The “cash for clunkers” program, which paid $4500 to consumers who traded in their old gas guzzlers for more fuel efficient vehicles, has crashed and burned in less than a week. From the story:
Less than four days after launching a popular cash-for-clunkers program, the Obama administration warned Congress the plan already had burned through its $950-million budget, setting off a rush for more money while leaving thousands of dealers and consumers in the lurch.
Question: If the Congress and the Obama Administration can’t properly plan and execute a relatively small plan like cash for clunkers, why should we think the government can manage and properly budget for 1/6th of the entire economy?
July 31st, 2009 | 4:52 pm
And this has what to do with bioethics?
Criticizing on a program that is excessively SUCCESSFUL is nonsensical. What program did W ever start that had that problem?
More and more you’re looking like a shill for the Republican minority, Wes. Your hysteria about all things Obama is disingenuous, and frankly it’s getting tiresome.
July 31st, 2009 | 5:50 pm
While it’s not relevant to bio*ethics* per se, I think that a federal program that woefully underestimates demand and goes over budget in less than a week has plenty of relevance for the potential partial nationalization of healthcare.
July 31st, 2009 | 10:32 pm
[...] Wesley J. Smith asks: If the Congress and the Obama Administration can’t properly plan and execute a relatively [...]
July 31st, 2009 | 10:34 pm
I would LOVE to have that car, and I wouldn’t even turn it in to the Feds.
Robert at bioethike.com
August 1st, 2009 | 1:27 am
padraig,
Going over-budget in a few days with a program that was supposed to last a few months is hardly a success. And this was a relatively simple program. Health care is far more complicated. And what the government will do in order to deal with the unforeseen and underestimated costs with regard to health care deform (if it should pass) will concern bioethics.
August 1st, 2009 | 8:01 am
I see a ’55 Chevrolet in the foreground, and what looks like a mid-60s Pontiac GTO next to it. Anyone here ever watch “Wrecks to Riches” on the Speed Channel? I’d gladly pay $1,000 for either of those “clunkers.”
August 1st, 2009 | 10:11 am
John and Sparky,
Nice try, but the program’s fixed already. And I hardly think this program got the kind of attention that health care’s getting. This was neither a major problem nor a precursor to other problems.
On the other hand, remember when W and company finished off the Iraq mission in half the time expected, with minimal loss of life, and we even made money on the deal? Me neither.
So it’s kind of hard for me to get too worked up about a used-car trade-in deal.
August 1st, 2009 | 11:56 am
>>Nice try, but the program’s fixed already>>
Sure it’s fixed. It was only a one billion dollar project – they just tripled it.
The healthcare program is already 1 trillion plus. Shoveling out money _does_ have its limits.
Do you think the money required is irrelevant?
August 1st, 2009 | 12:04 pm
Er, they “fixed” the program by shoveling more money into it. This is what I am afraid of. They instituted a program by which people could get money from the government and demand overwhelmed them. So now they’re spending more money, as their private sector partners become nervous about ever being reimbursed. This suggests they are not experts at predicting demand, and that they may well be overwhelmed by the demand for “free” public health care, and forced to spend the republic into oblivion or ration care harshly.
And, I’m a bit curious as to why you think anyone who is against the expansion of public sector health care is a Republican zombie with a shrine to George W. Bush in their basement.
August 1st, 2009 | 6:32 pm
Three billion dollars, in government spending terms is chump change. In exchange we got an important durable goods sector of the economy jump started, so to speak. I’m guessing neither of you works in the automotive industry. I know some folks who do and this has been a life saver.
“And, I’m a bit curious as to why you think anyone who is against the expansion of public sector health care is a Republican zombie with a shrine to George W. Bush in their basement.”
I didn’t say that, but can I quote you? ;)
August 2nd, 2009 | 11:21 am
A good car uses gasoline, and smells of gasoline, and is made of metal. Of course they can’t administer the program; that’s hardly a surprise. The real problem is that their agenda does to the disabled and the elderly what they’re doing to the great cars that, like the disabled and elderly, deserve respect and reverence. HOW DARE THEY CRUSH THAT 57 CHEVY!!!!!
August 2nd, 2009 | 11:22 am
So how much cash would be in it for impeaching a clunker president/administration?
August 4th, 2009 | 10:04 am
HW: I would too. Plus these cars transcend monetary value. There’s something wrong in disabling perfectly good cars and then calling them “clunkers,” too, isn’t there.
August 19th, 2009 | 10:39 am
Indeed, SparcVark. Invoke the name of George W. and you can apparently “cover a multitude of sins,” as the saying is, by the Obama admininstration.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact