I know, sarcasm virtually drips from that title, right? Well, how about if we subtitle it: "Cash for Clunkers -- Implications for ObamaCare"?
All sorts of Democrats and other liberals have been claiming (bragging, actually) that the Cash for Clunkers Program, also known as C4C, was such a popular and successful (though glaringly short-lived) government program. I beg to differ. In terms of your "gub'ment" at work, it was:
a. Another "gub'ment" hand-out program that worked so well that it failed. It was underfunded (I KNOW, how could the Democrats DO that -- UNDERfund something?) and understaffed. It ran out of money, was funded again, ran out of money again, and basically couldn't be sustained even until its originally modest end-date. That's success?
b. Another "gub'ment" program that was so popular (of course, why not? -- "free" money) and yet so poorly managed by the "gub'ment" that its Website crashed -- repeatedly. Air Traffic Controllers had to be used to man keyboards and answer phones, for goodness sakes. And I don't think that's what they're trained and paid for (but that could just be me, again, not understanding how my "gub'ment" is really supposed to work).
The $4,500 was called a "rebate" but don't you have to "bate" first (as in pay taxes, which many of the program users had not done) before being entitled to a "rebate"? So, to me, the so-called "rebate" was just another "gub'ment" hand-out of taxpayer money.
(By the way, a liberal friend of mine (yes, I do have some) was bragging to me the other day about what a good deal he got on his new car with the C4C program, with the $4,500 discount and all. So, I asked him since that "discount" was funded with my tax money, what day of the week did I get to drive the new car every week? My liberal friend just looked perplexed and walked away mumbling to himself and scratching his head. But then, he does that a lot when I ask him logical questions.)
c. Another "gub'ment" program that was so "successful" that it has left hundreds of participating car dealerships which advanced buyers the $4,500 "discount" against the "gub'ment's" promises now still owed millions of dollars and wondering when, or if, they will ever see that money from the "gub'ment." Meanwhile, they're on their own with the resulting cash flow problems all this caused to their businesses.
(Hey, guys, caveat emptor, or something like that. When you lay down with dogs -- in this example, the "gub'ment" -- you can expect to get up with fleas. And the corollary is: when you trust especially this "gub'ment," expect to get burned. Just 'cause you do your best to do the right thing and do it right, that doesn't mean your "gub'ment" will do the right thing by you -- and probably not any time soon, either.)
d. A "gub'ment" program which was also "successful" in simply destroying another capital resource, i.e., about a half million old, used cars, which are exactly the kind of cars poor people (remember them, Democrats?) buy when they can finally afford to consider getting themselves a car, perhaps to get them to that new job they finally got. Simply destroying capital assets never creates more capital. But at least doing it for the negligible amount of gas emissions those old clunkers represented makes the "gub'ment" greenies feel good, anyway. So, maybe one of them will use their new electric "green" car to give a poor person a ride to work. Ya think?
e. Politicians claim that the C4C program boosted the US auto industry. Well, maybe it did, temporarily at least and in a small way, for the factories anyway, but many dealerships are still wondering (at least those which Team Obama had not already arbitrarily forced to go out of business). Besides, I thought Obama had already done enough for the auto industry when he illegally fired the CEO of GM, unduly influenced a federal bankruptcy proceeding and abrogated over 200 years of US contract law by basically giving GM to the UAW, the union which had run the company into the ground in the first place, over the contractural first party claims of other investors, as election payback. But, maybe not. Maybe that's just me being cynical again.
f. A "gub'ment" program which, in one of the best of all ironies, and to whatever degree it did help the auto industry, helped the America-based Japanese auto industry the most, because most of the new cars bought under the program were by Japanese manufacturers. Gee, can we use the phrase "unintended 'gub'ment' consequences" of too-hastily and insufficiently regulated congressional legislation?
And, here I go being cynical yet again, but this is the same "gub'ment" (Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress) which now wants me to trust them with massively reforming how, or if, I get my health care? Well, thanks, but no thanks.
Our health care/insurance system does need reform. Almost everyone agrees on that. But, maintaining my car theme, our health care system is a case of already having the best car in the world. We just need to tune up the engine (by adjusting health insurance regulations to increase portability and product choices) and get some new tires (by instituting medical malpractice tort reform). It's not a C4C case of demolishing the whole car and letting "Gub'ment" Motors design a completely new model. After all, remember: The camel was probably supposed to be some kind of new and improved horse, until it was designed by a "gub'ment" committee.