Cash-for-Clunkers is Dead

Here is a fine example of our democrat single-party government in action. Congress, in its spending frenzy, created a program called Cash-for-Clunkers and funded it to the tune of $1B. A billion dollars…

The program, supposedly to help the auto-dealers who survived the Great Obama Auto Dealer slaughter. Instead, it has turned into another government fiasco that has added more harm to those remaining auto dealers that the program was supposed to help.

Typical. Incompetent. Democrat-inspired. Liberal. Government. Idiocy.

Chris Stigall (KCMO Radio 710) spoke about this program this morning. It had been in force for a week. The concept was that cars that met a certain criteria would be taken in by the dealers for a $3500 or $4500 credit. The credit was used as if it were a trade-in on new cars acceptable by the program. The dealer would in turn key in the vehicle information into a government website and receive a voucher for the credit the dealer had given to the purchaser.

The website crashed.

Only a few transactions were completed. According to the Michigan auto dealers association, of the 1500 dealers who had applied for the government pay-back, NOT ONE WAS SUCCESSFUL. From the start, the government began changing the rules on which autos were acceptable as trade-in. Some old vehicles that were acceptable due to their poor mileage, suddenly were no longer accepted. One example given was an old Crown Victoria. Initially, the government said that the mileage of this old clunker was 18mpg and thus acceptable. Suddenly, the mileage was changed to 19.5mpg. Now, that Crown Vic was no longer acceptable and dealer who had already consummated a trade had to call the buyer and ask for another $4500 or have the buyer bring that new purchase back.

Some dealers, with foresight, had arranged for some short-term funding to tide them over while waiting for the government to fulfill its promise. Many more had not. They had trusted the government to do what the government had promised. They believed when told by the government, “Trust us! We’re here to help you.”

Now those dealers have to cover the cost of the deals enacted in accordance with Cash-for-Clunkers. Many are on extremely tight budgets and close to folding. This fiasco will push some over the edge. The result is a $4500 for the trade. At best, the already narrow margin a dealer makes for every sale is now $4500 less.

This was a single, simple program, funded with with $1 Billion of your tax dollars. It failed.

BO is saying that it’s just suspended. Temporarily. In the mean time, the clock is ticking for the dealers. They have bills to pay and the promised money is not coming.

Now, if the feds can screw up a really, very simple program such as this, how can you trust them with a multi-Trillion dollar healthcare program? Trust them with your and your family’s lives?

“Uh, Mr. Smith? About that pacemaker we installed last week? Uhhh… Well, we need you to come back in…” Imagine the rest of that scenario!

ObamaCare Version 2.0

Chris Stigall on his morning show on KCMO-710 said this morning, that the Senate Finance Committee’s hush-hush health talks, the dem statists and some RINOs are constructing a “new” ObamaCare package. Congress had postponed any healthcare votes until October at last report while they “repackage” Obama’s takeover of our Health Care services.

As reported today in the Wall Street Journal, the new concept is Healthcare Co-ops, similar to Blue Cross/Blue Shield in each state, subordinate to regional co-ops and then subordinate to the Feds. The Feds would make policy for their clients—all funded out of the tax-payer pocket. One BIG difference between the federal concept and existing health co-ops is that the current ones, like BC/BS are non-profit. They must control costs to meet their revenues and outlays for claims. The feds, on the other hand, plan to lay out $2B for PLANNING and more to create and new agency, called by some as Freddie Med.

What the dems now plan is, that instead of walking up to you, sticking a gun in your face and forcing you to take FedMed, they are now sneaking up behind you and doing the same. Like its forbears Freddie May and Fannie Mac, Freddie Med will undercut the current co-ops and other health insurance providers using tax money and force all FedMed competition out of business or force them to be co-opted into clients of FedMed.

Here is some comments from the Wall Street Journal.



  • JULY 30, 2009



Fannie Med

The bipartisan Senate negotiators are leaning toward proposing a health-care Fannie Mae.

The details of the Senate Finance Committee’s hush-hush health talks aren’t fully known, but leaks suggest that one all-but-certain highlight will be new federally created health “cooperatives” to compete against private insurers. The onus is on Republican negotiators Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi to explain why this isn’t merely the House “public option” in a better suit.

North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad floated the co-op concept last month, to attract Republicans who oppose President Obama’s state-run plan. According to Mr. Conrad, these nonprofits—modeled on local electricity or rural farm co-ops—fulfill the liberal goal of competing against private insurers, yet avoid “government control,” since they will be member-owned. Presto, a Beltway splitting of the political baby.

And in theory, health-care co-ops needn’t be destructive. Blue Cross and Blue Shield began as nonprofit health insurers, and some state Blues still are. Organizations like the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound are consumer-owned and compete with private plans.

But the Senate is talking about government-sponsored co-ops, and that means multiple devils are in the details. Mr. Conrad confirmed this week that the current plan is to have the feds provide $6 billion in start-up cash, then appoint an “interim” national board to set policies for a network of state or regional co-ops. Mr. Conrad said this new network could attract 12 million people, making it the third-largest health insurer in the country.

