There are plenty of interesting thoughts swirling around in the blogosphere, as evidenced byÂ this first NewsReal Blog Round Up.
Andrew Sullivan muses on the Cash for Clunkers program and conservatism:
What conservatives have to do, in my view, is not demonize government, but to champion limited government. If government can do tangible practical things that help everyone, while balancing its budget, it’s doing what conservatives think it should. Smart, practical initiatives that address problems that the private sector has failed at: what else is government for? The rest is ideology – and it seems to be all the Republicans have left.
How is it limited government, though, if the government is spending billions of dollars to get people to buy new cars? What does limited government even mean if not a government that limits itself in what it does? A government that limits itself to its constitutionally-definedÂ role?
Also, Sullivan threw in a critical caveat that isn’t being met here: “balancing its budget.”
And so I asked the question on the minds of millions of my fellow concerned citizens: How can I get my snout into this trough? Easy: I buy a small car qualifying for the $4,500, and keep it for a few months until the cash-for-clunkers boondoggle has run its course. At that point, the supply of used cars will have shrunk and their prices driven up; I will sell the almost-new small car for what I paid for it ($12,629 last Saturday) or more, at worst having driven it for free, and then buy the truck I covet.
I am deeply ashamed of myself, having worked the system while the poor get shafted by higher prices for the used cars they demand and by higher prices for the used parts needed to repair them. (Under the rules, the clunker engines have to be destroyed, the real-life Beltway version of the old joke about the fate of dairy farming under socialism: The government takes the milk and shoots the cows.) This is hardly the first time â€” nor will it be the last â€” that modern environmentalism has harmed those less fortunate.
Letâ€™s have President Obama lead an honest discussion about the â€œNo Whites Allowedâ€ sign on Jacksonâ€™s home pictured above (and please do note that Jackson is an official Democrat Party and Obama campaign poll watcher, as well as an elected member of Philadelphiaâ€™s 14th Ward Democratic Committee).
Speaking of crap, Democrat Blog Kingpin Markos Moulitsas Zuniga had a little blog diarrhea in his recent post at Daily Kos blasting his party for trying to garner bi-partisan support on the health care issue. He felt compelled to cite six examples of cases in which the beneficiaries of government programs wouldn’t careÂ whether or not theyÂ were created with bipartisan support:
Really? The American people would trade an ineffective or watered down reform package in exchange for “bipartisanship”?
I know the Beltway and people like Baucus have an unhealthy obsession with process, but no one gives a damn how good legislation got passed, but that good legislation gets passed.
Before cashing their social security or unemployment checks, do people wonder, “I wonder if this government program passed with bipartisan support?” Of course not.
Before using Medicare or Medicaid, do people wonder, “I wonder if this government program passed with bipartisan support?” Of course not.
Before taking part in the Cash for Clunkers program, do people wonder, “I wonder if this government program passed with bipartisan support?” Of course not.
Kos followed this with 3 more “Of Course not” examples and my eyes began to roll back into my head out of sheer boredom.