Aftermath of Mass. Election

Great news that Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to replace the late Ted Kennedy in the U. S. Senate. I had been surprised that more prominent candidates did not run for the Republican nomination because I thought this seat was winnable. The experts thought otherwise. But Mitt Romney gave Ted Kennedy a great battle in 1994 and then he later was elected governor. So, I thought he would be a good candidate. Romney's sights are set higher and a loss in a Senate race would be crushing for his ambitions so he played it safe. Perhaps a new face like Scott Brown's was what was needed though.

Interestingly, the White House is saying that the American people are frustrated and upset about the economy. To which I say, well what did you guys do about it? Well, their plan was enacted in February 2009 and look at the results. FaIlure! Why? Because it was a nonsensical plan that was created more to please various constituencies and members of Congress than to get the economy moving again. While Ronald Reagan also faced a terrible economy in 1981, he enacted a plan that made sense and in time it paid off. Does anyone believe that throwing money at CASH FOR CLUNKERS or TAX CREDITS FOR BUYING HOUSES is going to solve the problems in the overall economy?

I was young and opposed Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s but as I watched the results of his presidency I saw that he was right, in both his understanding of the economy and in his understanding of defense policy. Now we have been given one year of Obama, and the results are coming in and they are not good. 10 % unemployment -- about double the rate during the presidency of George W. Bush who had to deal with both the aftermath of the 2000 NASDAQ crash and the 9/11 attacks.

"During the 8 years of the George W. Bush Presidency the lowest annual unemployment rate was 4.61% in 2007, the highest annual unemployment rate was 5.76% in 2008. During Bush’s 8 years as President the average unemployment rate was 5.27%, roughly 1/2 half of what the unemployment rate is today."

Why I'm No Longer A Democrat

1) Foreign Policy -- During the Cold War, liberal Democrats (yes, there used to be conservatives in the Democratic Party) continually sought to downplay the harshness of communism and attempted to accommodate rather than confront the Soviet Union.

Today, Democrats again seek to accommodate rather than confront terrorism.  The Ft. Hood shooting was clearly a case of Islamic jihad and yet the President and his supporters strongly resist the obvious.  

Yesterday, a friend on Facebook posted something observing the 20th Anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Someone commented that the fall of the wall was probably a good thing, but that the "trillionaire" politicians needed to create a "War on Terror" to keep the military industrial complex making money.  Thankfully, my friend could write from real experience in living in Germany in the 1970s that there was terrorism and that the communist countries made their citizens terrified.  

Oh, for the clarity on the war on terror that George W. Bush had!  

2) Economic Policy -- Democrats are insistent that the free market is flawed and must have so many governmental intrusions and regulations for it to function fairly.  The health insurance debate, the "cash for clunkers" program, the $8,000 House Purchase Tax Credit are just three recent examples.

3) Social Policy -- Democrats believe that government should be intruding on most aspects of your life, except when it comes to traditional values like life ("abortion rights") and marriage ("gay marriage").  In those areas, they are eager to let everyone do whatever they want to!

Cash For Clunkers

The Cash for Clunkers program has cleared out new cars from dealerships across the country.  That's a good thing, I suppose.  But the postings by a Facebook friend who works for a California dealership got me to thinking.  The utter waste that is involved in this program as hundreds and hundreds of perfectly good engines are destroyed with a chemical solution added to the engine.  As someone who believes in using things until their useful life is over, this just seems so wrong.  

How much energy in all its forms is used in building, transporting, and selling one new car?  If we take a perfectly good used car off the roads five years before its time, then are we really saving any energy with this program?  And we, the American taxpayers are paying $4,500 for every one of these transactions!  Now, I understand that if everyone was like me, the economy would slow and car production would be drastically reduced.  But still should we be really going all out like this to push people to discard perfectly good cars that could at least have been used by people who cannot afford new cars?

The New American Car Company?

A few weeks ago I opined that no entrepreneur would start up a new car company today in the face of so much government regulation.  Well, the cover story of the latest Forbes disagrees with that assessment.  They write:

"The implosion of General Motors and Chrysler has sparked a flurry of innovators like [Henrik] Fisker. They are reminiscent of the entrepreneurs in the car industry's early days, when Henry Ford, Ransom E. Olds, Henry Studebaker and many now forgotten dreamers competed for technological leadership with steam-, electricity- and gasoline-powered cars. By the early 1910s the internal combustion engine won out. Amazingly, the means of propulsion--indeed the car business itself--has changed little since then."

