Next time you (as a political candidate) talk of promising change, we're going to be collectively smarter and make you explain in really, really detailed terms exactly which changes you intend to bring to Washington DC and thus our country. One way or another a bunch of voters got duped last election.
Remember a change is a whole lot different that the change you wanted.
I don't like to be a nay-sayer, but Nay! Instead of the Government handing out stimulus checks and cash-for-clunkers (CARS) program allowances, why not just tax us less so we'd be more likely to buy a car in the first place? Why destroy wealth by bribing potential customers to buy a new car (economic stimulation!) using an anrtificial source of funding (our tax dollars?)
Here's the summary. The US Government spent $3,000,000,000 (man, that's a lot of zeroes) to purchase a little over 690,000 "clunkers" from private citizens in the form of a "rebate" to be applied to the purchase or lease of a new, more fuel-efficient "non-clunker." Those who had a qualifying vehicle and qualifying financial resources could participate in the "rebate" system. Dealers sold "more" cars and destroyed the trade-ins (per program requirements) by running the engines with sodium silicate in place of motor oil, turning the engine into a mass of fused metal, unsuitable (or undesirable) to even automotive recyclers.
I don't use the term "destroy" lightly, please go check out videos of CARS clunkers being destroyed.
Here are just a few unintended consequences to look forward to in coming months and years:
1) Economic indicators
Will we remember when strong economic indicator results come out for the quarter/year that a lot of the automotive retail sales were spurred by taxpayer-funded government giveaways, not actual raw, market-driven economic improvements? Will this lead us into other economic assumptions and a false sense of economic improvement? You can fool most of the people most of the time...
2) New car economy
Next month, next quarter, next year, expect new car sales numbers to be down corresponding to the large upturn in people who artificially decided to buy suddenly to take advantage of the CARS program.
3) Used car economy
The CARS program purposely destroys wealth by disabling (destroying) perfectly functional vehicles in the name of environmentalism. It removes cheap, used vehicles from the marketplace, dropping the supply of used vehicles and driving up the prices. Not everyone is out buying new cars and buying used cars is getting more expensive, affecting the poorest amongst us. Does this qualify as a regressive tax of sorts? You are providing new vehicles to financially capable buyers who may have been on the fence by destroying wealth and value thus putting the financial burden on those who would have been potential buyers of these so-called "clunkers." So much for only taxing the wealthy...
4) The environment
The environment, the alleged beneficiery of this program, will be the same 5 months, 5 years, and 5 centuries from now. This program will have no effect on the "big picture" of our global climate. Period.
5) Used parts economy
This one strikes close to home as I am actively keeping my car alive as long as I can on general principles (rest easy, my car is efficient enough not to qualify as a "clunker.") I rely on the availability of parts to repair my car and keep it safe and operational. When you start destroying cars pointlessly, and not recycling them, you reduce availability and artificially drive up prices of parts people need to repair their vehicles.
6) Donations to charities
Many of these Clunkers would have been destined to be donations for charities which accept them as tax-deductable gifts. A significant number of potential donations were just sold to the Government, reducing charitable-giving-by-car-donation for the near future.
Summary
So, in the face of (alleged) economic and evironmental ruin, our Government has designed a program to take a large amount of money from everyone, give it back to the middle-class (those who can qualify for automotive financing or have enough money saved up to buy a car) to convince them buy cars at an artificial discount to artificially (and temporarily) stimulate a small segment of our economy, while destroying existing wealth and driving prices up on used cars and the parts required to keep those existing cars operational. Any economic effect of this program will be short-lived, the environment will remain unchanged, and as a final coup-de-grace: charities can expect fewer automotive donations. This is governmental brilliance.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away one's initiative and independence.
You cannot help someone permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
-- Rev. William John Henry Boetcker (1873-1962)
Dow 9,625.28
S&P 500 1,005.75
Nasdaq 1,780.12
Hard drive storage: $0.10/GB
(Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB (1500GB ) 7200RPM/32MB for $149.99 via TigerDirect on November 4, 2008)
Solid-state hard drive storage: $3.63/GB
(OCZ 128GB SATA II MLC Solid State Drive for $464.99 via ZipZoomFly on November 4, 2008)
Flash memory: $2.62/GB
(Patriot 16GB SDHC Card for $41.99 via ZipZoomFly on November 4, 2008)
Highest interest rate savings with minimal deposit requirements: 4.00%
(CNB Bank Directvia money-rates.com on November 4, 2008)
Gallon of gas: $2.358
(US National Average, pulled from Gas Buddy on November 4, 2008)
Compare other "Cost of Living" articles on this blog.
A lot of political hay was made of John McCain's (attempted humorous) answer to the question "[at what point] do you move from middle class to rich?" Did anybody notice that Obama wasn't asked and didn't answer this question? Considering the Democrats are largely campaigning on providing and protecting the "middle class" and "ordinary Americans", doesn't it seem dishonest that they don't define this "class" as a specific range of incomes so we can evaluate their "offerings" objectively? Don't we all think we are middle class in our own heads (unless we are financially independent?) I think they are counting on it.
"Depending on class model used, the middle class may constitute anywhere from 25% to 73% of households." This assures the Democrats are selling their ideas to a majority audience.
Wouldn't you be disappointed if you bought into the Democrats pitch expecting to receive a tax cut, some service, a handout and found out that you weren't middle class at all, but either too high or too low for their definitions? This is classism. I know it hits a wide target demographic, but I don't want to be low, middle, or high class. I don't want to be included or excluded from some arbitrary class that is targeted for specific benefits. I want to be an American, who works for my own keep. I don't want some imaginary line drawn that says now you are "rich" or "upper class" and can "afford" to pay additional taxes as some sort of "political duty."
When Bill O'Reilly interviewed Obama a couple weeks ago, Obama told Bill O'Reilly that he "can afford" to pay higher taxes. There is a big difference applying that same tax rate to a small-business owner that just barely crosses some arbitrary "success line", let's say $250,000. I'm not sure why O'Reilly didn't ask Obama what right Obama had to say where Bill O'Reilly's money should be spent. I can't believe he let that one slip by.
I'm sure this ambiguity is to attract as many people as possible into the class of needy voters who want what the Democrats are offering. Don't worry everyone, the first hit is free. After that, you won't care to try to succeed hard enough to carry someone else on your shoulders. Ever read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged
