Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, noted that the government had raised the minimum fuel economy for sport utility vehicles and pickups, so that simply junking an older one and buying the 2009 model year could qualify as trading in a clunker. For example, this was true for a Toyota 4Runner (16 miles per gallon in 2002 and 18 miles per gallon in 2009) and a Chevy Silverado (14 miles per gallon in 2005 and 16 miles per gallon in 2009). But supporters of the program said those trades were unlikely because the market value of the old vehicles exceeded what the government offered for scraping them.

She certainly might be mistaken or the New York Times may not have done the proper research to negate the bad math, but if that's true, then my lack of research is equally to fault.

I don't personally mind that foreign automakers are getting a benefit from this program, and I'm well aware of the US factories and dealers involved benefit, but it is a short-term benefit and one that, as Alan Greenspan pointed out here (unfortunately on Fox News), is more indicative of an already rebounding economy where people think spending is ok rather than a program that actually stimulates the economy. And while I appreciate that the intention and effect is good to an extent, I also believe that it's supportive of a culture that's already spiraled out of control (see above points on urban planning and urban renewal).

Quite some time ago, the electric power company in Southern California ran a similar incentive program as a way of getting polluting cars off the road — which was cheaper than placing emissions controls on their power plants. It seems illogical, but in reality it makes perfect sense.

I don't know where the 16mpg to 18mgp Toyota 4Runner example in your text comes from. As I understand the program, there must be at least a 4mpg increase in average fuel economy between the “clunker” and the new car.
That gets you $3500. And a 10 mpg increase gets you $4500. Starting from a 16 mpg “clunker”, that's a 25% to
62.5% increase in fuel efficiency. IMHO, that seems seriously significant.

There is a problem with the program in that it does not allow one to purchase a used car. For many people, even with the incentive, a new car is financially out of reach. Hence the program helps the affluent to drive newer, more fuel efficient cars, while leaving the less affluent forced to spend more on fuel and to generate more carbon dioxide and pollutants.

The bottom line is that this program is not perfect but that it does do a lot of good. Perfection is something to which we all aspire — but should never be used as an excuse for not doing good.