Steve Rattner, founder of Quadrangle Group and former U.S. Treasury Auto Industry Advisor. Rattner, who manages NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's personal fortune, is a regular guest on MSNBC's Morning Joe and Bloomberg Radio.

What caused my knee jerk reaction? Let me set the table as to what I heard, prompted my thinking, “You have got to be kidding me,” and why I feel compelled to write this commentary today.  

I believe it is a foregone conclusion that the Republican Party will critique the Obama administration for little meaningful “change” in how Washington operates.

In a similar fashion, we already see political interests from both ends of the spectrum attacking Mitt Romney — whom I believe is the presumptive Republican nominee — and the tenets of free market capitalism embedded within private equity and venture capital.

In an attempt to parry the critique of his administration and his ability to bring real change to Washington, President Obama was on the stump recently in his hometown of Chicago.

As Newsmax reports, Obama Gathers Cash at Chicago Events as Republicans Campaign:

Obama sought to fire up his supporters by reciting a list of accomplishments, including bailing out the auto industry, revamping the U.S. health-care system, withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and launching the mission that killed Osama bin Laden.

“Because of what you did in 2008, we’ve begun to see what change looks like,” Obama said at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

President Obama and moreso those on the ground involved in the elimination of bin Laden deserve huge credit. However, let’s refocus on the change brought to the auto industry.

While the administration would define “change” as a reinvigorated auto industry, what about the means used to achieve those ends? Did the administration trample the rule of law and basic free market principles and standard bankruptcy proceedings to achieve those ends?

Given that this topic will be a main point of debate in the Presidential election, I would ask if the means utilized to save the auto industry is what “change” looks like for President Obama, his administration, and our nation as a whole?

Let’s go back to those fateful days in early May 2009 when I wrote:

“One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House.”

That’s a quote, folks, from a lawyer representing firms which lent Chrysler money on behalf of their clients, including pension funds, teachers, labor unions, college endowments, et al.

Threatening creditors may be common practice in the underworld. In the world of business and politics, commonly accepted rules of law, business practices and ethics are widely accepted and adjudicated by the courts to prevent abuse. Did the White House just abuse the Constitution in the process of engaging Chrysler’s non-TARP creditors? Tom Lauria, an attorney with White & Case representing a few non-TARP Chrysler creditors, believes the White House did exactly that.

Lauria offers, “I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation.”

Wow!!! Is the press corps so in bed with the White House that it will do its dirty work? Will other creditors fall in line under the pressure of this threat? Is Lauria’s analysis credible?

I believe the answer to all of these questions is yes!!

In my April 2009 Market Review: Brave New World I wrote:

Companies, consumers, and investors will be forced to adapt to a regular presence of Uncle Sam. He is not a good business partner.

I am not making this stuff up.

Is threatening creditors and having the press do one’s dirty work as the means to an end what “change” has come to look like for this administration and our nation as a whole?

As a registered Independent and one who embraces free market principles in the promotion of investor education and investor protection, I look forward to debating how we all may define change in America going into the 2012 election and beyond.

Oh, by the way, that photo at the beginning of today’s commentary? That is none other than Steven Rattner, the car czar for the Obama administration. He has also displayed himself as being ethically challenged. How so? Last we checked in with him in April 2010, he was settling charges brought by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and the SEC for his involvement in a ‘pay to play’ scandal.

For those interested, you can read more about this at Steven Rattner’s “Conduct Was Inappropriate, Wrong, and Unethical”.

Hmmm . . . “change”? It would seem Mr. Rattner’s involvement as the car czar could be placed under the heading of “the more things ‘change’, the more they stay the same.”

You can’t make this stuff up!!

– From Larry Doyle’s blog, Sense on Cents.

That hasn’t had an impact on the NLRB, though, which filed a suit against Boeing since it will not be using union labor here (SC is a “right to work” state). Bear in mind that NO union jobs were cut because of this move, Boeing still has plants in Washington State, and in fact, their union positions have increased.

This has been an on-going battle, with the tacit acceptance by the White House of the NLRB trying to dictate to what states companies can, and cannot, have their businesses.

So, it is in that framework that Thomas Geoghegan, an attorney in Chicago, wrote this WSJ editorial, “Boeing’s Threat to American Enterprise; When major firms move to the South, it’s usually a harbinger of quality decline. Why let that happen?”

I’m sorry, what? Is he really saying that companies that move their business South automatically suffer in quality? Why, yes he is:

[snip] We should be aghast that Boeing is sending a big fat market signal that it wants a less-skilled, lower-quality work force. This country is in a debt crisis because we buy abroad much more than we sell. Alas, because of this trade deficit, foreign creditors have the country in their clutches. That’s not because of our labor costs—in that respect, we can undersell most of our high-wage, unionized rivals like Germany. It’s because we have too many poorly educated and low-skilled workers that are simply unable to compete.

We depend on Boeing to out-compete Airbus, its European rival. But when major firms move South, it is usually a harbinger of quality decline. Over and over as a labor lawyer in the 1980s and ’90s, I saw companies move away from Chicago, where the pay was $28 an hour, to some place in South Carolina or Louisiana where the pay was about half that. While these moves aggrieved me as a union lawyer, it might have consoled me as an American if those companies went on to thrive globally.[snip] (Click here to read the rest of this drivel.)

See, because if you are having to pay twice as much to compensate the unions, you are better off. Uh huh.

It’s a miracle we Southerners can even get our dumb asses out of bed every day, ain’t it??

Now, I thought about going on my own little rant, and believe you me, I could – but there were a whole bunch of comments at the WSJ that really say it all:

Buck Hebner: After reading y’all’s comments, I realize what an astute move the WSJ made publishing this lawyer’s editorial. The WSJ staff must be howling with laughter. This one editorial accomplishes what a hundred conservative viewpoints fail to do, show readers the true stakes of this battle. In a few paragraphs, Mr. Geoghegan unmasks the true intentions of big Labor and progressive policy. They believe stirring up sectional hate and class-warfare will help them achieve their goals of unlimited Federal power and personal gain.

150 years after the Civil War was fought, the South is rising again. Not as an antagonist to the North, but as a economic engine that will help all of America become stronger through economic competition. The WSJ should be commended. Thank you.

Roger Simpson: First, Boeing did not “move” any work from Washington; as they have repeatedly stressed, the work to be done in South Carolina is new work, and there is nothing wrong economically with adding jobs to a state that could sure use them. Second, the notion that Washington citizens are somehow more “skilled” than South Carolinians is sheer arrogance, and has no basis in reality. Such babble was used when the auto manufacturers moved jobs there, and we have seen how ridiculous it was.

The real issue is that Big Labor cannot afford for people to find out that the work of $28/hour workers (who still are not satisfied with their lot) can be done just as well by $14/hour workers in another state, and without complaint. Especially a state which does not cater to the class of self-important, professional protesters, who take a cut from every worker’s check to line their own pockets, while presuming to negotiate en masse for an entire group of indivdual free citizens.

Wilson Jones II: I hope this cat remembers that Southerners probably made the steel that holds his building up (Nucor), made his blood pressure meds (Glaxco Smith Kline), assembled his BMW…. AND we were smart enough to put together a rocket that put man on the moon… Now give me some Kickapoo Joy Juice as i listen to the theme from Deliverence…

Millard Ramsey: I can’t stop laughing long enough to compose a response to this piece. I live in Chattanooga where VW has seen fit to invest $1 billion in a plant that will employ thousands of those “unskilled” Southern workers. Looks like VW has given up on quality too.

Alan Davis: Kia in Georgia, Hyundai in Alabama, BWM in South Carolina, and the list goes on and on. The rush to low quality must be the new business model.

I might add, Gulf Stream Jets are made in Savannah, GA, Toyotas are made in Kentucky, oh, and not only are Hyundais made in Alabama, but so are Mercedes Benz SUVs, and NASA is there, too, with Peterbilts being built in Denton, TX.

