Not Exactly a Full Metal Jacket Reach Around

Spring seems to have sprung around here; I've spent the day doing yard work and bagging up leaves that have been hiding out in flower beds and nestled up against the side of the house.  My back yard needs some serious work this spring.  It used to be lush and beautiful but we got a Lab puppy two years ago and last year we had a severe drought.  (This picture is from better days).  Between the two I'm not sure what can be saved out there.  I'm definitely going to be in the market for some sod and there's no question that several shrubs will have to be replaced.  I'm probably going to need some dirt, too; when a dog digs a hole where in the world does the dirt go?  There's never enough dirt nearby to refill that hole.

Mr. SIGIS is watching a spring training baseball game and I'm surfing the blogs trying to catch up on things.

I stopped first at Political Clown Parade who has a post about Andrew Breitbart.  In that post the Curmudgeon also comments a bit on blogger burnout and the infamous mental hiatus.  She reached such a low point last year that she even took her popular blog at the time down.  Regretting that decision later, she is back at it with her current blog:

Last year, I gave up blogging and closed down a site from which I blogged. I was in very bad health and cynical about politics. I had become a timid soul. I had blogged there for several years hoping to make a difference. My health and my cynicism affected my decision. Admittedly, it was a mistake. I regret having taken down the site. After a short time, I decided to rejoin the fray at this site.

I have to say, I gave some thought recently to going dark myself.   I eventually dismissed the idea but I did rearrange my priorities and expectations.  Getting "a million hits" is no longer a priority and not even that important.  Staying inside at my keyboard during all my spare time is no longer a priority either.  I decided instead that it was more important to live life than just write about it.  There's a balance that must be maintained and for a long time I was out of balance.  I think I've made that adjustment now.  Fingers crossed.

And bless his heart, William Teach is still linking me even though I've been basically AWOL for weeks.  Thank you, Teach.  I do appreciate you!  I know there are a few others but Technorati being what it is these days makes it hard for me to tell.  

At any rate, the Curmudgeon was paying tribute in that post to Andrew Breitbart and his relentless pursuit of the good fight for conservatism.  Be sure to check it out.

One of the topics I've really been reading about and mulling about posting has been Governor Bobby Jindal's education reform plan.  I touched on it briefly but there's a lot I really want to get into and read about.  I'll be honest, though...I'm cautious about writing too much about it at this point.  In the first place, there just aren't enough specifics beyond just his wish list and in the second place, I'm trying to consider workplace politics.  It's weighing on my mind, though.  I'll get back to it.

Bride of Rove has some spot on thoughts about politics and the discussion of issues.  In fact, I saw this post on her Facebook wall the other day and figured she'd pissed somebody off:

Can I just say this? If you don’t want to discuss politics on Facebook then don’t post political opinions and links. It is beyond blond to think that everyone is going to either completely agree with you or ignore you and move on. You want a discussion? Post. You don’t? Then don’t post. One of my absolute favorite friends to debate with is (name redacted) because she is smart as a whip, can back up her opinions with facts, and because she and I don’t always agree I actually learn quite a lot from her “salons” … and that’s how it used to be back in the day. People who want to ponder the issues that affect us all and consider all sides, politely and sometimes passionate but impolitely, hosted teas or gatherings and people discussed.

People who disagree with your current views on issues are not the antichrist. You post and it is an invitation for a discussion. Not abuse, of course, but discourse? Definitely. 

There's more, but you'll have to go there to read it.  I don't ever want to make that woman my enemy.   One of the hardest things for me to get used to about blogging was how vicious people who disagree with you can be.  During the '08 campaign I had lots and lots of readers who disagreed with me and who did not hold back one iota when it came to telling me what an ignorant, flatline brain I had.  It used to hurt my feelings, sometimes it made me question myself, and then it pissed me off.  Now I've toughened up and realize that there will always be weird people out there and most of them will disagree with me.  I decided if I was going to be sensitive about it then I should quit putting my opinions on the internet.  Yeah, so I quit being sensitive.

Another person I don't ever want to get on the wrong side of writes over at Pecan Corner.  Tina is taking no prisoners in her disdain of those companies that are canceling their advertising contracts with Rush Limbaugh:

I can appreciate that your companies have the freedom to determine for yourselves where you will spend your advertising dollars, and I hope you will continue to have that freedom for as long as your companies exist.

I'm sure you will also appreciate my exercise of freedom of choice when I politely say it's nothing personal (and I don't even listen to or watch Rush), but I will never spend a single dime for any product your companies produce - not even years from now. The older I get, the better my long term memory will become and I will not relent, even when it's a moot point.

Amen, girl.  Hypocrisy exposed.  Enough said.

Doug Ross has a few thoughts on what's wrong with the Chevy Volt:

• The Volt has an annoying habit of sometimes blowing up

• It's incredibly expensive

• It's a coal-powered car

• It's the result of central planning, as opposed to actual market demands.

Again, there's more - RTR.  No Volt for me.  Mr. SIGIS ordered my Jeep in early February and we're expecting to take delivery on that in a couple of weeks.  I can't wait!  Meanwhile, right now I'm driving a rental 2011 Ford Fusion which is pretty nice.  My son is driving my old Crown Vic while we get his insurance claim settled (nobody wants to rent a car to a 20 year old, you see, which is why I'm driving the rental). 

Obama's war on coal plants is enough to shy anyone away from the Volt, aside from all its other problems, I would think.

Ah, well.  It's off to a hot shower for me.  Got to get the yard dirt off and get ready to begin my research paper unit this week with my sophomores.  Good times.

The Ford Commercial

Since The White House doesn't want you to see this ad, I'm posting it:

The Clunker Crash

American Spectator has a nifty article today exposing the con of the Cash for Clunkers program. I've always believed that the program is a poor idea because it is an artificial manipulation of the normal economic cycle which always backfires on the other end.

Yet many are extolling the virtues of the program, celebrating the fact that dealers showrooms "are packed!" with people and "cars are selling!". Of course, the problem is that soon the $500 per month car payment will come due and not long after that, the repo man for some of these cars. Some of these buyers can afford the car and were probably waiting for the right incentive to leap, but a disproportional number, I'm betting, couldn't afford the purchase in the first place which is why they were still lumping to work in the old Toyota with 150,000 miles.

After the program runs its course, the artificial stimulation of new buyers will dry up the cobwebs will grow over the doors of the dealers.

The Specator article also addresses, of course, the fact that good, used parts to keep your car running will now disappear as the Clunkers are destroyed. Goodbye salvage yard. And the folks dependent on those used parts for their cars? Bus fare.

Read the whole thing; it's enlightening.

Let's Try a Cash for Computers Program - I Could Use a New One of Those

Cash for Clunkers is already out of money; it ran through $1 billion in one week, and now Congress has voted to extend the program by another $2 billion. The Senate has not yet approved; if the Senate does not approve, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says the program will be suspended. Senator McCain has vowed to filibuster a move to give the program more money.

The Wall Street Journal has a piece this morning suggesting that we also subsidize other industries that are in trouble: "Let’s have taxpayers subsidize the purchase of kitchen appliances, women’s clothing, the latest Big Bertha driver—our Taylor-made is certainly a clunker—and new fishing boats."

This is a similar suggestion to one I heard on Mike McConnell this weekend when he suggested "Cash for Carpet." It's all tongue in cheek, of course. Certainly Congress would not consent to assisting those industries, partly because Congress has no vested interest in them as it does with the auto industry.

Is Cash for Clunkers a success? Does running out of money mean you are a success? I'd suggest it shows simply that Americans aren't stupid (for the most part) and if the government wants to help buy them a car, they're in for the ride, so to speak. The WSJ concurs, saying, "What the clunker policy really proves is that Americans aren’t stupid and will let some other taxpayer buy them a free lunch if given the chance."

This issue came up in the comments of another post on this blog yesterday with the commenter extolling the virtues of Cash for Clunkers and it's potential to rev up the economy ("cars got sold in the middle of a severe recession"!). But it all seems at cross purposes to me. First of all, of course a $4,500 tax credit will help someone buy a car; but who is paying for the car? That $4,500 comes from Joe Taxpayer. You. Why does the American taxpayer have to buy someone else a car?

And who is making the cars that are being sold? Chances are, it's a government owned auto company. And who is lending the money to buy those cars made by auto companies the government owns? Probably a government owned bank.

Meanwhile, perfectly usable cars are being destroyed and dismantled under the program (which means those parts won't be in your local salvage yard). The car must be drivable to be eligible for the program and in many cases the car was probably getting somebody to and from work on a daily basis. Now they get to go in a new car bought by you.

I've got nothing against anybody having a new car, but the WSJ calls this "crackpot economics":

On the other hand, this is crackpot economics. The subsidy won’t add to net national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one taxpayer’s pocket from someone else’s, and merely pays that taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return for something he might have bought anyway.

Maxwell Power at The Examiner shows how the program really isn't going to benefit dealers in the long run. He calls it "feel good crap," and suggests lowering taxes on small businesses would be a better tool for saving the economy.

