Today President Obama floated a new excuse for the sad state of the economy:
Washington Post’s Ezra Klein’s substitute writer Brad Plumer got the unenviable job of having to admit that the government’s infamous Cash-for-Clunkers stealth auto dealership bailout – in which people traded in still-useable cars in exchange for trade-in money for a new car – didn’t particularly stimulate the economy, didn’t improve US car manufacturer’s market share , and “ increased average fuel economy in the United States by just 0.65 miles per gallon .” The trigger event for this admission was this Resources For the Future report that is fairly damning, in its somewhat dry and equation-laden way: of course, we on the Right were all yelling about this issue right from the start , but it’s still nice to see some math backing us up. Still, Klein’s substitute doesn’t consider another economic factor: what happened as a result of taking used cars off of the market. You see, there’s a considerable demand for almost worn-out cars: poor people, young people, and/or urban minorities can maintain them well enough to be cost effective – if the price is low enough. And what happens, class, when demand remains the same but the supply decreases? That’s right: prices go up . It’s not unusual for price tags to be up $3,000 in some product segments in the last five years. And the classic “beater” – a high-mileage, $1,500 used car that can handily take you around town on your errands – is fast becoming a thing of the past, according to some auction houses. That article indicated that there had been a six percent increase in 2010 on used car prices overall. For Democratic legislators – and other people slow of brain – that increase represents a genuine loss of buying potential among poor, minority, and young adult voters. In other words, precisely the groups that Democrats were supposedly trying to help by ‘stimulating’ the economy. And, as noted above: all of this was pointed out at the time , of course. To sum up: I know that the temptation is strong to look at the people most affected by this, note that they belong to groups that are widely considered to be disproportionately Democrat-leaning, mutter “Elections have consequences,” and leave it at that. In fact, that was my first reaction. But these folks are still American citizens, and it’s not actually fair to let the Democrats get away with making them poorer. So think of this as an opportunity to do some outreach and turn all of this into a teachable moment. After all, civic improvement is everyone’s responsibility… Moe Lane ( crosspost )
Go here to see the original:
Cash for Clunkers’ failure: minorities, poor people hardest hit.
RedState Morning Briefing For October 24, 2011 Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge. 1. Attacking Marco Rubio 2. Senate gives money to rich people. Where’s the #OWS outrage 3. Econ. Professor Explains to #OccupyWallSt Crowd How Marxist America Will Work 4. A Mea Culpa on Herman Cain and Abortion 5. As Obama’s NLRB Drags Its Feet On Employee Charge, Former NLRB Member Drops a Boeing Bombshell 6. Paging the Missouri Tea Party: Here’s One to Primary ———————————————————————- 1. Attacking Marco Rubio The Washington Post has chosen to launch an attack on Marco Rubio because he may have gotten part of his parents’ life story wrong. They put the story on the front page of the Washington Post. Barack Obama, trying to push health care reform, screwed up details about a central story he used to get his package through Congress. Likewise, Barack Obama claimed his uncle had freed Jews at Auschwitz. It did not happen unless Obama’s uncle was a member of the Red Army. The Soviets freed Jews at Auschwitz. Obama, in Selma, tried to tie his father’s life story to the Kennedy family, claiming his father came to America on a scholarship from the Kennedy family. He also claimed his father fought in World War II. In 1988, Joe Biden was forced off the Presidential trail when it came out he had plagiarized a speech by British Labor Leader Neil Kinnock. He also got wrong the tragic events of his wife and daughter’s death. All of these stories got media attention, but none have gotten as much attention as what the Washington Post gave to Marco Rubio. This shows just how much the left fears Marco Rubio. Please click here for the rest of the post. 2. Senate gives money to rich people. Where’s the #OWS outrage Late Friday, the Senate voted for an amendment to give a subsidy to rich people. Not the first time, and it won’t be the last time. But is a perfect microcosm of today’s politics and the politics that got us into the housing crisis. Next time any of the Senate Democrats say anything about “Occupy Wall Street”, they should get asked a simple question: if you are so worried about the 99%, why are you subsidizing housing for the wealthy. Here’s what happened. Senators Bob Menendez and Chuck Schumer, who represent rich Democrats in New Jersey and New York respectively, offered an amendment to raise the amount of a mortgage that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will backstop. The level that was backstopped by Fannie and Freddie was lowered to $620k, but they raised it again to $729k. So the government will offer a loan guarantee so that people can buy a $720k house. Please click here for the rest of the post. 3. Econ. Professor Explains to #OccupyWallSt Crowd How Marxist America Will Work Nearly a year ago, union appointees within the Obama Labor Department launched their ‘Death by a Thousand Cuts‘ initiative on America’s employers (obviously, not their name for it, but that is what it is). Since then, American businesses (large and small)—those that are America’s job creators—have been under unprecedented attack by the Obama Administration and its union handlers. Now, perhaps by coincidence, the Democrat-supported Marxists occupying city parks across the country are calling for socialism (or whatever nom du jour they want to call it, with whatever coherency they can muster on a given day). Only an idiot (or a liar) would argue that the Marxist movement is not out to destroy American free enterprise. Please click here for the rest of the post. 4. A Mea Culpa on Herman Cain and Abortion Yesterday I wrote two posts about Herman Cain’s stance on abortion, which may be read here and here. One of the good things