If you want some good laughs, though, go read the 40+ pages of comments about this incredibly offensive, arrogant, condescending, and flat out Southernist BS from this Chicago lawyer.

Boeing has every right to build its plants wherever the hell it sees fit. And our government should not be in the business of telling businesses where they can have those plants. Hell, even the Seattle Times is claiming that “Obama Administration Putting Politics Before The Economy” with this misguided assault against Boeing, and SC. No freakin’ kidding. This is all payback.

And speaking of payback – remember when Obama shoved the (also misguided) stimulus down our throats to bail out companies like GM? He claimed that the Administration would not be micromanaging GM? Well, hold on to your seats – he lied. Yes, Obama lied. In fact, the Treasury Department DID essentially run GM, and get this:

[snip] These messages reveal that Treasury officials were involved in decision-making that led to more than 20,000 non-union workers losing their pensions. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy shit. Well, that just goes to show you this NLRB debacle is not an aberration, but business as usual. Cutting TWENTY THOUSAND non-union pensions – are you kidding me with this?

Oh, but then again, what the hell do I know? I’m just a Southerner, after all…

“We’re going to have to make some tough choices” about the deficit and national debt, President Obama said to a crowded gymnasium full of supporters at Indian Hills Community College, after a lengthy riff on how the unsustainable debt would need to be tackled.

This, unlike most of what the president said during the town hall meeting, was met with silence.

“I noticed I didn’t get a lot of clapping about the whole ‘We’re gonna have the hard choices’ thing,” the president ribbed the crowd.

The President is ribbing the crowd? Now that’s what I call “The Audacity of Hope.” Half million dollar pizza parties. The most expensive inauguration in history. After this gentleman spent all of last year more than tripling spending (yes, I know, I know, it was all Bush’s fault) now he wants to tell the American people it is time to make some hard choices?

More frustrating than the endless campaigning and political posturing is the notion that the American people are so bloody stupid, they will not leap to the same conclusions I just did. Further, he tells us this stuff as if he just thought of it. Haven’t the tea partiers, for one, been screaming about these very problems for over a year?

Could it be President Obama is not aware why his audience sat on their hands for his remark about “hard choices?” I cannot prove that the people of Ottumwa, Iowa agree with my assessment but perhaps this might be a reason why he did not receive the adulation he is used to and so craves:

It is offensive to be lectured to about fiscal restraint by a man who has been spending taxpayer money like a drunken sailor for the better part of a year and a half, bailing out and covering for reckless companies with reckless management styles that continue to scam the American people, hiding the true cost of the legislation his Congress has been ramming down our throats and promising transparency while delivering the opposite.

The people of Iowa, and the rest of American for that matter, have been practicing plenty of fiscal retraint as they deal with high unemployment, watching their savings dwindle to dangerously low levels amidst an uncertain future with an administration that appears tone deaf as to their problems.

Any President that keeps trying to sell the bill of goods that cap and trade is going to help solve our economic problems instead of finally planting his feet behind the desk to figure out how to put more people back ot work in this country really needs to talk less to the American people – and listen more.

“This will bear on how we think about our federal budget in the future,” [Obama] said. “Everybody dislikes Washington right now, and everybody wants to lower their taxes. Everybody hates waste in government. But at the same time, you know, government does some important things like helping to make sure you’ve got clean drinking water and that your roads aren’t full of potholes.”

Please Mr. President, stop telling me what I hate. I don’t hate taxes. I am more than happy to pay my fair share and do so regularly. I hate when my taxpayerdollars go to bailout out the actions of corrupt actors who are not held to the same rules as I am. I do not hate government. I hate bloated government, local, state and federal, that enjoys no end of perks and bloated salaries and perks. I appreciate the good things that government does, which is why I pay taxes. What I don’t appreciate is the things my tax money is supposed to pay for – like education – gets “borrowed” away and never returned.

Clearly, the President has no idea what I hate which gives me a clear indication of why his policies have nothing to do with the urgent needs of the American people.
Close attention need by paid to the following:

…Earlier in the day, back in Washington, DC, he’d presided over the first meeting of his Debt Commission, which will issue recommendations after the November 2010 elections on ways to reduce the $12.8 trillion national debt.

