Why not just have a big demolition derby? More fun....

This excerpt from Henry Payne's excellent and recent expose of the "Cash for Clunkers" program encapsulates one of the aspects which came to my mind when I first heard of the debacle.

Worse, Democratic demands that the guzzlers be permanently shredded means that already hurting used-car and -parts businesses will suffer. By insisting that the cars not only be crushed — but also that their engines be disabled — Congress’s decree will penalize the industry at time when a dozen U.S. parts suppliers have filed for bankruptcy this year.

“Why throw away good parts when the supply chain is in jeopardy?” the Automotive Recyclers Association’s Michael Wilson asked the AP. Good question.

I think von Mises would agree to file this latest bit of shuck 'n' jive under the general heading of destructionism. Conclusion:

The victims will be lower-income Americans who typically buy only used parts and vehicles. “Now you’re removing cars people could afford, and they’re not available anymore,” says Norm Wright, a Denver recycler. “There will be fewer cars to pull from, so the price of parts will go up.”

SUVs, apparently, aren’t the only things being sacrificed at the green altar.

If the enviro-yuppies were honest, then a sticker reading "Let them eat cake" would grace every hybrid bumper in the parking lot of the health food co-op.

Northern Public Radio?

Nice.

Regionalism may be the last remaining prejudice that is “politically correct.” It’s perfectly acceptable to attack someone for being a Southerner. In describing the Senate hearings on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, for example, NPR titled its report “Sotomayor Grilled by Southern-Fried GOP.” The piece goes on to inform readers that “only one of the seven states represented by Republicans [on the Judiciary Committee] is a state that fought for Mr. Lincoln in the Civil War.” Not satisfied to leave their bigotry there, the package goes on to discuss certain senators’ “rich accents” that have “soft and expressive inflections of the South, even as they provided the toughest questioning.”

Over 1 Million Signatures at Free Our Health Care Now

Don't forget to sign the health care petition. It's the least you can do to stop this monstrosity.

When I first posted on June 24, they had around 100,000 signatures. Then on July 22 they were up to 650,000. Now there are over 1,000,000!

Just a little tidbit to remind you what people whose job it is to understand money have said about all the supposed cost savings touted by the White House pimping this bill of goods.

McCain votes against Sotomayor; White House makes idiotic response

This is so silly. John McCain votes against Obama's nominee and Obama is "disappointed" by his "partisanship". Oh, yeah... that John McCain—a real Republican's Republican, he.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs criticized McCain, President Barack Obama's opponent last year, saying that Sotomayor is qualified to sit on the bench.

"It's disappointing that Sen. McCain came to a different conclusion a day after talking about bipartisanship," Gibbs told reporters in his West Wing office.

But lest we forget....

While a senator, Obama voted against former President George W. Bush's nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. The future president also voted in favor of filibustering Alito.

Short memory or the standard but-not-for-thee of the left?

Here's the beef: "McCain said on the Senate floor Monday that Sotomayor is 'an immensely qualified candidate,' but she does not share his belief in judicial restraint. 'There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor has the professional background and qualifications that one hopes for in a Supreme Court nominee,' McCain said, before adding: 'However, an excellent resume and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one for a lifetime of service on the Supreme Court.'" This is a sensible statement with which all conservatives and even many Obama supporters would agree.

McCain has gotten panned for being a "moderate" in the past and too bipartisan for the blood of the most respected conservatives. However even Rick Santorum has recently recanted some of his wilder McCain bashing episodes. But my main point: despite the dreams and delusions of many of Obama's independent voters and supporters, neither of the adjectives bipartisan nor moderate can be used accurately to describe Barack Obama. If you need a good descriptive term, try ideological on for size.

BTW, here's an excerpt from the informative Santorum piece.

So I wrote without a doubt that McCain would not only work with Obama on the issues they agreed on, but would also "forge common ground on a long list of initiatives that go far beyond where he has gone before, including the stimulus package."

