exempt.
There were really no end to complaints about the cars in the transition period, though, and a lot of tampering with emissions and fuel economy equipment for real or perceived gains. Ultimately the regs caught up with the trucks a few years ago, and now they have to meet the same requirements as "cars". Can anyone today really say that cars are crappy with all that government-mandated fuel economy, safety, and emission gear? Cars are so fast today, so clean, and really get reasonable mileage for the performance and equipment they have. My point is that all the bellyaching 30 years ago about how our lives were over because cars were doomed was just that--a bunch of doom and gloom. I can tell you that 30 years ago we would have given our left nut to have cars like today's...but if you had asked us 30 years ago we would have told you that we'd be driving motorized skateboards by now after the impact of all the gov't regs.
So I really wish the government had done the right thing in 1985, which would have been to incrementally notch up the CAFE limits, as well as making the "trucks" comply with the passenger car regs. With another 20 years of development, we wouldn't be grousing about what we're going to lose in terms of choices due to fuel economy regs, and perhaps the Big 3 would have made better marketing choices and have been stronger at this time.
Shortly after 9/11, I saw George Schultz (Reagan's Sec'y of State) being interviewed. When asked what was the most important thing we could do in the "war on terror" his response was to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, because we send billions of dollars to people who don't like us very much and who in many cases have agendas which are effectively anti-American (he was referring to the Saudi funding of madrassas around the world, who preach an anti-Western fundamentalist Muslim philosophy).
In the absence of the government (and in effect, we collectively as a people) doing the right thing in 1985, I don't think the cash-for-clunkers is a bad thing. As Patrick noted, it's going to help some people get a new vehicle and save some fuel costs, get some people off of unemployment, etc. I think it would have been nicer if, as has been noted, it required a bit more of a step up in fuel economy; that would more target the guzzlers, etc.
I can think of worse ways to waste tax money.
