Las Vegas News, Sports, Business, Entertainment and Classifieds

Las Vegas Review-Journal - Opinion

Sunday
Mar 21, 2010
Mostly Clear
Mostly Clear 58° Weather Forecast

RECENT EDITIONS
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Opinion


EDITORIAL: Crackpot schemes failing left and right

'Cash for Clunkers' off by factor of 30? Let's try health care

Imagine you're in the car business. You have a problem. Government mandates -- aimed at "fuel efficiency" and lots of other high-sounding matters in which Congress is granted no power to meddle by the Constitution -- require you to manufacture cars that are more expensive, yet lighter and thus less safe than the cars Americans already have.

Add that to the current economic slowdown -- exacerbated by high government taxes -- and your customers are maintaining, buying and selling amongst themselves their old vehicles rather than visiting your showrooms. What to do?


Most Popular Stories
  1. For bankruptcy and socialism
  2. 30 million new patients will mean rationing by doctors



One option would be to take billions of dollars seized from your customers against their will, and use it to buy those older cars and trucks, at higher than market value, from anyone who comes in and agrees to buy one of your newer models.

Then -- this is the good part -- don't turn around and re-sell those trade-ins as used cars: Destroy them.

You could claim you're doing it to "protect the environment" -- though in fact any car without smog controls that's still on the road would be more than 30 years old, probably a restored classic whose owner is hardly going to sell it for $4,500.

What's that? Private auto manufacturers would have to explain to their stockholders why they were destroying those valuable assets for a dead loss? And private car makers have no power to seize their customers cash against their will and put it to use in such a scheme, in the first place?

But who said anything about "private" automakers? The U.S. government now runs America's biggest car company, formerly known as "General Motors." The federal government does indeed have the power to seize billions of dollars from its "customers," on threat of jail. And it has indeed launched such a program, officially known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, or more colloquially as "Cash for Clunkers."

They launched it early last week. And suspended it on Friday, as Congress raced to allocate an extra $2 billion to keep the scheme from running dry. And what a week it was.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said about 40,000 vehicle sales had been completed through the program but that dealers estimated they were trying to complete transactions on another 200,000 vehicles.

Jim Mooradian, general manager of Courtesy Imports in Henderson, called getting registered for the program a "nightmare," with systems crashing and dealers experiencing trouble submitting documents. Nor are guidelines clear on when the federal rebate money will flow to dealers.

One letter-writer last week reported her family visited a local Las Vegas dealer and completed one of the "cash for-clunkers" deals -- only to be called back later, told their trade-in didn't qualify, and that they had to bring back either their new car or their $4,500.

"At this point, if you start it three days ago and say it will be a three-month program, and within two days you panic and pull things offline, you will have dealers very hesitant to sign people up again," Mr. Mooradian warns.

This is like getting your car fixed up after your drunken teenager drives it into a wall, handing him the keys, and saying "Try again."

If someone estimates funding of a plan is adequate for 90 days, and the money runs out in a week, how much of the American economy would you trust that person to run?

These days, the method in Washington is to dream up some crackpot scheme, insist that it has to be enacted "immediately! -- no time to read the bill or organize anyone to administer the program! This is an emergency!" Then they draw some dollar figure out of their hat (some would suggest a more proctological source), throw a billion or two at the fan (after all, it's only tax money), and see what flies.

First there was last autumn's huge bank bailout -- the "Troubled Asset Relief Program." Leaders of both parties raced to Washington and said there was no time for study and debate: the thing had to be enacted in a week! It was an emergency! Remember?

The rich banking buddies of the rich bankers at the Federal Reserve got bailed out, all right. But as for all that new credit that was supposed to flow out into the economy, making it easier for small businesses to stay in business? Still waiting.

Next, in Feburary, came billions of dollars in "economic stimulus" funding.

Five months later, less than 10 percent of that money has been spent, most of that on propping up state budgets to make sure no Diversity Training Officer goes without her bureaucratic raises and benefit hikes. Those "shovel-ready projects" that were going to immediately create "high-paying new construction jobs"? Perhaps Washington can use the shovels to shovel something else they've got plenty of.

Now, Congress races to throw another $2 billion of our hard-earned money down the swirling "Cash for Clunkers" whirlpool, approving said measure Friday by a vote of 316-109.

"The federal government can't process a simple rebate. I've got dealers who have submitted the paperwork three times and have gotten three rejections," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich. "What is a dealer supposed to do?"

"There are a lot of questions about how the administration administered this program." House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio told The Associated Press, Friday. "If they can't handle something as simple as this, how would we handle health care?"