Here’s where the trouble starts. At least with the public option, Washington acknowledges that taxpayers are subsidizing public plans. With co-ops, the government role is more subtle, if nearly as corrosive. Start with Mr. Conrad’s $6 billion in “seed money,” which is more than the total annual revenue of all but 20 of the nation’s private plans. This would provide a lower cost of capital than private firms and an implicit claim on any other money the co-ops need. The feds may also exempt co-ops from the taxes that private insurers pay, which average about 1.2% of premiums. This would let co-ops offer lower prices and poach customers with government-subsidized premiums.

All of which makes these co-ops sound a lot like a health-care Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which Congress created because there was supposedly no secondary mortgage market. The duo proceeded to use their government subsidy to dominate the market and drive out private competitors.

And all of this is before Congressional liberals get their hands on these co-ops. “We’re going to have some type of public option, call it ‘co-op,’ call it what you want,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said earlier this month. New York’s Chuck Schumer wants $10 billion to seed a single, nationwide co-op that will be governed by a federal board and have the authority to impose price controls. At the very least, liberals will demand to load up co-ops with the minimum-coverage mandates they’ve already included in the House and rival Senate legislation—from maternity care to government-funded abortion.

Messrs. Grassley and Enzi and Maine’s Olympia Snowe are under great pressure to agree to a deal, as Democrats grow more desperate to get political cover for reform that is sinking fast in the polls. The co-op idea might have begun as a benign proposal, but it is likely to become a mini-me public option. Senate Republicans can best serve the cause of bipartisan reform and fiscal sanity by opposing any form of new government health care, and urging Mr. Baucus to turn to the Plan B of helping the uninsured with tax credits.


It appears the RINOs are preparing to sell us out again. Let’s follow the advice from the Wall Street Journal and oppose “
any form of new government health care.” There’s more information at the WSJ. Go here if you wish.

ObamaCare Version 2.0

Chris Stigall on his morning show on KCMO-710 said this morning, that the Senate Finance Committee’s hush-hush health talks, the dem statists and some RINOs are constructing a “new” ObamaCare package. Congress had postponed any healthcare votes until October at last report while they “repackage” Obama’s takeover of our Health Care services.

As reported today in the Wall Street Journal, the new concept is Healthcare Co-ops, similar to Blue Cross/Blue Shield in each state, subordinate to regional co-ops and then subordinate to the Feds. The Feds would make policy for their clients—all funded out of the tax-payer pocket. One BIG difference between the federal concept and existing health co-ops is that the current ones, like BC/BS are non-profit. They must control costs to meet their revenues and outlays for claims. The feds, on the other hand, plan to lay out $2B for PLANNING and more to create and new agency, called by some as Freddie Med.

What the dems now plan is, that instead of walking up to you, sticking a gun in your face and forcing you to take FedMed, they are now sneaking up behind you and doing the same. Like its forbears Freddie May and Fannie Mac, Freddie Med will undercut the current co-ops and other health insurance providers using tax money and force all FedMed competition out of business or force them to be co-opted into clients of FedMed.

Here is some comments from the Wall Street Journal.



  • JULY 30, 2009



Fannie Med

The bipartisan Senate negotiators are leaning toward proposing a health-care Fannie Mae.

The details of the Senate Finance Committee’s hush-hush health talks aren’t fully known, but leaks suggest that one all-but-certain highlight will be new federally created health “cooperatives” to compete against private insurers. The onus is on Republican negotiators Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi to explain why this isn’t merely the House “public option” in a better suit.

North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad floated the co-op concept last month, to attract Republicans who oppose President Obama’s state-run plan. According to Mr. Conrad, these nonprofits—modeled on local electricity or rural farm co-ops—fulfill the liberal goal of competing against private insurers, yet avoid “government control,” since they will be member-owned. Presto, a Beltway splitting of the political baby.

And in theory, health-care co-ops needn’t be destructive. Blue Cross and Blue Shield began as nonprofit health insurers, and some state Blues still are. Organizations like the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound are consumer-owned and compete with private plans.

But the Senate is talking about government-sponsored co-ops, and that means multiple devils are in the details. Mr. Conrad confirmed this week that the current plan is to have the feds provide $6 billion in start-up cash, then appoint an “interim” national board to set policies for a network of state or regional co-ops. Mr. Conrad said this new network could attract 12 million people, making it the third-largest health insurer in the country.

Here’s where the trouble starts. At least with the public option, Washington acknowledges that taxpayers are subsidizing public plans. With co-ops, the government role is more subtle, if nearly as corrosive. Start with Mr. Conrad’s $6 billion in “seed money,” which is more than the total annual revenue of all but 20 of the nation’s private plans. This would provide a lower cost of capital than private firms and an implicit claim on any other money the co-ops need. The feds may also exempt co-ops from the taxes that private insurers pay, which average about 1.2% of premiums. This would let co-ops offer lower prices and poach customers with government-subsidized premiums.

All of which makes these co-ops sound a lot like a health-care Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which Congress created because there was supposedly no secondary mortgage market. The duo proceeded to use their government subsidy to dominate the market and drive out private competitors.