“I’ve said that it’s important that we not restrict the review or the recommendations that this commission comes up with in any way,” the president said at the meeting. “Everything has to be on the table. …This means that all of you, our friends in the media, will ask me and others once a week or once a day about what we’re willing to rule out or rule in when it comes to the recommendations of the commission. That’s an old Washington game and it’s one that has made it all but impossible in the past for people to sit down and have an honest discussion about putting our country on a more secure fiscal footing. So I want to deliver this message today: We’re not playing that game. I’m not going to say what’s in. I’m not going to say what’s out. I want this commission to be free to do its work.”

Could it be he is not going to give you any details about what is “in it” until after the midterms because if he told you now, all his herd mentality Dems insistently following Pelosi and Reid off a cliff would be voted down this November? Is that why we are not getting a report from the Debt Commision until after that?

In Ottumwa, the president previewed for the crowd that whatever the commission comes up with, “we’re going to have a very tough debate about how to bring down our deficits.”

He continued, “as this debate unfolds, I just want everybody to pay attention to what folks are saying. A lot of times politicians will tell you, ‘I’m going to cut your taxes, I’m going to lower the deficit, I’m going to expand Medicare.’”

Don’t settle for that, the president told the crowd. “Ask every politician when they say they’re going to balance the budget and deal with the deficit: ‘What exactly are you going to cut? What spending are you willing to eliminate? Are you going to eliminate funding for sewers? Are you going to reduce the cost of Medicare? Because there’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

Who the hell out here has been getting a free lunch. The free lunch has gone to the folks at Goldman Sachs, Fannie and Freddie, and GM (who claim they paid back their bailouts — however they did it with other TARP money).

A free lunch? Why does President Obama insist upon being condescending? Beyond his pronouncements from on high about “bitter voters,” this reminds me of candidate Obama’s pronouncement about Democrats and abortion during the campaign. As reported by CBS News:

“The mistake pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization . . . has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved,” he said.

Really? Do we not? Telling us what we do and do not like or believe seems to be a pattern.

Reading the other fine print of his statement in Iowa, he wants us to ask other politicians what THEY are going to do – but we cannot ask the President what HE is going to do. “We’re not going to play that game?” All he is doing is playing games, while taxpayers can only look on in frustration and disbelief.

The president said “the way folks talk about it in Washington,” you might think the debt could be solved by reducing waste and abuse, eliminating foreign aid and earmarks. But those are relatively small parts of the budget, he said.

Which “folks” are these, exactly?

“We could eliminate all foreign aid and all earmarks and we’d still have a huge problem, because most of our budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense spending, about 70 percent of the budget. Everything else we do is only about 30 percent of the budget. So this is going to be a tough bunch of choices that we gotta make here.”

Okay – so here is the bitter pill to swallow – get ready folks. Here come the cuts! So that if you have been paying in to Medicare, as my mother has, for example, in her 50 years in the work force, you can expect less. Presidents like to point toward Social Security’s impending insolvency without mentioning part of the reason it is in trouble is because government keeps borrowing money from it that they do not put back.
Remember his economic advisor Austan Goosbee talked about privatizing Social Security? Do not be surprised if you hear rumbings next year, too – the same rumblings President Bush made several years ago. Now I ask you – would you want the private sector – otherwise known as Wall Street crooks – playing with your dough while you’re busy keeping the roof over your head and don’t have enough time to daily monitor their shenanigans?

“I just want everybody to be prepared” for this debate, which will take place over the next couple years. “Remember when I was running for office, I said I will not just tell you what you want to hear, I would tell you what you needed to hear. And you needed to hear that we’re going to have some hard choices about our deficit.”

Oh, that was my favorite comment of all. I have never heard a bigger pile of horse hooey! And that is saying something. He told everybody what they wanted to hear out on the campaign trail – unicorns and giant popsicles. But little else.

