That’s precisely what happened.

Roughly 13 weeks after Congress infused $2 billion more into the Clunkers program — and about 10 weeks after the program ended — the Department of Transportation finally unveiled the final figures surrounding the program, posting the details of all 677,000 transactions on its Website. The Associated Press undertook the unenviable task of crunching the data, to discover that the single most popular swap was that of an old Ford F-150 pickup for a new Ford F-150 pickup.

Owners of that pickup were 17 times more likely to buy a new F-150 than, say, a Toyota Prius. The new pickups’ EPA combined city/highway mileage ratings ranged from 15 mpg to 17 mpg, depending on the powertrain and other factors, up 1 mpg to 3 mpg over the old ones.

That’s not to say there wasn’t some environmental benefit to the program. Indeed, the average trade-in vehicle got 15.8 miles per gallon, while drive-away vehicles averaged 24.9 mpg. Still, how much better could those numbers have been if Congress had summoned the guts to pass a slightly different Clunkers bill — one that bumped up the mileage requirements to prevent drivers from trading clunkers for clunkers? As Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), the sponsors of the alternative bill, wrote in The Wall Street Journal in June, the original program was “expertly designed to provide Detroit one last windfall in selling off gas guzzlers currently sitting on dealer lots because they’re not a smart buy.”

Of course, in the end, both Feinstein and Collins voted for the $2 billion extension of that very windfall.

The vote — 60 to 37 — came less than a week after the House approved the same proposal. Senate passage of an identical bill means that drivers can continue receiving between $3,500 and $4,500 to trash their gas guzzlers in favor of vehicles that get better mileage.

Seven amendments to the House proposal were offered on the Senate floor Thursday afternoon, with Democratic leaders, behind Michigan’s influential delegation, successfully urging lawmakers to oppose each proposal, one by one. If any of the amendments had passed, then the entire bill would have required re-approval by House lawmakers, who left Washington last week for August recess. The delay would have left car dealers uncertain when (or if) the funding would arrive, likely stalling the cash for clunkers program altogether.

The impetus for Senate lawmakers to pass the House bill was clear: Though the environmental benefits of the program are slight, the initiative has been a boon to auto dealers and consumers alike. Few lawmakers wanted to return home for the August break to face an angry constituency.

Looking ahead, there are still questions about what would happen if the $2 billion runs out while Congress is on recess. And there remain concerns about how and when that money — which was siphoned from a loan program encouraging the development of green technologies — might be replaced.

But for now, most lawmakers are just breathing sighs of relief that the bill is passed, and vacation has arrived.

President Obama has promised to sign the bill into law as soon as it hits his desk.

Of the $1 billion allocated under the program, $775 million is out the door, catalyzing 184,304 transactions, the department reports.

Six of the top-selling vehicles are foreign, with the Toyota Corolla surpassing the Ford Focus at the top of the list new purchases. The others (in order of popularity) are:  Honda Civic, Toyota Prius, Toyota Camry, Hyundai Elantra, Ford Escape FWD, Dodge Caliber, Honda Fit and Chevrolet Cobalt.

The Transportation Department claims that the average fuel efficiency for the new purchases is 25.3 mpg, while the average mileage for the trade-ins is 15.8 mpg. But the administration is still refusing to release more detailed data surrounding individual transactions.

“I don’t think there’s any reason to go out and change the rules,” he said.

Right. Why change a program that provides $4,500 in taxpayer money to drivers who trade their 14-mpg GMC Sierras for brand new 16-mpg Hummer H3s? So much for the environmental benefits of the program.

The tremendous number of sales in the first week of this program demonstrates that the CARS Act has succeeded in increasing new vehicle sales, but Congress needs this data in order to determine if the fleet modernization program delivered significant fuel economy gains and oil savings.

They have an ulterior motive. Even as Detroit’s defenders successfully pushed through legislation encouraging sales of new gus-guzzlers, Feinstein and Collins were among the critics urging that the purchased vehicles get better gas mileage in order to qualify for the thousands of dollars in cash vouchers. Along with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), they have sponsored of a more environmentally minded cash for clunkers program.