And all of this is before Congressional liberals get their hands on these co-ops. “We’re going to have some type of public option, call it ‘co-op,’ call it what you want,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said earlier this month. New York’s Chuck Schumer wants $10 billion to seed a single, nationwide co-op that will be governed by a federal board and have the authority to impose price controls. At the very least, liberals will demand to load up co-ops with the minimum-coverage mandates they’ve already included in the House and rival Senate legislation—from maternity care to government-funded abortion.

Messrs. Grassley and Enzi and Maine’s Olympia Snowe are under great pressure to agree to a deal, as Democrats grow more desperate to get political cover for reform that is sinking fast in the polls. The co-op idea might have begun as a benign proposal, but it is likely to become a mini-me public option. Senate Republicans can best serve the cause of bipartisan reform and fiscal sanity by opposing any form of new government health care, and urging Mr. Baucus to turn to the Plan B of helping the uninsured with tax credits.


It appears the RINOs are preparing to sell us out again. Let’s follow the advice from the Wall Street Journal and oppose “
any form of new government health care.” There’s more information at the WSJ. Go here if you wish.

Cartoons of the Day: Chuch Asay, Lisa Benson, Gary Varvel and Michael Ramirez

Thanks, Senator Scummer. Via Chuck Asay…


From Lisa Benson…

From Gary Varvel…



And finally from Michael Ramirez…



Yes, I think Obama’s “honeymoon” is over. The public is beginning to wake up. None too soon. Now, if only the public would DO SOMETHING to fight these democrat idiocies.

Muscle Car

There was a comment conversation over at Brigid’s blog this week with many of us waxing nostalgic about our first car. For many, myself included, that was a VW bug. My first was a white ’66 bug that blew its guts a few years after I got it on I-70 near O’Fallon, Missouri. My second car was a white ’65 VW bug much like my first. It lasted a few year more. When I read the article below, it just seemed appropriate to post it for all of Brigid’s friends.

***

Think your new “smart” car is puny? Try this one on for size. It’s a 1946 dragster powered by a Packard V-12 taken from a WW2 PT boat. It will certainly get attention.

Wow, 1946 Aero Packard Flyer “Dream Rod” with 2000Hp 41-liter Engine (photos and video)

15 06 2009

This “monster” has a 41-liter motor that produces, you don’t believe, a 2000 horsepower and 3000 lb-ft of torque. That’s right, this thing is actually even more bad ass than Leno’s container car. It was constructed by Rodney Rucker and knowing as the “Dream Rod,” one of the three Blastolene Brothers also responsible for shop the reservoir car and the insane Hemi Trike we stippled at the Grand National Roadster Show before this year.

1946 Aero Packard Flyer Dream Rod at LA Concours img_1

Early we thought a vehicle like Jay Leno’s Tank Car would be a one-off. After all, how many hot rods out there are thirty feet long and have a 1792 cubic-inch turbocharged V12 underneath the hood putting out 1600 horsepower? But after the Los Angeles Car Concours “d’Elegance” this past weekend we can see from that giant engine outstanding out of its fuselage, it does have some rather impressive engine.

View more photos and video!!

Muscle Car

There was a comment conversation over at Brigid’s blog this week with many of us waxing nostalgic about our first car. For many, myself included, that was a VW bug. My first was a white ’66 bug that blew its guts a few years after I got it on I-70 near O’Fallon, Missouri. My second car was a white ’65 VW bug much like my first. It lasted a few year more. When I read the article below, it just seemed appropriate to post it for all of Brigid’s friends.

***

Think your new “smart” car is puny? Try this one on for size. It’s a 1946 dragster powered by a Packard V-12 taken from a WW2 PT boat. It will certainly get attention.

Wow, 1946 Aero Packard Flyer “Dream Rod” with 2000Hp 41-liter Engine (photos and video)

15 06 2009

This “monster” has a 41-liter motor that produces, you don’t believe, a 2000 horsepower and 3000 lb-ft of torque. That’s right, this thing is actually even more bad ass than Leno’s container car. It was constructed by Rodney Rucker and knowing as the “Dream Rod,” one of the three Blastolene Brothers also responsible for shop the reservoir car and the insane Hemi Trike we stippled at the Grand National Roadster Show before this year.

1946 Aero Packard Flyer Dream Rod at LA Concours img_1

Early we thought a vehicle like Jay Leno’s Tank Car would be a one-off. After all, how many hot rods out there are thirty feet long and have a 1792 cubic-inch turbocharged V12 underneath the hood putting out 1600 horsepower? But after the Los Angeles Car Concours “d’Elegance” this past weekend we can see from that giant engine outstanding out of its fuselage, it does have some rather impressive engine.

View more photos and video!!

Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill–Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them


Unbelievable!

This appears to be the caliber of democrat pols in Congress. If Conyers doesn’t have time to read the bill and doesn’t have the staff to do so, WHY IS HE GOING TO VOTE FOR IT!

Arrggghhh!

Now that I’ve vented by spleen as the Bard said, here’s Conyers comment.

Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill–Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them
Monday, July 27, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

(CNSNews.com) – During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.


“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.


“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

%d bloggers like this: