Cash For Clunkers: A Perfect Symbol of the Obama Presidency

The Boston Globe's token conservative, Jeff Jacoby delivers a lovely indictment of Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" debacle in a column today.

Congress and the Obama administration trumpeted Cash for Clunkers as a triumph -- the president pronounced it "successful beyond anybody's imagination." Which it was, if you define success as getting people to take "free" money to make a purchase most of them are going to make anyway, while simultaneously wiping out productive assets that could provide value to many other consumers for years to come. By any rational standard, however, this program was sheer folly.

Jacoby points out the obvious flaw in the program, predicted by so many outside of the administration, that removing thousands of perfectly good cars from the road would only serve to increase the price of used cars:

the supply of used cars is far lower than it would be if your Uncle Sam hadn't decided last year to destroy hundreds of thousands of perfectly good automobiles as part of its hare-brained Car Allowance Rebate System -- or, as most of us called it, Cash for Clunkers.

Oh, but it helped the environment, right, to get all these so-called clunkers off the road? Well, not so much:

Using Department of Transportation figures, meanwhile, the Associated Press calculated that replacing low-mpg "clunkers" with new cars getting higher mileage would reduce CO₂ emissions by around 700,000 tons a year -- less than Americans emit in a single hour. Likewise, the projected reduction in gasoline use amounted to about as much as Americans go through in 4½ hours.

Researchers at the University of California-Davis calculated that the reduction of carbon dioxide attributable to the program (under best-case assumptions) cost at least $237 per ton. That is more than 10 times the going rate on the international market, where carbon emissions credits currently cost about $20 per ton.

So, the program did nothing to help the environment; is now hurting the poor and middle class who buy used cars; did not cause a marked increase in car sales; yet cost you, the tax payer, some $3 Billion.

In the end, Jacoby says it best:

When all is said and done, Cash for Clunkers was a deplorable exercise in budgetary wastefulness, asset destruction, environmental irrelevance, and economic idiocy. Other than that, it was a screaming success.

A perfect symbol of the Obama presidency.

Obama: Will He Say We "Won" the Iraq War or "I" Ended It?

When President Obama addresses the nation from the Oval Office tonight, he will be declaring a "formal" end to a war he stridently opposed and called a "foreign policy disaster" as a Senator and presidential candidate.

Driving home his point, the president said, "The bottom line is this: The war is ending. Like any sovereign, independent nation, Iraq is free to chart its own course. And by the end of next year, all of our troops will be home."

Interesting words from someone who vehemently opposed the troop surge that apparently has allowed Iraq to become a "sovereign, independent nation." Vice President Biden also opposed the surge and introduced a non-binding resolution opposing the surge.

Not to belabor this point; but, as a wordsmith, I am curious to see how he addresses the Iraq war and his role in the war. It seems, as he has in the past, he will take credit for all the good:

"As a candidate for this office, I pledged I would end this war. As president, that is what I am doing," Obama said.

And he will take credit for what President Bush negotiated:

"In the months ahead, our troops will continue to support and train Iraqi forces, partner with Iraqis in counterterrorism missions and protect our civilian and military efforts," Obama said, a day before ending his 10-day Martha's Vineyard vacation...

And he will certainly not remind us that he introduced legislation to bring the troops home from Iraq in March 2008. (Even before he became president, he seemed to have a disdain for the US Constitution).

But, will he say that the United States was victorious in Iraq, or just that combat missions are over. Will Obama say we "won" the war; or, simply that it is over?

What about the families of the service men and women who died in Iraq. What does Obama say to them? You lost your loved ones in the war, but their sacrifice helped us end the war sooner? What about the soldiers in Afghanistan; will the Commander-in-Chief settling for "ending" the war be much of an inspiration to them?

For those of us with a love of language, it should be an interesting speech.

Huffington Post: "Don't Tread on Me" is a "Rediculous" Saying

The illustrious liberal blog shows its true colors in calling one of the more enduring symbols of the American Revolution "ridiculous."

In a bizarre photo essay, the Huffingtonians listed the 20 "most ridiculous messages" displayed at the Restoring Honor Rally, organized by -- Egad! -- Glenn Beck.

Among the "ridiculous" messages:

• A quote from George Washington
• A man saluting
• Two men with a flag emblazoned with September 11, 2001
• T-shirt stating "Restoring Honor" (the theme of the event)
• Two people wearing matching flag shirts

And, of course, the ridiculous message, a message carried by some of the first Marines in US history: Don't Tread On Me.

What more do you need to know about the Huffington Post -- and Liberals in general -- than the fact that they consider flags (that) were widely used during the American Revolution "ridiculous."

While I have great respect for people who have strong political beliefs and are proud to stand for those beliefs, doesn't it make you Liberals even the least bit queasy to see the mainstream voice of the Left so terrified of an opposing movement that they will insult the people of a specific movement and blatantly lie about the number of people at a rally?