about blogging is that it allows you to shoot from the hip, which allows instant commentary and feedback on news that the traditional media cannot provide. However, it is also sometimes one of the bad things about blogging, in that it allows you sometimes to shoot before the facts are all in. Having considered the information I received via email over the last day, I now realize that calling Herman Cain “pro-choice” was not just wrong, it was disastrously wrong, and for that I am sorry. I have come to understand that Herman Cain has in reality done far more for the pro-life movement than I ever have. For instance, he donated $1 million of his own money in an attempt to encourage black voters to vote pro-life. His 2004 Senate campaign made life a central issue. His work opposing abortion – especially among the black population – has led many leftist organizations to denounce him with hysterical, shrieking screeds; which is probative evidence of the fact that they were to some degree effective. Please click here for the rest of the post. 5. As Obama’s NLRB Drags Its Feet On Employee Charge, Former NLRB Member Drops a Boeing Bombshell Most observers of President Obama’s union appointees at the National Labor Relations Board know that the NLRB has earned its much-deserved criticisms due to its over-the-top advocacy for union bosses. In addition to the other anti-worker and anti-jobs rulings, the NLRB’s effort to help the Machinists’ union kill the jobs at Boeing’s South Carolina plant because workers decertified the union is probably the most well known example. However, another layer of just how far Obama’s union appointees will go to appease their union masters was peeled back by a recent comment made by a former member of the NLRB. Please click here for the rest of the post. 6. Paging the Missouri Tea Party: Here’s One to Primary She was elected in 1996, and is serving her 8th full term in Congress. She believes her mission in life is to solve world hunger—whether its through foreign aid or food stamps here in this country that we can no longer afford. But if people start eating too much, well hold it right it there, because the federal government has a role in controlling obesity too. She will subsidize anything. Tobacco, sugar, peanuts, milk, mohair, energy, Fannie and Freddie, the Postal Service, the DC metro system, small businesses, and the purchases of auto consumers (Cash for Clunkers). Increasing the minimum wage? She is a fan. Price controls on prescription drugs? She co-sponsored the bill. Davis-Bacon? She supports it.She has voted the wrong way on almost every big bill that her party got wrong on principle since coming to Congress: No Child Left Behind, Sarbanes-Oxley, Medicare Part D, TARP (twice), multiple farms bills, multiple highway bills, SCHIP, etc. She wants to tax the internet, voting not to extend the moratorium on internet taxation. She wants oil and gas companies to pay more in taxes and be treated differently than other companies. Please click here for the rest of the post.
See the rest here:
Morning Briefing for October 24, 2011
“She represents a +15 GOP district that voted for George Bush and John McCain for president by 63% and 62% respectively. ” She was elected in 1996, and is serving her 8th full term in Congress. She believes her mission in life is to solve world hunger—whether its through foreign aid or food stamps here in this country that we can no longer afford. But if people start eating too much, well hold it right it there, because the federal government has a role in controlling obesity too. She will subsidize anything. Tobacco, sugar, peanuts, milk, mohair, energy, Fannie and Freddie, the Postal Service, the DC metro system, small businesses, and the purchases of auto consumers (Cash for Clunkers). Increasing the minimum wage? She is a fan. Price controls on prescription drugs? She co-sponsored the bill. Davis-Bacon? She supports it. She has voted the wrong way on almost every big bill that her party got wrong on principle since coming to Congress: No Child Left Behind, Sarbanes-Oxley, Medicare Part D, TARP (twice), multiple farms bills, multiple highway bills, SCHIP, etc. She wants to tax the internet, voting not to extend the moratorium on internet taxation. She wants oil and gas companies to pay more in taxes and be treated differently than other companies. She is an appropriator, and a “cardinal” who chairs a subcommittee. She opposed comprehensive reforms to improve a budget process geared to spend. She opposed the line-item veto. She opposed a cap on entitlement spending even though appropriators are notorious for arguing that discretionary spending isn’t the problem, just exploding entitlements. She supported none of the Hefley 1% cuts. She has never supported a budget offered by the conservative Republican Study Committee. In casting over a hundred votes on whether to cut special-interest earmarks out of spending bills, I can literally find only two example where she was willing to support such an amendment. Both were this year. One was John Murtha’s National Drug Intelligence Center that has become controversial, causing her to flip her earlier support . And the other was to reinstate an earmark for Alaska’s Don Young, which probably had more to do with sticking with her appropriators who wrote the bill than anything. But these exceptions run up hard against the rest of her earmark votes: a Johnstown industry “incubator” (another Murtha earmark), a West Virginia research corporation, a planning and urban research in San Francisco, the infamous Charlie Rangel center, a Wisconsin regional planning commission, among many. As late as FY 2010, at the peak of outrage over earmarks, she was still funneling $30 million in earmarks being included in various bills, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. She currently scores a 49% on the Heritage Action scorecard. No boys and girls. She is not Carolyn Maloney from NYC, Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco or Jan Schakowsky from Illinois. She represents a +15 GOP district that voted for George Bush and John McCain for president by 63% and 62% respectively. She is now the chairman of the remaining Republican liberals in the House, the Tuesday Group. She is Jo Ann Emerson, and she represents Missouri’s 8th district. She needs to be primaried.