Is there anyone with the courage to stand up and insist that this President start telling the truth? The press has already proven themselves to be, almost uniformly, nothing more than notches on his bedpost, cowed from speaking up for fear of a lack of access, which would mean a loss of their $5 million dollar book deals.

Who is speaking for us?

Thank you. Rant over.

___

But if you want to make billions the easy way, I suggest you use GM’s easy payback magic:

First, get a government bailout.

From Forbes:

Uncle Sam gave GM $49.5 billion last summer in aid to finance its bankruptcy. (If it hadn’t, the company, which couldn’t raise this kind of money from private lenders, would have been forced into liquidation, its assets sold for scrap.) …

Because a loan of such a huge amount would have been politically controversial, the Obama administration handed GM only $6.7 billion as a pure loan. (It asked for only a 7% interest rate–a very sweet deal considering that GM bonds at that time were trading below junk level.) The vast bulk of the bailout money was transferred to GM through the purchase of 60.8% equity stake in the company

Then, pay back just the TARP loan (taxpayer money) minus the interest portion of the bailout using the escrowed TARP equity money (the part of the taxpayer money that made taxpayers shareholders in GM).

From TARP watchdog Neil Barofsky, Special Treasury Department Inspector General to oversee the Troubled Assets Relief Program:

“It’s good news in that they’re reducing their debt,” Barofsky said of the accelerated GM payments, “but they’re doing it by taking other available TARP money.”

—

“It sounds like it’s kind of like taking money out of one pocket and putting in the other,” said Carper [Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE)], who got a nod of agreement from Barofsky.

“The way that payment is going to be made is by drawing down on an equity facility of other TARP money.”

Now ask the federal government for another bigger loan but with a lower interest rate.

More from Forbes:

Sean McAlinden, chief economist at the Ann Arbor-based Center for Automotive Research, points out that the company has applied to the Department of Energy for $10 billion in low (5%) interest loan to retool its plants to meet the government’s tougher new CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. However, giving GM more taxpayer money on top of the existing bailout would have been a political disaster for the Obama administration and a PR debacle for the company. Paying back the small bailout loan makes the new–and bigger–DOE loan much more feasible.

Finally, to make sure everyone knows how successful you’ve been at making money, you have to run an ad touting how you’ve paid back your loan in full and ahead of schedule. The GM’s ad can be seen here.

Now wasn’t that an amazing trick? A payback that wasn’t a payback at all, but more a loan trade-up. And all with the taxpayer’s money. But of course we didn’t get a bigger stake in GM from it. We didn’t even get a thank you.

And just in case you were wondering if we would see a payback of the rest of the $49.6 billion TARP investment anytime soon?

Forbes Again:

No. That goal has been pushed back, as it turns out.

In order to recover that investment, the government has to sell its equity. It plans to do that only when GM becomes a publicly traded company once again. GM was hoping to turn a profit by the end of 2010 and float an initial public offering this winter. However, GM Chief Financial Officer Chris Liddell, when queried about that timeline a few days ago, demurred. The offering will be made, he said, “when the markets and the company are ready.”

The General Accountability Office, on the other hand, remains deeply pessimistic. It concluded in a December report (which a more recent April report has said nothing to contradict, despite media spin to the contrary) that: “The Treasury is unlikely to recover the entirety of its investment in Chrysler or GM, given that the companies’ values would have to grow substantially more than they have in the past.”

More from TARP watchdog Neil Barofsky.

“When do you think we’ll have really good news from GM?” Carper asked.

“I don’t have a crystal ball on that Senator,” Barofsky replied.

Don’t you just love these bailouts!

___

Those engaged in financial crimes or schemes including ‘pay to play’ should never be able to buy their own justice by writing a check. That system of justice will never truly dissuade those engaged in or attracted to ‘pay to play.’ I see a strong sign of just such a potential inequity this morning. It smells.

The Wall Street Journal highlights that former Obama car czar, Steven Rattner, is in the midst of settlement talks with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo over his role in a ‘pay to play’ scheme.

The WSJ writes, Rattner in Talks to Settle a Probe:

Wall Street financier and former auto czar Steven Rattner is in settlement talks to resolve his role in the “pay to play” investigation at the New York state pension fund, according to people familiar with the matter.