Liberals, be very, very afraid. I know you already are.

Obama Too Busy "Buying Shrimp" to Answer Iraq War Question

While on his eighth vacation in a scant 20 months, President Obama seems to have channeled Forest Gump in refusing to answer a question from the crowd about the troop withdrawal from Iraq.

(M)embers of the press yelled out several questions for the president, including one about the war in Iraq. The president's response ? "We're buying shrimp, guys," the president said, smiling. "Come on."

While Obama didn't allow his shrimping excursion to interfere with receiving the adulation of the sparse crowd, he couldn't be bothered with a question about American troops in a war zone.

Perhaps if he did respond, the next question may have been about his taking so many vacations and golf outings while our kids are dying in the Middle East.

While no one can fault a president for taking a holiday or two, refusing to even look in the general direction of someone asking about an on-going war shows that maybe Obama is the real shrimp.

But hey, after all the finely prepared lobster he has indulged in, I guess even he needed a "change."

In WTC Mosque, Obama Finds Religion in Local Control

Would it be too much, Mr. President, to (for once) show some respect towards the concerns of the American people?

President Obama, who has shown no limit to his desires to federalize and centralize everything he can -- be it health care, automobile manufacturers, Wall Street salaries, college financing, public school education standards, -- has suddenly Seen the Light in the wisdom of local control.

On the controversial Ground Zero Mosque proposal, Obama throws his weight behind local laws and the US Constitution.

(Religious freedom) includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

If this is so, why are the "local laws" of Arizona being challenged in court by this Administration? Where did this sudden concern for local control come from? And, why does his concern for local control extend to the local people?

Once again, Obama disregards the reported desires of US citizens as reported in most polls. CNN, for one, reports that 70% of the people they polled stand firmly against the mosque. Obama, NYC Mayor Bloomberg, and most others critical of the opposition to the mosque would have you believe that all these people are anti-Muslim. I find it very hard to believe that "54 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of independents" are prejudiced towards Muslims.

These political leaders are working hard to spin the opposition as people who would deny religious freedom. But, as anyone with a modicum of common sense knows, the concerns have little to do with freedom of religion or the enforcement of local laws and ordinances. The opposition is rooted in propriety.

The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer summarizes the matter well:

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Where was Obama's concern for freedom of religion when he demeaned Americans as people who cling...to their religion? Would he dare criticize those who want to build this mosque as clinging to their religion?

In a blatantly pandering speech on Friday night, celebrating the start of Ramadan, Obama continued to obfuscate and confuse the issue before his Muslim audience, where -- yet again! -- he pointed out the country's past foibles:

This is not unique to our time. Past eras have seen controversies about the construction of synagogues or Catholic churches.

These words eerily echo the bizarre words of Mayor Bloomberg, who tried to compare the concerns over the mosque with religious intolerance in the 1600's and 1700's, well before the US was established.

Spin all you want. This issue is not about religious intolerance, disdain for Muslims, or anything other than propriety and the feelings of those most affected by 9/11.

Where is the tolerance for the families of those killed on 9/11? While Obama manages to mention these folks, he seems to have little interest in their concerns and opinions. Their thoughts on the controversy should carry as much -- if not more -- weight than those who want to build the mosque.

C. Lee Hanson, 77, whose son Peter was killed in the attacks, said he opposed the center not because he was intolerant, but because he believed that building a tribute to Islam so close to the World Trade Center would be insensitive.

“The pain never goes away,” Mr. Hanson said. “When I look over there and I see a mosque, it’s going to hurt. Build it someplace else.”

Do these sound like the words of discrimination?

Would it be too much, Mr. President, to (for once) show some respect towards the concerns of the American people? Concerns that may be well placed. Even if their fears are completely unfounded, shouldn't the President of the United States show some regard for those American citizens making their opinions known?

As the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol points out:

But Obama (like Bloomberg) doesn't feel he even has to engage the arguments against the mosque--because he regards his fellow citizens as emotionally traumatized victims, not citizens who might have a reasonable point of view.

Debra Burlingame, Co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, also said it well:

No one who has lived this history and felt the sting of our country’s loss that day can truly believe that putting our families through more wrenching heartache can be an act of peace.

It is time to introduce some common sense to this debate and stop the name-calling and spin. This is about the loss of loved ones, the loss of innocence for an entire country, and the appreciation of the concerns of the living victims. It is not about the Muslim religion. It is about doing what is right for the people of this country, and not pandering to a special interest with the goal of making us look better to the rest of the world.

As Obama himself said, Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. Ground Zero is hallowed; and it should be treated that way. Mr Obama, you need to start paying more attention to the words and worries of the local people and less worry about the local laws and ordinances.

I mean, why start the concern over local control now?

John Kerry's Problem with Taxes Shows the Problem with Taxes

It's a simple matter of What Did He Own and When Did He Own It?