I read the article to learn if I had been wrong.  Yes, it is true that Henrik Fisker has a solid plan to deliver new vehicles to American consumers in the next three years.  But, he's looking at selling $88,000 hybrid sports cars.  Later, he expects to have a $50,000 plug-in available.  

I submit that the development of these specialty concept cars will not make a significant impact on the marketplace.  In my mind, the whole problem with the auto industry is that the vehicles are simply too expensive.  Fisker and the other entrepreneurs mentioned will do nothing to achieve broad appeal.  The startup costs for his company are very high.  In addition, he is seeking financial aid from U.S. government program.  So, is he really an entrepreneur?  

Cars, Abortion, Crime

Big news has happened again over the last three days and I'm realizing that we're just repeating the same stuff again.  

 

1-GM files bankruptcy as the Obama administration asserts ownership of a company.

2-Notorious and unrepentant Kansas abortionist George Tiller murdered on Sunday.

3-14 Year Old suburban boy set upon by thugs and killed in Maryland on Saturday.

GM:  What more can I say about my feelings about government control of a car company?  It's a disturbing trend that would not have happened under Republican leadership.  Hopefully, there is still a philosophical difference in that Republicans would not take ownership of the company.  Maybe we'd bail them out with loans but to assert real control smacks of socialism.  

Abortion.  Tiller's murder was wrong.  That is obvious.  No justification for it.  What motivated the crazed killer to do it?  Was it the fact that Tiller just kept getting away with such depraved behavior (60,000 abortions!) that the crazed killer was so tormented in his mind that he unjustifiably felt it was up to him to put a stop to it?  

Murder in Crofton, Maryland.  Some older kids killed a younger kid who was riding a bike.  Is that the end of it.  Probably, but it would not be if the victim and suspects races were reversed.  As it turns out, the 16 year old being charged as an adult is named Javel.  Enough said.  But if the victim was named Javel, there would be hell to pay from Al Sharpton and the NAACP.  If the press wants to act responsible, then let them NEVER discuss race in these crimes whether the victims and suspects are white or black or Hispanic.  Of course, Hate Crimes laws specifically bring race into the discussion, and the press will always let itself be used by the race baiters in our society.  I don't like to discuss race but one of my purposes in writing this blog is to point out double standards.

Politics and Cars

Yesterday, President Obama announced that he will seek (or was it mandate -- does he need Congress to approve?) to require higher overall MPGs from vehicle manufacturers.  I believe this was also combined with lower emissions requirements as well.  Wonderful goals, right?  We all want to get higher miles per gallon and we want to emit as little pollution as possible.  So, why am I against this?

Three reasons.  One is that the government has just taken over two U.S. auto manufacturers and is now saddling them with even more requirements that will further reduce sales, because it forces the price to go up.  In one sense, it makes the most sense for the Democrats running the U.S. government to just run the car companies because they set up so many of the rules and regulations for how to build a car that they might as well just build the cars and trucks themselves.  Can you imagine being an entrepreneur today who wanted to start up a new car company?  No, the smart creative types are getting involved with computers and biotechnology.  

Remember how the Democrats chafed at the restrictions placed on embryonic stem cell research by Presidents Clinton and G.W. Bush?  They argued that these restrictions hindered creativity and progress in researching cures or treatments for many ailments.  Well, all the restrictions placed on the car companies over the last 40 years are what has killed the American automobile industry.  

The second reason I oppose this is similar in that the government has taken another step in killing the fun out of cars.  Thinking back to the glory days of GM and hot rods and Pontiac GTOs and TransAms or Chevy Camaros or Ford Mustangs.  Cars were fun! Now what do we have?  Boring cars like the Toyota Camry or the Honda Accord.  

Safety, fuel economy, and emissions regulations have boosted the price of cars to excessive levels.  $20,000 is probably just a starting point for a new car.  So, with prices that high, how many cars and trucks will one person buy in a lifetime?  Not as many, that's for sure.

A third point to consider is that there are inevitable safety tradeoffs when we raise the fuel economy standards as people are forced into smaller cars which are proven less safe than larger cars when involved in a crash.  So, to save ourselves from the mythical threat of Global Warming, we end up causing more real deaths as people are driving smaller cars.