Via Jonathan Hiskes at Grist, I see that the Associated Press has done some good investigative work on the swaps that occurred as part of the Cash for Clunkers program.  The best news is that the change in average fuel economy was about 9 mpg (from 15.8 to 24.9 mpg, based on the figures in the article).  But the details of the swaps are what will capture people's attention:

The most common deals under the government's $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program, aimed at putting more fuel-efficient cars on the road, replaced old Ford or Chevrolet pickups with new ones that got only marginally better gas mileage, according to an analysis of new federal data by The Associated Press.

The single most common swap — which occurred more than 8,200 times — involved Ford F-150 pickup owners who took advantage of a government rebate to trade their old trucks for new Ford F-150s.

By my reading, Stan did not disagree with anything I posted about Cash for Clunkers.  None of the three criticisms of the C4C program that he addressed were leveled by me.  My criticism is that it is a waste of assets, and that a waste of assets necessarily makes us poorer.  But it is worth revisiting the each of these popular criticisms in turn, to figure out which of them have merit:

1) C4C isn’t going to increase total sales of new cars; it’s just going to accelerate buying that would have occurred anyway.

I was inspired by Andrew's post on Cash for Clunkers. I'm not sure I disagree with him completely, it's just that some of what he and others are saying don't quite ring true.

Imagine how all those self-professed, anti-new entitlement fiscal conservatives in Washington and around the country are going to feel when they realize that, with their full support, enthusiasm, and (in some cases) votes, Cash for Clunkers is the equivalent of a new entitlement program.

Here's what I said about this in my Roll Call column today.