a lesson to be had?

There's a lot more qualified commentary on the Cash for Clunkers program out there than what you're about to read--but humor me, if you will.

My big take on the thing: if you put stimulative programs in the hands of PEOPLE, they are likely to provide a kick to the economy.

Now notice, that's not the same as saying that we need more programs like C4C. I am concerned that when you play with the foundation of the economy (we still ascribe to theories that sound like "supply and demand", right?), you throw far more instability into the system than is worthwhile. But that's not a lesson that this administration is even remotely willing to listen to, so we'll save that for another day. . .

Anyhow: stimulus to consumers CAN work. . . under certain circumstances. Stimulus to governments--not so much. Designing spending to promote special projects--not so good for the economy.

Class dismissed.

The message the GOP should have

Simply put:

"Make you Congressman take this pledge: If I vote for Obamacare, I will not run for re-election at the end of this term so I can live under the rules of that system for a couple years" And then watch the hemming and hawing as they dissemble.

And such is the problem with our current system. There is no connection between DC and "us" except for the occasional gladhanding that our elected representatives do. No accountability (with >80% re-election rates, there is no real accountability for these clowns), no recourse. . .and yes, no real connection.

And I'm sorry: they just aren't deserving of my trust to make these decisions for me.

Do you think they deserve yours?

Playing the game on the wrong turf

What I would give for Senate GOP to do the following:

1) Don't even mention "cap and trade" as the deliberations on Senate Resolution 2191 start (coming soon to a Senate near you). Rather, call it what it is: "limit or tax", as in "limit your industry's use of the CURRENT energy sources available to it--which will cost jobs and lead to lower supply of goods--or pay taxes on the use of that energy". Oh, by the way, those taxes will ALSO lead to job loss and either a lower supply of goods or higher prices for those goods. Either way, there's jobs lost and the consumer ends up getting hurt.

(By the way, how dishonest is Obama in calling it a jobs program--when the bill itself sets aside a whole WELFARE system to compensate people who LOSE THEIR JOB as a result of this legislation (see sections 425-427)?)

2) If it looks like the Senate has 60 votes to break filibuster on 2191, there better be a darn near full GOP caucus supporting an amendment that puts a halt to any further withdrawals from the ARRA. Why should taxpayers continue to support an older "jobs program" when the President himself has signaled the need for another one? Clearly the first one hasn't worked--so let's take the authority off the books and let "limit or tax" stand on its own.

Any takers, Senate GOP?