They lost that fight, but considering the popularity of the program, they might have more leverage the second time around. Indeed, the defenders of the existing program can no longer fall back on the argument that lax eligibility is needed to encourage participation.

Under the program, owners of cars rated at 18 mpg or less in combined highway and city mileage could turn them in for a cash voucher. Buying a new car rated at least 4 mpg higher would earn a $3,500 voucher; a 10 mpg improvement would earn a $4,500 voucher.

Pickups would be eligible as long as the new vehicle has a mileage rating of at least 18 mpg and is at least 2 mpg higher than the old vehicle. A new truck rated at least 5 mpg higher than the turned-in vehicle would earn a $4,500 voucher.

For even larger trucks, the fuel efficiencies of the new purchases must show even less improvement over the trade-in.

The program is expected to cost $4 billion, meaning the $1 billion approved yesterday is just the start. Some Senate Democrats, notably Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), are pushing for stronger fuel efficiency standards for new purchases as a condition of receiving the cash gift. She’ll have her shot the next time the program comes up for a vote, likely at the end of the summer.

[W]hen the federal General Services Administration announced this week that it had spent $287 million in stimulus money to buy 17,205 new cars, it turned out that the biggest beneficiary was the Ford Motor Company, the only one of Detroit’s Big Three automakers that has not received a government bailout.

The General Services Administration, which manages a fleet of 213,000 vehicles for some 75 federal agencies, said it spent $129 million to buy 7,924 Fords; $105 million on 6,348 General Motors vehicles; and $53 million on 2,993 Chryslers.

Like buying Verizon stock, then grabbing an iPhone.

The only practical purpose I can imagine for the bail-out is to slow the decline of GM to create enough time for its workers, suppliers, dealers and communities to adjust to its eventual demise. Yet if this is the goal, surely there are better ways to allocate $60bn than to buy GM? The funds would be better spent helping the Midwest diversify away from cars. Cash could be used to retrain car workers, giving them extended unemployment insurance as they retrain.

But US politicians dare not talk openly about industrial adjustment because the public does not want to hear about it. A strong constituency wants to preserve jobs and communities as they are, regardless of the public cost. Another equally powerful group wants to let markets work their will, regardless of the short-term social costs. Polls show most Americans are against bailing out GM, but if their own jobs were at stake I am sure they would have a different view.

So the Obama administration is, in effect, paying $60bn to buy off both constituencies. It is telling the first group that jobs and communities dependent on GM will be better preserved because of the bail-out, and the second that taxpayers and creditors will be rewarded by it. But it is not telling anyone the complete truth: GM will disappear, eventually. The bail-out is designed to give the economy time to reduce the social costs of the blow.

Beyond GM, an even bigger worry should be the continuing long loss of well-paying, middle-class jobs that once allowed significant numbers of Americans to share in the country’s prosperity, Reich said. The government bailout of GM, he wrote, will do little to address that problem — in fact, it will only worsen as the automaker cuts jobs to stay afloat for as long as possible. In this new economy, GM’s old adage has been turned upside down, according to Reich. What’s bad for GM these days is what’s bad for America as well.

This, then, is good news:

General Motors said Thursday that a key group representing many of its largest bondholders had accepted a proposal offering up to a 25 percent stake in exchange for not opposing G.M.’s reorganization plan.

In a regulatory filing, G.M. also filled out many of the details of the reorganization plan, crafted under the eye of the Treasury Department.

Under the terms of the deal, G.M.’s bondholders would receive a 10 percent stake in the newly reorganized carmaker. They will also receive warrants to buy an additional 15 percent of a new G.M. if the company rises to a certain level of value.

It’s really quite a bit better for all involved for this to proceed quickly. Given the complexities of the GM case, a swift turnaround is still not a sure thing, but this obviously helps.