Money, Money, Money

Link- Cash for "Kitchen Clunkers?"





"The rebate program, part of the government's $787 billion economic stimulus package, provides $300 million in federal funds to encourage consumers to buy energy-efficient appliances.

I understand some of the logic here. It's good for the environment. The government is trying to encourage Americans that our carbon footprint does matter and that Green is the way to go. My issue is in the economics of it.

It's following the footsteps of the "Cash for Clunkers" plan for automobiles and I think that is a terrible idea. We are going to process this in very simple economics. The issue at hand is the synthetic growth of the economy caused by everyone trying to save $3,500-$5,000 on a $50,000 car they can't afford. The program lasted around 2 months, if that, until the tax dollars ran out, with one extension in dollars and days. An enormous amount of cars were sold, which in turn provided a huge uptick in the economy. But those numbers give an artificially inflated outlook of the economy whereas now that the program is done the economy will likely round back down. Especially when everyone has a new car or is spoiled by the thought of handouts, so why not wait for the next round, which may not come, to get a new Corvette. Let alone, what will happen when people start defaulting on their loans because they can't afford that $50,000 car they wanted to save $3,500-$5,000 on? Sounds like what happened to the housing market, with a free money twist.

• Sidenote: I don’t think everyone who took part in the “cash for” program fits in what I described above, by any means. There are a good amount of Americans that live within their means and were able to buy an automobile under the right circumstances while being fiscally responsible

Again I agree, getting the over-emmissed (made up word) cars off the road and the electricity draining microwaves out of Martha's kitchen is good. I just don't think handouts are the correct way to do that and definitely is not a good precedent to set.

Paterson Stands Up

Link- NY TIMES: Paterson Says He Will Run, Rejecting Call From Obama

“President Obama had sent a request to Mr. Paterson that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race, fearing that Mr. Paterson cannot recover from his dismal political standing, according to two senior administration officials and a New York Democratic operative with direct knowledge of the situation.”

I have two main issues here:

1. The Story-

Gov. Paterson is the man who took over for the disgraced Eliot Spitzer following his prostitution scandal, and he was the unlucky man who is had to deal with the fallout from that disgrace. He is currently the sitting Governor of New York. (He is also legally blind... not that that should play an issue here.) He also is not enjoying very favorable polling numbers at the moment due to a wide range of issues, some his fault, some not.

What I don’t get is why in the world is Obama getting involved with political races at a state level. Before you say "all Presidents have done that, it's nothing new," I agree with you. But why Obama didn't just send some henchmen to pass his word along, instead of opening this up to the media, I don't know. Seems like everyone from the White House Spokesman to the White House Janitor has been briefed on this one. This should be the job of Tim Kaine, the chairman of the DNC.

Frankly, if his numbers are so bad, he probably won’t make it through the primaries. I think we should let the democratic process run it’s course here and let the people decide. If New York doesn’t want him, New York won’t have him. We don’t need a “holiest of holies” committee deciding who can and can’t run for office before the election takes place… like they do it Iran by the way. Obama should worry about running this country and getting America on track, not whether his party might lose strategic positioning in New York.

Although I don't think this is the main reason, all this seems to come down to is petty politics, which Obama has time and time again said his Administration would be above. This is one of many references in the article to how Gov. Paterson has miffed Obama and Democratic leaders in Washington.

• “Making matters worse, the governor also publicly snubbed Caroline Kennedy, a close personal friend and ally of Mr. Obama’s, who announced in December her wish to be chosen as Mrs. Clinton’s replacement, but then withdrew her name from consideration in January, citing personal reasons."

Gotta hate when a governor is making decisions for what he thinks is best for his state.

2. The Article-

So if you don't know, the NY Times is know to have a donkey (aka liberal) slant. This is no secret. But after reading the entire piece I can't help but wonder how they could not ask the same questions I am asking above. They call it an "extraordinary intervention" and a "delicate" move. Those are very carefully placed words as to not "bite the hand that feeds you" in my opinion. Nowhere does it point out that he needs to get his hands out the cookie jar. They don’t belong in this cookie jar.

This article does leave out some interesting facts as well. The article hints that this "delicate" move would allow Obama to support New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to run on the Democratic ticket for governor. (Interestingly, he holds the spot last held by Mr. Spitzer.) Who was Mr. Cuomo married to? None other than Mary Kerry Kennedy, the seventh child of Robert F. Kennedy and member of the Kennedy clan. They are now divorced but interesting none the less.

In Closing-

• “The message the White House wanted to send — that it wants Paterson to step aside — was delivered,” said the Democratic operative, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were intended to be confidential. “He is resistant.""

A democratic "operative" breaks his confidentiality and says Paterson is "resistant"... Seriously?

I hope Governor Paterson wins.

Carter Crys Racism

"When a radical fringe element of demonstrators and others begin to attack the president of the United States as an animal or as a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler or when they wave signs in the air that said we should have buried Obama with Kennedy, those kinds of things are beyond the bounds. I think people who are guilty of that kind of personal attack against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African American." - President Carter

What would President Carter call the "radical fringe element" surrounding the former President Bush while he was in office? That just was the decenting voice of America speaking out against an "unjust" war, "failed" policies, civil rights "intruded," etc., right? But couldn't this just be the decenting voice of America speaking out against an "unjust" plan for Health care, a "socialistic" economic model, etc., and not the color of President Obama's skin? They both have had effigies burned, curse words slung, and only God knows what else. No one said it was an easy job.

I am pretty sure President Bush has been compared to Adolf Hilter a thousand times more than President Obama has or ever will be. That is such a black and white picture for President Carter to paint. He of all people should realize that nothing in polictics is ever that black and white nor should it be portrayed that way by any leader or former leader.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has now reiterated President Obama's stance twice now.

• ""The president does not believe that -- that the criticism comes based on the color of his skin. We understand that people have disagreements with some of the decisions that we've made and some of the extraordinary actions that had to be undertaken by this administration and previous administrations to stabilize our financial system, to ensure viability of our domestic auto industry." - Robert Gibbs

I leave you with words to live by.... "It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."- Benjamin Franklin

Links:

• http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html


• http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5315789.shtml