A guilty plea on Wednesday by David Loglisci, the former chief investment officer of the $129 billion fund, turned a spotlight on Mr. Rattner, a well-known Wall Street player who last year spearheaded the Obama administration’s auto overhaul.

On a call with reporters, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said the 57-year-old Mr. Rattner remained under investigation but declined to provide more details.

A spokesman for Mr. Rattner declined to comment.

For months, Mr. Rattner’s lawyers have been engaged in protracted settlement discussions with both the New York attorney general and the Securities and Exchange Commission over his conduct in the case, said the people familiar with the matter. Defense lawyers Jamie Gorelick and William McLucas of Wilmer Hale in Washington are representing him in the talks, these people added.

Mr. Cuomo’s investigation of Mr. Rattner focuses on his activities at Quadrangle Group, the private-equity firm he co-founded a decade ago. The New York-based firm obtained a $100 million investment from the New York pension fund three weeks after a DVD company owned by Quadrangle agreed to distribute “Chooch,” a low-budget movie co-produced by Mr. Loglisci and his brother, according to court papers.

Quadrangle also paid a $1.1 million finder’s fee to Hank Morris in exchange for securing the investment from the New York fund. Mr. Loglisici said Wednesday he had “effectively ceded” his authority over the fund’s private-equity investment decisions to Mr. Morris, a former top New York political adviser.

How tough is Steve Rattner? By reputation, Rattner is viewed as one of the meanest SOBs to run between Wall Street and Washington. In fact, Rattner is believed to be the individual implicated in directly threatening Chrysler creditors in the midst of the Chrysler bailout a year ago. (Read my piece, “Is Barack Obama Going Tony Soprano?”)

White collar crime of this nature needs to be adjudicated in terms of hard time — not by writing a check.

Rattner is obviously entitled to due process, but if, in fact, Rattner is implicated in this ‘pay to play’ scheme (the fact that he is in protracted settlement talks seems fairly incriminating), then the courts should throw the book at him and everybody else involved.

Rattner may not be all that tough sitting in the can being eyeballed by his new ‘friends.’

Unless and until that happens, this cesspool of activity and those swimming in it will continue to smell and pollute all of us.

What do you think?

LD

Even in the face of mounting opposition within his own party, and even among some liberals like Dr. Marcia Angell (who, by the way, is being demonized by some progressives as being “anti-woman” for opposing this bill. That is some logical leap, as in, it has lept away from being logical). Dr. Angell highlights that this bill as written is a gift to the pharmaceutical companies (Obama made his deal with them before any bill was ever even written) and the INSURANCE companies, the same ones Obama demonizes in his speeches. Yet, on Obama goes, as this article by Charles Krauthammer brings home, Onward with Obamacare, Regardless:

So the yearlong production, set to close after Massachusetts’s devastatingly negative Jan. 19 review, saw the curtain raised one last time. Obamacare lives.

After 34 speeches (as of 3/4/10), three sharp electoral rebukes (Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts) and a seven-hour seminar, the president announced Wednesday his determination to make one last push to pass his health-care reform.

The final act was carefully choreographed. The rollout began a week earlier with a couple of shows of bipartisanship: a Feb. 25 Blair House “summit” with Republicans, followed five days later with a few concessions tossed the Republicans’ way.

Show is the operative noun. Among the few Republican suggestions President Obama pretended to incorporate was tort reform. What did he suggest to address the plague of defensive medicine that a Massachusetts Medical Society study showed leads to about 25 percent of doctor referrals, tests and procedures being done for no medical reason? A few ridiculously insignificant demonstration projects amounting to one-half of one-hundredth of 1 percent of the cost of his health-care bill.

As for the Blair House seminar, its theatrical quality was obvious even before it began. The Democrats had already decided to go for a purely partisan bill. Obama signaled precisely that intent at the end of the summit show — then dramatically spelled it out just six days later in his 35th health-care speech: He is going for the party-line vote.

