Lessons Learned and Re-Learned

Note to business students: if you have just spent $50 billion to acquire GM and Chrysler, do not pay people $4,500 to buy a Honda.

 

The government’s Cash-For-Clunkers program is out of money; it only took one week to burn through $1 billion, and now they need $4 billion more.  That must be some kind of new record for government mismanagement.

 

This was the flagship program of Obamanomics - government/industry partnership, environmentally correct, economic stimulus, putting people back to work, hope, change, blah, blah, blah.  It didn’t last a week - and the bleeding has just begun.

 

Auto dealers have spent millions promoting a defunct program that has now been suspended.  Clunkers taken in on trade must be recovered from scrap yards because new rules require disabling them on-site.  State regulations will restrict this, so the lawyers can’t be far behind.  Every day, new conflicting rules come out, and more paperwork is required, adding cost after cost after cost onto the dealerships. 

 

A classic case of good intentions meeting bad incentives. People who took advantage of the rebate were, for the most part, going to buy another car this year anyway.  We just robbed $4,500 from Peter to pay 20% of Paul’s new car.  Worse yet, Peter hasn’t been born yet, we just added the bill to his crushing debt burden.   

 

The way the rules were written, the worst polluting cars did not qualify for the rebate.  They are still out there spewing smoke and guzzling gas.  For many classes of vehicles, the change in fuel efficiency gained from the $4,500 could be as little as 2 mpg.  You can improve your fuel efficiency more than this by driving differently – you should ask for $5,000.  Cash-4-Clunkers was little more than a welfare program for Sandalistas who couldn't afford a Prius on ACORN wages.  Good Riddance. 

 

What is the lesson to be learned here?  The same one we have to re-learn over and over again:  the government is really bad a doing just about anything. 

 

Before we give government control of health care, we should remember Cash-For-Clunkers, as well as Katrina, Sub-prime loans, TARP, Superfund, and a thousand other debacles that did more harm than good and cost multiples more than we were told they would.  If the government can’t run a used car lot, we probably shouldn’t let them try their luck at brain surgery.

 

In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution assigns 18 specific powers to the federal Government.  These are necessary and appropriate – roads, copyrights, currency, defense, interstate commerce, naturalization, post office, courts and the like.  The 10th amendment prohibits the government from exercising any other powers.  Let’s face it: those guys were smarter than us.  We still don’t get it.  

 

In the enumerated powers listed in Section 8, there is no mention of buying cars, paying mortgages, running banks, buying auto companies, selling energy, running schools, or providing health care.  Or about a thousand other things our government does badly on a daily basis.

 

Final note to business students: if you want to own a used car lot, do not hire Congress to run it for you.  Get a used car salesman – they are more trustworthy.

 

 

Tim Nerenz is the Libertarian Party Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 2nd District. To support Dr. Tim's campaign, please visit the campaign website at www.timnerenz.com.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

A Woman's Right To Choose

Democrats assume they will win a majority of women’s votes with a few noisy proclamations of their support for “a woman’s right to choose”. Not so fast.

What about a woman’s right to choose what schools her children will attend?

What about a woman’s right to choose her own health insurance?

What about a woman’s right to choose what kind of gun to own? How to carry it?

What about a woman’s right to choose what kind of car she drives? How many? What she tows behind them?

What about a woman’s right to choose whether or not to smoke, what to smoke, and where to smoke it?

What about a woman’s right to choose whether or not to join a union?

What about a woman’s right to choose whether or not to recycle?

What about a woman’s right to choose how much energy she consumes, and what she uses it for?

What about a woman’s right to choose which charities she gives her money to?

What about a woman’s right to raise and discipline her children as she believes proper?

What about a woman’s right to choose what substances she puts into her own body and for what purposes?

What about a woman’s right to choose how much of her income to save, spend, invest, gift, and pass on to her heirs?

What about a woman’s right to choose which radio and television stations she will listen to and watch?

What about a woman’s right to choose to start a business and operate it the way she thinks best? To hire who she wants? To pay them compensation she believes to be fair?

What about a woman’s right to choose to access energy sequestered on public lands?

What about a woman’s right to choose what medicines to use and what medical treatments to seek out for herself and her family?

What about a woman’s right to choose between a public pension and private retirement saving plan?

What about a woman’s right to choose not to invest in GM, Chrysler, AIG, and the Wall Street banks?

What about a woman’s right to choose what bumper stickers to put on her vehicle without being labeled a terrorist suspect?

What about a woman’s right to choose to trade with people from any nation on earth?

What about a woman’s right to choose whether or not to increase her indebtedness?

What about a woman’s right to choose whether or not to enjoy an adult beverage at 18?

Empty slogans don’t fool anyone - you can’t be for choice but against choices. And what high principle instructs that a woman’s right to choose applies only to abortion? Do Democrats think women can only be trusted to make reproductive choices? What are they saying – that the rest of life is just too complicated for a female to manage on her own? That is a demeaning view of women, if you ask me.

We Libertarians hold women in much higher regard. We think women should be free to make economic choices, health choices, moral choices, family choices, career choices, school choices, entertainment choices, security choices, travel choices, drug choices, energy choices, charity choices, and pension choices. We trust women. We respect their judgment. Apparently, not everyone else shares these views.

Libertarians are pro-choice on everything, not just one thing. We are pro-choices plural, not just pro-choice singular. We are for choice from A-Z, not from A – Ab.

We trust both women and men to make the best choices for their own lives and families. We think that all issues are “women’s issues” – not just one or two as designated by Democrat elites.

We oppose the very idea of group-think; we know that each individual person – male or female – will make choices based upon their own conscience and beliefs. We respect those choices; that is how you show respect for the person who made them. Respect is the basis of civil order, not involuntary compliance.

Libertarians are the genuine advocates of equal rights; we do not differentiate between men’s Liberty and women’s Liberty. Liberty is the absence of government in choice - all choice.

Tim Nerenz is the Libertarian Party Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 2nd District. To support Dr. Tim's campaign, please visit the campaign website at www.timnerenz.com.