Read more:
Paging the Missouri Tea Party: Here’s One to Primary
One of my favorite groups in Washington is Heritage Action for America. A major indicator of their success is that the Washington GOP Establishment planted a story in Roll Call about their lack of influence. The article was clearly planted by House Republican leadership staffers, the same staffers who planted a story about me in the Washington Post at the end of July about how I have no influence and nobody listens to me. Two weeks after these House leadership aides declared, anonymously, that I had no influence I introduced Rick Perry at the RedState Gathering where he declared his candidacy for President. No influence. It is the same with Heritage Action for America. You know a conservative wields influence when House leadership staffers push out stories about the conservatives’ lack of influence, but are too chicken to go on record about it. Nobodies don’t get booed. Kicking off the attack was Congressman Geoff Davis of Kentucky ( HAFA Score: 63% ) telling Ginni Thomas at the Daily Caller that “Heritage Action is a self-interested fundraising organization led by a former Giuliani staffer who is not taking counsel from real conservatives … It is a worthless organization to the conservative movement. I’ll be the first to say that.” Congressman Davis, who opposed social security reform, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform, and offshore drilling while supporting farm subsidies, cash for clunkers, green energy subsidies, the AFL-CIO, and NEA spending, was the only person willing to go on record attacking HAFA. Heritage Action for America is so worthless in fact that House Republican Leadership staffers are forced to give anonymous quotes to Washington newspapers about how no one listens to HAFA. By the way, the sources are most likely from Eric Cantor’s Office ( HAFA Score: 60% ). I say this rather factually because the Politico was the first to drum up an anti-HAFA piece and a source at the Politico all but flat out told me it was Cantor’s office more than Boehner’s office pushing the line of attack. Same with the “Erickson and RedState have no influence” story at the Washington Post . Not that Boehner’s office has clean hands, but his office doesn’t yet seem to be the driving force behind these stories. In fact, with the Politico story, which substantially changed from its original form, the key motivator was a feeling among some leadership staff that Heritage Action for America is staffed by people who went to Washington and decided it was more important to fight for conservative causes than to sell out for the “greater good” of the Republican Team. Frankly, in my experience, conservatives who sell out their values are usually the most embittered, angry people in Washington — full of self-loathing every time they look in the mirror and realize, in the quiet of the night, what sell outs to their own values they’ve become. But unable to hate themselves, they hate those who haven’t sold out instead. Outside of the psychology of these hit pieces, what is interesting is that while, like with me, leadership aides are unwilling to go on the record to smear HAFA, congressmen are willing to go on record to defend HAFA. Congressman Jim Jordan, leader of the conservatives in the House, (HAFA Score: 96%) took to their defense as did South Carolina Congressman Mick Mulvaney (HAFA Score: 95%), and my Congressman, Austin Scott of Georgia, (HAFA Score: 80%) has used Heritage Action For America’s support on legislation as a key selling point for why other members of Congress should sign on to legislation. The latest “they’ve got no influence” story came after House leaders were able to get a highway bill through with a voice vote when Heritage Action had scored against it. The reaction by members of Congress and the backpedaling of leadership (and of Senators) on this legislation suggests that instead of having no influence, Republican Congressmen are scared to death of HAFA and fear not only being on record against them, but also being in opposition to them. Like with RedState, these hit jobs from Republicans come because Republican Leaders in Washington, who campaigned throughout 2010 saying they’d learned the lessons of 2006, are being proven squishy and resent their conservative base holding them accountable for betraying the trust not just of the Republican base, but of the American people.
Go here to see the original:
Nobodies Don’t Get Booed
