Time to write again

Had to take some months off ... too busy, too annoyed, too something to deal with the present political disaster.

Some comments, then.

The Cash for Clunkers deal: doesn't anyone see this as pure income redistribution? Consider who is doing it, what is being traded in, and most importantly, what is being bought? Moderately affluent Americans have already either, (a) traded to a more sensible car, or (b) don't care what the gas mileage is on their car.

But 'po folk are driving around in rat-bags ... always have and always will. So the plan is to take a 'po person driving a total rat-bag clunker (say a 1990 Chrysler mini-van or early model Explorer) and give (MY MONEY) to them so that they can buy a a shiny new car, "stimulating the economy." What could a sensible person possibly have against this?

Let's list them:

(1) it is the tax payer's money (that you worked for -- while you studied hard, earned scholarships and took part-time jobs, others smoked dope and played on various varsity sports teams, dropped out, dealt drugs, etc.);
(2) it is pure socialism -- which has NOT ONE example of economic success;
(3) it will buy votes from the recipients ... to enable the Socialists (Obama's government and Democrat House and Senate leadership) to more of this;
(4) it doesn't stimulate a gnat's ass ... 6 out of 10 of the cars that are being bought are from foreign owned manufacturers or actually made abroad, and the cash headed to the auto firms was going to be stolen from the taxpayers anyway, rather than creating new jobs and demand;
(5) the amount of "green" impact is negligible -- and a very expensive way to achieve it (small, or even large gains in mileage offset by the environmental costs of building new cars in the first place and the disposal of perfectly viable cars -- see the top 10 trade-ins below) ;
(6) it takes our attention away from the real theft ... which is about to occur on a scale that will blow all other examples away for eternity ... Obama-care;
(7) it prolongs the death-dance of Government Motors and Chrysler ... let's bite the bullet now;
(8) it is another handout in kind to the UAW, staunch supporters of Obama's bid to "change" the country ... into a fetid Socialist poop-hole.

There is some element of "social justice" that I want to address: why should I have to pay others because I have been a careful investor, paid my taxes, tried to build wealth to live the "American Dream?" How is it "just" that someone who has been content to live on margins, working 9 to 5 on some factory line, scraping by, driving some old rat-bag should suddenly be presented with $4500 to buy a shiny new car? Where is the incentive to work hard and save?

And all along these same people driving these rat-bags could have opted for a fuel efficient smaller car: your basic $1000 clunker comes in more varieties than Ford Explorers? Why do the poor (if those are in fact the only people involved in this scheme) feel they need to drive SUVs and large gas-hog vehicles? Why should I bail them out of their poor choices? The top ten trade-ins are:

1. 1998 Ford Explorer

2. 1997 Ford Explorer

3. 1996 Ford Explorer

4. 1999 Ford Explorer

5. Jeep Grand Cherokee

6. Jeep Cherokee

7. 1995 Ford Explorer

8. 1994 Ford Explorer

9. 1997 Ford Windstar

10. 1999 Dodge Caravan

I don't get it?! If you really want to remove gas-hogs from the street and help the environment, then put $1.00 a gallon tax on gas. Or $2.00. That will remove them and quickly. To protect those who apparently need protection, you can offer them low-interest loans to buy new AMERICAN cars (you can couch that in terms that will not violate trade agreements, just like the Europeans do). And if you feel like driving and Escalade ... then you can pay for it, just as they do in Germany where people drive large Mercedes and BMWs with large engines (and lousy fuel economy) and have paid $8.00 per gallon for fuel. It IS a non-renewable resource.

But no. Obama/Reid/Pelosi are truly gut-less wonders. THAT might cost them the votes from their constituency, so they are not THAT interested in fixing the problems before us. Far better to tax the mythical "rich" and "redistribute" ... a short-term "fix" that can only lead to stagnation, indolence and long-term economic disaster.