Wrong! McCain did not only oppose Obama on the stimulus package; he led the fight against the $800 billion addition to our national debt, labeling it "an act of generational theft."

McCain also opposed Obama's next major legislative initiative, an omnibus appropriations bill that was 8 percent larger than last year's and loaded with congressional earmarks, which McCain tried to kill.

McCain voted against almost all of Obama's controversial executive appointments as well.

Obama's climate-change plan? McCain called it an "irresponsible, ill-conceived, and distorted version of a cap-and-trade system" and "a giant government slush fund that will further burden our businesses and consumers."

Health-care reform? McCain said last month that a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the plan "should be a wake-up call for all of us to scrap the current bill and start over ... in a true bipartisan fashion."

Even on Gitmo, McCain said Obama was making a "terrible mistake" because he didn't have a plan for what to do with the prisoners. "I'm for closing Guantanamo," McCain said. "But I'm for a comprehensive solution. ..." In recent weeks, he's also blasted Obama's response to the Iranian election and the Honduran coup.

With allies like McCain, Obama hardly needs adversaries.

No hanging chads

Eleven of you voted in the poll I announced earlier and decided once and for all the size of my huge, throbbing readership. The results are in... it's "Over 20, not including Pikkumatti who is a Pokemon character" in a landslide of Carterian proportions. I realize that some of you didn't vote because you didn't want to engage in "consequentialism on parade" or give in to any other temptations to immoral or unseemly behavior. That's OK. The fact that so many of you are reading this now is quite adequate to support the corners of the devilish grin affixed to my visage.

Zo: "I See White People!" -- hilarious

LOL to "speak for yourself, sissy."

And the winner is... MEDICAID!

Job creation, my butt. Derek Thompson shows us where the "stimulus" money is really going. Short answer: failing government programs.

The best explanation I've found for why the stimulus didn't work is this graph from the GAO analysis of the stimulus act. It shows pretty clearly that the 76 percent of stimulus spending through the first four months went to fill in the gaping holes in Medicaid and state budgets. In other words, the stimulus isn't acting like a pole vault lifting job creation above the baseline. It's been acting like a crutch to keep state budgets and payrolls from tumbling.

Hat tip to Mark Hemingway on the Corner who states the following:

Color me shocked. I realize there are people that think it's a noble goal, but spending billions preserving the status quo in government over the next four months while America bleeds jobs is most certainly not the rationale given to the American people who were told there was an immediate need to railroad through an economic stimulus.

Time to put away those shovels you had ready.

Cardinal Rigali on the Healthcare Proposal

Here's an excerpt from Cardinal Rigali's recent statement WRT House Bill 3200, the Healthcare "reform" bill.

“Much-needed reform must not become a vehicle for promoting an ‘abortion rights’ agenda or reversing longstanding current policies against federal abortion mandates and funding,” he wrote. “In this sense we urge you to make this legislation ‘abortion neutral’ by preserving longstanding federal policies that prevent government promotion of abortion and respect conscience rights.”

“Several federal laws have long protected the conscience rights of health care providers,” Cardinal Rigali added. “President Obama recently stated that he accepts these current laws and will do nothing to weaken them. Congress should make the same pledge, by ensuring that this legislation will maintain protection for conscience rights.”

A link to the Cardinal's letter is also included.

How could anyone seriously think that this bill would be palatable at all to pro-life taxpayers? Or serious Catholics? Rigali is not some right-wing crank. The answer is that there was nothing bi-partisan about the bill; it is 100% ideological.

It's funny to me is when I think about the whole crew of people who get off asserting that the GOP is just as pro-abortion as the Democrat Party, that they are merely a bunch of hypocritical posers on the issue. Because if that is the case, having every American taxpayer funding abortion is going to provide a jackpot for further "posing" opportunities, especially given the recent shift in public opinion on abortion. Uncle Sam pointing his finger at YOU and saying "You will pay for abortions"? Priceless.

I hope the proposed amendments get put in, but honestly--what's the over-under?