It's kind of like redistribution of wealth, if you look at it that way. Senator Jim DeMint has said that Cash for Clunkers is an example of “stupidity coming out of Washington right now.” The government has no place in the used car business, some assert. But they do when they own the auto industry. Noting his intention to filibuster the Senate bill to give Cash for Clunkers more money, Senator McCain said, “Within a few weeks we will see that this process was abused by speculators and people who took advantage of what is basically a huge government subsidy of corporations that they already own."

All in all, the Cash for Clunkers program is rather incestuous in it's cross purposes; it also shows how the government once again underestimated or misjudged how things would go. (Remember when Biden said they misread the economy?) Do we really want these people running our health care industry? Crikey!

(More at Memeorandum)

GM Shreveport Plant to Close

We got word in Shreveport this week that our GM plant will be closing by mid-2012 if not sooner. The plant employs about 1,100 people at this time. It has been as high as 3,200. The Shreveport plant produces the Colorado, the GMC Canyon and the Hummer H3 and H3T.

U.S. Rep. John Fleming (R.) said the state's congressional delegation "will also aggressively work with Tengzhong, the Chinese buyer of the Hummer brand, to show the benefits of not only keeping the existing Hummer manufacturing at this plant, but also the possibilities for expanding their U.S. operations at this facility." Of course, that sale hasn't gone through yet. If it does go through, Shreveport would continue to produce the H3 and H3T until 2010 but anything after that is uncertain.

The Shreveport Times has the full story.

Gretchen Carlson Has Questions for Car Czar

Bride of Rove wrote about this interview yesterday and I couldn't believe what I was reading; then Snaggletoothie had the video. H/T to both! Bride linked to this transcript of the radio program which goes into more detail.

There is something seriously wrong if this is allowed to happen. Seriously.



From the radio program - not the video above, this is Beck talking to the Carlsons and to Gretchen:

GLENN: Okay. Now, Gretchen tells me that you guys made the first round of cuts.

CALLER: That's right.

GLENN: And then you didn't make the second round.

CALLER: No. We got the registered letter and the FedEx and the first sentence says we are not renewing your Chevrolet or your Cadillac franchise. And then went on to explain.

GLENN: You've been in business for 90 years?

CALLER: Yep.

GLENN: 103% of goal last year?

CALLER: Yep.

CALLER: And we haven't had a losing month since the Eighties when there was 21% interest rate, you know, on anyone that bought a car. And even through all this, and the interesting thing is that we know for sure that some dealers who were kept are losing money. And the other kind of upsetting thing is the one that was given the dealership back, it seems somewhat political because it's very hard to determine. I don't think any of the big conglomerates, i.e., the dealers who owned six, seven, eight, nine, ten franchises in around the Minneapolis area, this particular person that was cut and was reinstated is one of those. Otherwise it's hard to tell if any of them have lost a dealership. But they have a gag order on you. You are not supposed to tell. And Mr. Henderson said, well, he is not going to tell because he doesn't want to ruin your business. Well, when you get a letter, FedEx on a day that they determine you are going to get the letter, it's only fair to your employees to let them know what it says. We can't go around pretending. Because you can't appeal if you done tell, either. So that's what happened to us.

------------------------------------------------

GLENN: If you didn't sign the gag order, which means that you're talking now, if you don't sign the gag order, you won't they are saying to you that you can't sell the cars. They're yours, right? You bought them from them.

CALLER: Uh huh.

GLENN: And you won't get any warranties on these cars.

CALLER: What will happen, as I understand it, it's very confusing. I'd have to ask a Chrysler dealer, I suppose, because they are in the middle of it. But I think what you have to do is you have to sell those cars to another dealer or something like that at a loss so that they can then retail the car and cover it with warranties. Once we're terminated, we can no longer do any warranty work, you see. So if we don't sign this thing and send it in, what happens is they will put us in the bankruptcy court and the judge has the authority to probably terminate us within a week, you know.

CALLER: But Glenn, here's the deal. They got a gun to their head because they have to sign this thing by Friday. Keep in mind that they filed an appeal which General Motors, by the way, never even informed them that they could file an appeal. They just happened to find out. They got that in by Monday night. Now you are telling me that of all the GM dealers who have been cut and all the ones that possibly are filing appeals that somebody was actually looking at those appeals on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and giving them an answer back and by Friday they have to sign this agreement or they're dead.

CALLER: Well, and we don't even know to whom we are appealing. That's, we just said to the review committee we don't know if it's the government, we don't know if it's General Motors. We have absolutely no idea. And then at the end when you're all done, you have you're forced to give them your customer, all your customer base and your customer service base and then you have to say, well, that's good; now you've cut us. And if you want to put up someone else three miles from us, we have to agree to that. So it's ...