Oh, gosh. He would have to ask that.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Leave Your Comment 67 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Current Word Count:

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

Report abuse

patrick wrote on August 08, 2009 11:22 AM: Oh and Mike, one more thing:

Before you talk about me belittling people, or acting juvenile, you may wanna check out YOUR original posts where you describe me as being worse than "a moronic simpleton" or calling me just another "dolt" or dismissing me as being a child by suggesting that I "go outside and play while the adults are talking".

Like most of the right wingers here, or "whatever you wanna call" it, you INITIATE the demeaning cracks, then act like you are affronted when a response comes in kind.

Nice.


Report abuse

patrick wrote on August 08, 2009 10:13 AM: Mike:

You confuse a "point of view" with a "statement of fact".

Maybe if you spent more time actually intended on learning something and less on "hearing" yourself talk you would understand the distinction; but I really don't hold out much hope.

Facts don't need to be "spun". The facts that I have been kind enough to set out before you were intended to teach you something; you apparently are either unable or unwilling to learn, but really that is your problem I guess.

Keep this in mind though Mike; the economy is improving and the indicators are all, and I really mean all, are headed in a positive direction for continued improvement.

This is a good thing, regardless of what political philosophy you maintain.

If you take anything away from this, try and take that at least.


Report abuse

Mike wrote on August 08, 2009 08:21 AM: lil p, you can state and restate your spin till the cows come home and it will still not add credibility to your position. Your apples to oranges approach to all of your commentary is, well, tedious.

As I said before, it must be a tough slog in your world in which there cannot be any ideas but your own. And to say that folks that don't bobble head to your set of ideas have comprehension/reading/thinking/etc. issues is pretty juvenile and belittles the debate and the points that you have successfully made.

Life aint zero sum, no matter how hard you argue it or belittle those opposed to your points of view.


Report abuse

patrick wrote on August 07, 2009 09:02 PM: Gee Mike I'm so surprised that you didn't comprehend what I said.

See, what I said is that unemployment was a lagging indicator, what YOU said was that unemployment was a "long term indicator", whatever that means.

And, no Mike, things like the manufacturing index, housing starts, and new construction are LEADING indicators; which means an indication of what IS to happen..in the future. Get it? Somehow I didn't think so.

And, yet another surprise; you "interpret" the recent unemployment numbers to mean something they absolutely DO NOT mean.

Since the stock market has ALWAYS been considered a leading indicator what does that tell you about how the people who are betting their money today see the unemployment figures that came out today?

I'll help you because, again, you have a clear problem understanding what it is that is happening right in front of your face; the market believes that the numbers are showing that economic growth lies ahead. In other words Mike, the stock market, the people who are betting their money everyday BELIEVE that the unemployment numbers release today are evidence that the economy will be better TOMORROW.

See its not the administation that needs to "spin" the numbers, the people who are paid to understand what those numbers mean are BETTING that they mean a better economy tomorrow. This is, by the very definition of the word, a "leading indicator".

"Think" what you will, as they say "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still", but reality, thankfully, is vastly different.


Report abuse

Mike wrote on August 07, 2009 04:47 PM: Sorry lil p, your analysis does not hold water. As you correctly assess my indicators as what has already happened, your indicators are also representative of what has happened. Even if it is betting on the future, it is a bet that has already been made.

Your financial disclaimer found on most infomercials from gold to pennystocks is a standard disclaimer that you could and probably will lose money. Again, your analysis does not hold water.

Today's job numbers came out as another loser even though the WH is trying to spin it the decrease in the amount of jobs lost as a good thing. It is still about 300,000 more Americans out of work than there was last month. That is a dubious good indicator. BUT, long term it indicates that this lagging indicator has arrested the rate of growth but is still growing. Economists can model this indicator with others to predict just when the job hemorraging will stop. Ergo, a long-term indicator.

Again, another leaky bucket to prove your thesis. First, you have swallowed the Kool Aid on unemployment. A continued LOSS of jobs is not a move in th opposite direction, it is a slowing of a move in the wrong direction. Ditto for tax receipts.

As for whether or not my indicators can be considered long-term, you just choose to support your thesis that I am wrong because I do not agree with you. Sounds kind of a lonely position if you ask me.


Report abuse

This taxpayer wants single payer heatlh plan wrote on August 06, 2009 07:00 PM: What a sham!

It's time to end our "risky experiment" of "For-profit health insurance". It's a proven failure.