The Boston Herald's gossip columnists, the "Inside Track Gals," are said to have broken the story of the summer in exposing Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) tax evasion or tax avoidance after purchasing a yacht:

The Track broke the story of the summer last week when we reported that the former White House wannabe had purchased a spankin’-new 76-foot luxury yacht in New Zealand and registered it in Rhode Island, thus dodging Massachusetts’ 6.25 percent sales tax and depriving the senator’s summer home, Nantucket, of some $70,000 a year in excise taxes.

Local talk radio has been abuzz with glee -- while local boatwrights fumed -- over the story and over the senator's refusal to answer questions about the matter.

Sen. John Kerry, hounded by questions over whether he is dodging state and local taxes on his ultra-luxe $7 million sailing yacht, yesterday slammed his car door on a pack of reporters demanding to know if he would pony up to the cash-strapped commonwealth.

While I have never been a fan of John Kerry's politics, and don't like when politicians duck questioners, I see this situation as more about the state of our tax codes than which state's tax codes.

The Ocean State repealed its Boat Sales and Use Tax back in 1993, making the tiny state a haven... for tax-skirting luxury yacht owners.

However, according to state law, if Kerry brings the boat into Massachusetts waters in the first six months of owning it, there is a “presumption of use” and he would have to pony up some $437,500 to the state.

When asked yesterday whether he had brought the Isabel into Massachusetts, Kerry replied, “It depends on who owns it.”

Clear as the Gulf of Mexico, right? It gets better:

Maritime law expert Brian Flanagan, who teaches admiralty law at Suffolk University Law School, said it is possible Kerry may have taken possession of the custom-built craft more than six months ago, even though he registered it with the Coast Guard on March 12. Another source suggested that Kerry has not yet paid in full for his new high-seas plaything.

But even if they didn’t beat the six-month deadline, John...also could challenge the state’s “presumption of use” and present evidence that he did not purchase the vessel for use in the commonwealth, Flanagan said.

State Treasurer Tim Cahill, a former Democrat running for governor as an independent, was quick to chastise his "former" party-mate in a desperate attempt to flee the Democrat party:

It looks to me like he’s avoided taxes by registering in Rhode Island. So if someone’s not paying their taxes that should be paying them, then the DOR should go after them..."

I don't begrudge Sen. Kerry his big fancy yacht. After all, he earned his money the old fashioned way, he married into it (twice!). But, don't you think the tax structure in this country is completely out of control when you can be charged sales tax in Massachusetts on a boat you bought in New Zealand and want store in a Rhode Island based on a "presumption of use" if you dare sail into Massachusetts waters within the first six months?

As Republican candidate for MA governor says: Had Enough?

Obama to Ban Internships for College Students?

The Obama Administration, in its unending quest to take over ever aspect of American life, is apparently planning to prevent companies from hiring unpaid interns to work and gain real-life experience.

The Obama administration's top law enforcement officer at the Labor Department, M. Patricia Smith, is targeting companies that give young people unpaid internships. She claims that internships are rife with abusive practices and that serious violations of labor law are widespread. Arguing that interns should get paid at least minimum wage, Ms. Smith and the White House risk destroying a valuable steppingstone that gives many young Americans training they need to get jobs they want in the future.

The Obama Administration continues to show that it does not have the faintest clue what real-life is all about, now wants to cut off one of the tools that young people have to get jobs and succeed.

But, as with all things Obama, it is all about "fairness":

The O Force worries that unpaid internships might disadvantage less-affluent students, who might not be able to afford to spend their summers at unpaid jobs. But the administration's solution risks eliminating many internships at for-profit companies so that no one gets them.

Because some people cannot afford to work for free, or don't want to make the time to work for free, no one can. That is fair, in Obama's worldview.

The Obama administration, which is full of rhetoric about improving education, actually views education extremely narrowly. In the real world, people gain a lot of practical knowledge on the job. Eliminating training opportunities will only mean worse careers and lower future earnings for those President Obama's team is claiming to protect.

Who ever accused Obama of operating in the real world?

Of course, if you want to work for Obama, you can feel free to work for free.

This summer, Organizing for America is looking for students, recent graduates, and anyone else who believes in the power of community organizing, to help lead our grassroots movement...This position is unpaid.

As someone who graduate from a college that emphasizes the value of internships, I cannot disagree more with the notion that students are somehow abused by working an internship. The Black Collegian Online seems to agree.

More and more students are finding out that applied learning such as internships and cooperative education programs (co-ops) give the necessary practical experience, and provides a contact base that is invaluable in the job search process. For employers, these programs allow them to get a jump-start on training a talented young workforce.

So, hiring documented unpaid workers is bad; but hiring paid undocumented workers is fine?

Why do I have the sense that Obama doesn't like unpaid interns because he cannot tax them?