It's fascism is what it is. It breaks your heart listening to these people. Doug Ross has done an excellent job in covering this DealerGate story; check his site for more info and links. It sure doesn't sound like capitalism in America, that's for sure.


Update - Welcome Doug Ross readers! Thanks for stopping by!)

Government Motors

The whole GM business just stinks.

We, of course, learned over the weekend that GM CEO Rick Wagoner would be stepping down. Then we learn that it was at the behest of The White House. Now I don't care WHO the president is, this is just wrong.

I know that Bush opened the door for this with the initial bailout of the auto makers. I'm referring to the December bailout, the one AFTER the election, the one he consulted with Obama on during that smoothest transition EVAH, and the one approved by the Democratic congress. Most conservatives, myself included, were against the bailout from the git-go, as my mother would say, but again, water under the bridge at this point.

So here we are with Barack Obama guaranteeing your warranty.

" If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired just like always. Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it's ever been because starting today the United States government will stand behind your warranty."

Well don't we all feel better!

Obama has never run anything more complicated than a pencil sharpener; how are we to take solace in the fact that he is now de facto CEO for GM? Because he feels your pain.

"I’d like to speak directly to all those men and women who work in the auto industry or live in countless communities that depend on them. Many of you have been going through tough times for longer than you care to remember, and I won’t pretend that the tough times are over. I can’t promise you there isn’t more difficulty to come.

But what I can promise you is this: I will fight for you. You are the reason I’m here today. I got my start fighting for working families in the shadows of a shuttered steel plant. I wake up every single day asking myself, what can I do to give you and working people all across this country a fair shot at the American dream?"

Were those violins in the background?

Rush Limbaugh asked today, "Where are the unions in all of this?" Well yeah. Hello? Can somebody please hold the unions accountable? Or is BHO just paying them back now by handing GM to them on a silver platter?

And remember, according to BHO, this whole move is not a condemnation of Wagoner - it's just that Wagoner didn't have the right vision. The "right" vision? And who, pray tell, does have the "right" vision? Tim-Turbo-Tax Geithner? And what actually makes him qualified to decide that? His vast experience in business? Hmmm, probably not.

It doesn't matter WHO was behind this debacle at this point. It's just wrong. In fact, now we even have Obama telling Chrysler that they HAVE to reach a merger agreement with Fiat or consider themselves SOL. The bottom line is that this is not how capitalism works. We are a free market society. We do NOT have the White House telling companies with whom they must merge.

Oh but wait. Now we do.

One day you will look at your grandchildren and tell them about the free country that America used to be.

Flash! Gas Prices Too Low!!!

From an editorial in today's New York Times which is advocating a gasoline tax for the purpose of raising gasoline prices:

"A bitter recession is not the most opportune time to ratchet up the price of energy. But if the Obama administration is to meet its twin objectives of reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and cutting its emissions of greenhouse gases, it needs to start thinking now about mechanisms to curb the nation’s demand for energy when the economy emerges from recession in the future."

I'm no economist by any means - I can barely balance my checkbook, but this is such an asinine position to me. We're in extremely volatile economic times right now, and the New York Times is advocating a gas tax to keep gas prices higher.

Americans love their cars; we love the 1964 Mustang and we love big luxurious Cadillacs and we love our SUVs. We love our big 8-cylinder engines! We even love to buy American (usually). Does anybody seriously think that a freaking Prius LOOKS good? Could you imagine Tony Soprano in a Prius?? Try packing the family of four into a Prius and driving to grandma's house fourteen hours away. It's not going to happen.

The problem with the American auto industry, as most real people know, is the unions. The union costs force auto costs up higher than they should be; it's perfectly possible to get a well made, good car without the exorbinate costs. As an example, Steve bought a Hyundai SUV last year and it's a great car! It's solid and better made than some of the American counterparts we looked at and test drove.

The position of the Obama team has been that we need to lower our dependence on foreign oil. That's all well and good - let's drill in ANWAR then. Let's produce our own oil. Build refineries.

I may be over thinking this, but it seems that the additional objective here, of lowering greenhouse emissions, is the real focus of the New York Times editorial. Tax gasoline to make the price higher so people who don't want to pay $4 a gallon will go buy an ugly Prius (or some other toy-car) which will supposedly lower greenhouse gas emissions and solve global warming (which many scientists don't believe exists.)

It is a proven fact that lowering taxes in a recession is the right course of action. The Obama team needs to look at lowering corporate taxes rather than raising gasoline taxes. With the New York Times own dismal financial position right now, they are in no real position to be giving economic advice to the incoming administration.