Unfortunately for Democrats, that seven-hour televised exercise had the unintended consequence of showing the Republicans to be not only highly informed on the subject, but also, as even Obama was forced to admit, possessed of principled objections — contradicting the ubiquitous Democratic/media meme that Republican opposition was nothing but nihilistic partisanship.

No kidding about the Blair House seminar. We suspected that was the case before it happened, and its hours long drama did nothing to dispel that initial suspicion. Not that that stopped Obama, then or now, despite the outcome. A big ol’ oopsie daisy” for the Democrats on that one:

Republicans did so well, in fact, that in his summation, Obama was reduced to suggesting that his health-care reform was indeed popular because when you ask people about individual items (for example, eliminating exclusions for preexisting conditions or capping individual out-of-pocket payments), they are in favor.

Yet mystifyingly they oppose the whole package. How can that be?

Allow me to demystify. Imagine a bill granting every American a free federally delivered ice cream every Sunday morning. Provision 2: steak on Monday, also home delivered. Provision 3: a dozen red roses every Tuesday. You get the idea. Would each individual provision be popular in the polls? Of course.

However (life is a vale of howevers) suppose these provisions were bundled into a bill that also spelled out how the goodies are to be paid for and managed — say, half a trillion dollars in new taxes, half a trillion in Medicare cuts (cuts not to keep Medicare solvent but to pay for the ice cream, steak and flowers), 118 new boards and commissions to administer the bounty-giving, and government regulation dictating, for example, how your steak is to be cooked. How do you think this would poll?

Perhaps something like 3 to 1 against, which is what the latest CNN poll shows is the citizenry’s feeling about the current Democratic health-care bills.

Uh, yeah – I don’t know how many more ways Americans can say we do not want this bill as written, yet Obama and the Democrats continue their push regardless of the sentiment, and the concerns, like cost:

Late last year, Democrats were marveling at how close they were to historic health-care reform, noting how much agreement had been achieved among so many factions. The only remaining detail was how to pay for it.

Well, yes. That has generally been the problem with democratic governance: cost. The disagreeable absence of a free lunch.

Which is what drove even strong Obama supporter Warren Buffett to go public with his judgment that the current Senate bill, while better than nothing, is a failure because the country desperately needs to bend the cost curve down, and the bill doesn’t do it. Buffett’s advice would be to start over and get it right with a bill that says “we’re just going to focus on costs and we’re not going to dream up 2,000 pages of other things.” (Disclosure: Buffett is a director of The Washington Post Co.)

Obama has chosen differently, however. The time for debate is over, declared the nation’s seminar leader in chief. The man who vowed to undo Washington’s devious and wicked ways has directed the Congress to ram Obamacare through, by one vote if necessary, under the parliamentary device of “budget reconciliation.” The man who ran as a post-partisan is determined to remake a sixth of the U.S. economy despite the absence of support from a single Republican in either house, the first time anything of this size and scope has been enacted by pure party-line vote.

Surprised? You can only be disillusioned if you were once illusioned.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Well, true that. Those of us who were watching with eyes wide open, and not high on Hopium or drunk on Kool Aide, were never “illusioned.” As Obama’s tenure continues, we marvel that so many are STILL “illusioned.” Kinda makes you wonder just what the hell it takes to finally get through the closed minds of his supporters. Buying GM didn’t do it; taking over banks didn’t do it; giving away the store to the unions didn’t do it; his lack of experience and leadership didn’t do it; and now this healthcare debacle isn’t doing it. What in the hell does it TAKE to get through to them?

To be honest, I don’t think I want to know. How about you?

Evidence of this dynamic on Wall Street is overwhelming. Yet, don’t think Wall Street has a monopoly on this incest. Bloomberg highlights incestuous activity has also played out in the disaster encompassing Toyota. Bloomberg reports, Regulators Hired by Toyota Helped Halt Investigations:

Former regulators hired by Toyota Motor Corp. helped end at least four U.S. investigations of unintended acceleration by company vehicles in the last decade, warding off possible recalls, court and government records show.