Support HR676. It's a Single Payer system that is proven, pro-business and pro-people:

* Slashes at least 30% of costs off the top by removing private insurance overhead.
* Companies take health care expenses off their books. Stock value increases. Better able to compete internationally.
* Small companies could have access to higher skilled workers because previously they couldn't compete in the labor market by offering similar benefits.
* More entrepreneurial ventures will launch since they have more money and less unrelated risk.
* Dramatic drop in bankruptcies.
* Dramatic drop in lawsuits. Most of these lawsuits are simply to obtain money to cover health care if something interrupts their coverage.
* Reduced system complexity. Greater efficiency due to fewer regulations.
* Savings from employees not having to fight with their insurers during work hours.
* HSA and MSA dollars redirected back into the economy for goods and services.
* Additional money to spend from not having to carry "uninsured motorist coverage" on your auto policy.
* Contract employment is more viable for workers since they are guaranteed access to health care.
* People are covered when unemployed. No chance of being wiped out financially if you lose your job.
* Health care providers (doctors, hospitals, therapists...) see increase in business with much less administrative expense.


Report abuse

patrick wrote on August 06, 2009 01:33 PM: Unemployment rates are no more "indicators" than one car crash is an indicator; these figures are the results of what HAS ALL READY HAPPENED, and as every financial company in this country will tell you "previous results are not indications of what you can expect in the future".

Tax receipts are the same; just RESULTS of what has happened IN THE PAST.

Suggesting, as you seem to be doing, that todays unemployment is tomorrows unemployment is demonstrably false; read the unemployment figures just released from the Department of Labor showing that unemployment growth rates fell last month at rates FASTER than expected.

Tax receipts will of course follow and as nearly every analysist agrees that GDP will actually GROW in the next quarter by rates even beyond that previously predicted, it is nonsensical to point to either the current rates of unemployment, or current tax revenues as "long term indicators" because BOTH are moving in the opposite direction from that you seem to suggest the "indicators" indicate.


Report abuse

Mike wrote on August 06, 2009 12:54 PM: Yes, collected taxes and unemployment are long term indicators, as are the "leading" indicators you suggest, when measured over time.

Neither leading nor lagging has a temporal representation unless measured over time.

I think you would agree that the current problems (trends) with unemployment and tax collection have economic effects that will be serious issues far into the future. Both affect how we will provide services and forestall inflation or monetary devaluation.

As for facts, it seems you simply like argument over enlightenment. Parsing a thesis into stand-alone statements in deference to context simply to to prove or disprove your point is disappointing as forensic debate.


Report abuse

patrick wrote on August 06, 2009 11:11 AM: Mike:

Unemployment and taxes are "long term indicators"?

You are funny.

Are you suggesting "Mike" that the unemployment rate today, which is rising, is an indication of where unemployment will be, oh, I don't know, 1 year from now?

And tax revenues as a "long term indicator", that's a first.

Try these on Mike for "long-term indicators":

Housing starts
Manufacturing index
Bond rates
Ted Spreads
New Construction

See, each of the above that I have cited are examples of long term indicators BECAUSE each of them "indicate" that companies believe that "the future" will permit them to make money on their "investments" which in the case of "housing starts, new construction, and manufacturing levels" will not happen UNTIL sometime in the future.

Unemployment is UNIVERSALLY recognized as a "lagging indicator" which means that it recovers AFTER the recovery has ALL READY STARTED. "Leading Indicators", in other words indicators of what it LIKELY to happen, include some of the examples I cited above.

I suppose you would include "tax receipts' amongst the "lagging indicators" as those figures will recover only AFTER the recovery has started (see once the economy starts recovering the government starts generating more revenue) but it certainly is not a "long term indicator".

And although you do get some credit for being able to copy and paste the definition of a "fact" you STILL have not used one in any of your posts. Unless you want to consider the use of the words "Unemployment" and "Collected Taxes" as "facts" that those two words actually exist.


Report abuse

Mke wrote on August 05, 2009 11:17 AM: Here's two:

Unemployment
Collected Taxes

And I have not missed anything. You simply choose to define terms to fit your thesis.

So I could not care less what you do, but I will guarantee that your socialist, progressive, leftist - or whatever you want to label it - crap does not go unchallenged with facts.

fact
Pronunciation:\ˈfakt\
Function:noun
Etymology:Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date:15th century
1: a thing done: as aobsolete : feat b: crime carchaic : action
2: archaic : performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality
4 a: something that has actual existence b: an actual occurrence
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact : in truth

Its pretty clear lil p, you don't even know what a fact is.

Or, be so kind to demonstrate what I have said in these posts that does not neatly fit into any of the above definition variants.


Read All Comments