Howard Kurtz thinks Cash for Clunkers may be a metaphor — or a warning sign — for health-care reform. He writes:
How can the administration declare the clunkers program a success when a billion-dollar effort that was supposed to last till November ran out of money in five days? Isn’t that a pretty spectacular miscalculation?
Also, isn’t it apparent that the $4,500 payments for older gas-guzzlers was extremely generous? That’s a huge chunk of change to spur people who probably would have bought a new car eventually anyway. It’s a nice short-term boost for the auto industry, and a small boost for fuel efficiency, but is it worth the additional $2 billion that the Senate seems inclined to join the House in approving? Does it further the impression that the administration is just shoveling money out the door?
There was no single day when the Gang of 500 got together and declared health care to be in trouble, but the White House is clearly on the defensive as Congress decamps for August. In retrospect, Obama failed to focus sufficient attention on the what’s-in-it-for-me question for the majority of Americans with insurance. Given the sweep and complexity of the proposals, many folks are skeptical of Obama’s assurances that their coverage will remain unchanged. And with a 1,000-page bill that the Democrats haven’t figured out how to pay for, the whole thing is vulnerable to attacks and distortions, on lots of sections and sub-sections.
Like Fred Barnes and others, Kurtz thinks we are on to “Plan B” — draconian regulation of the insurance industry.
Cash for Clunkers is of course not the first mismanaged, enormously expensive program tried by the Obama administration. It’s the third. First was the non-stimulative stimulus plan. Then there was the now-stuck-in-the-Senate-cap-and-trade plan. All three of these failed efforts share common traits: boundless faith in government, a disdain for the private sector, a disregard for simpler solutions that might have drawn bipartisan support, and neglect for our looming fiscal train wreck. Too big, too expensive, too complex. It’s a pattern, and it’s modern liberalism in its most undiluted state.
And lo and behold, the American people don’t like any of it. Will the Obama administration rethink and reset? Only if they and their congressional allies want to avoid a head-on collision with the voters.
Prediction: the team will blame some of Detroit’s woes on the lack of hybrid or electric cars, and propose mandates that they build more.
Of course, they won’t take into account the hybrid’s they have that are aging on dealer’s lots.
Another predition: little, if any, of the problems will be attributed to the unions.
Wouldn’t it make sense to have at least somebody on the team be a car industry expert? I suppose not, if the idea is to cripple the industry and blame others.
Politico, which does not cut and paste its analysis like Max Boot or I do, makes it sound as if Obama’s doing fine without our help.:
Obama Plans Tough Line with Carmakers
“The White House plans to take a tough line with U.S. carmakers, forcing painful restructuring before releasing more bailout funds, according to industry sources.
“The Obama administration has repeatedly said the auto industry needs a “major restructuring,” and officials believe carmakers must go further — much further — than they have so far.
“The Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry had planned to announce its recommendations Friday, but that may be pushed back to Monday. President Obama is announcing his strategy for Afghanistan in a speech at the White House on Friday morning, and aides don’t want the two events to conflict.
“The industry sources say the announcement will be harsh news for workers, unions, retirees, shareholders, bondholders, suppliers and communities.
Maybe preemptive bashing is unfair, eh? Why don’t you at least wait until you have some facts to work with?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20517.html
Bart and Politico think Obama will deliver “harsh news” to the UAW. I think not. Obama knows where his bread is buttered.
Why doesn’t the Administration contract out the restructuring to academia??
Take MIT for instance. They are certainly qualified from the reengineering point of view, and the Sloan School of management is right there. This would be better than a bunch of lefties trying to will a reemployment in a green industry with a green product that will be palatable to the public.
There was a famous hack at MIT involving the assembly of a “campus police car” (actually body panels on a frame) atop the great dome.
http://best-hoaxes.blogspot.com/2009/01/mit-campus-cruiser-on-great-dome.html
Reminds me of Hillary and her experts – none of them doctors – trying to come up with a plan in 100 days to restructure the health care industry.
I follow your blog for quite a long time and should tell you that your articles always prove to be of a high value and quality for readers.