Christopher Tinto, vice president of regulatory affairs in Toyota’s Washington office, and Christopher Santucci, who works for Tinto, helped persuade the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to end probes including those of 2002-2003 Toyota Camrys and Solaras, court documents show. Both men joined Toyota directly from NHTSA, Tinto in 1994 and Santucci in 2003.

While all automakers have employees who handle NHTSA issues, Toyota may be alone among the major companies in employing former agency staffers to do so. Spokesmen for General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co., Chrysler Group LLC and Honda Motor Co. all say their companies have no ex-NHTSA people who deal with the agency on defects.

Possible links between Toyota and NHTSA may fuel mounting criticism of their handling of defects in Toyota and Lexus models tied to 19 deaths between 2004 and 2009. Three congressional committees have scheduled hearings on the recalls.

While executives from Toyota will look to deflect blame and minimize their own overall culpability, think back to the bobbing and weaving and massive amount of bulls*%! we heard from Wall Street executives.

The fact is, Wall Street bought its own regulation. The allure of working in the industry had an enormous impact on regulatory efforts, or dare I say the lack thereof. That allure also served to destroy the lives of thousands. You think I embellish? Ask those who remain unable to access their cash still frozen in auction-rate securities. Ask those who lost their savings in the Madoff scam. Those situations are only the high profile cases.

Now we learn that Toyota played the same game. In this case, lives were literally lost.

How would I describe the money Toyota saved and the money these former regulators earned in the process?

Blood money!!

Are you pissed yet?

How much does America have to take before heads roll and people are truly held accountable?

LD

Trashing a vehicle is pretty easy to do.

Of course, if your goal was to to have fun and still be able to drive home at the end of the day, then breaking an axle can only be counted as a very costly mistake. The kind of mistake that makes you wish you could go back in time to when you were just dealing with a truck bogged down in the mud and still had hope for a positive outcome.

On the other hand, if the goal (as some tout) was to capture the public’s imagination and employ people while generating an endless cycle of destruction and construction of vehicles, I can’t help but think that this would be a highly profitable and entertaining method for achieving that goal.

Of course, our government had it’s own method of trashing vehicles (seen here) for the noble goals of cleaning the environment and stimulating the economy. And while I may find their methods painfully frustrating to watch, to each his/her own. It is results that count in our goal oriented world. So with a rev of the engine – lets look at some clunker numbers…

According to analysis by The Associated Press of data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act:

…the government reported spending a total of $562,500 in rebates for new cars and trucks that got worse or the same mileage as the trade-ins — in apparent violation of the program’s requirements.

…677,081 clunker trade-ins processed by the government through Oct. 16. More than 95,000 of the new vehicles purchased under the program — or about 1 in7 — got less than 20 mpg, according to the data.

…The data show the average fuel economy was 15.8 mpg for the old vehicles and 24.9 for the new ones.

…In at least 145 cases the government reported consumers traded old vehicles that got better than or the same mileage as the new vehicle they purchased. A driver in Negaunee, Mich., traded a 1987 Suburban that got 18 mpg for $3,500 toward a new Silverado pickup that got only 15 mpg. An Indianapolis driver traded a 1985 Mercedes 190 that got 27 mpg for $3,500 toward a new Volkswagen Rabbit that got only 24 mpg.

In at least 15 deals in nine states, owners of large pickups cashed in old trucks for between $3,500 and $4,500 toward new Hummer H3 SUVs that got only 16 mpg.

Okay. Maybe cash for clunkers was not the best at improving fuel economy or taking the dirtiest vehicles off the road. But it did stimulate sales. Even if it was, according to Edmunds, at a cost to taxpayers of $24k, not $4k per car.

The industry research juggernaut claims that of the 690,000 vehicles sold under the program, only 125,000 of those sales went to people who weren’t going to purchase a new car in 2009. The result, says Edmunds, is that the $3 billion spent for C4C ended up spurring only 125,000 sales at a cost of $24,000 per vehicle. Further, Edmunds claims that October’s sales would have ramped up even more than what current projections indicate.

And if your wondering why I continue to rant on about Cash for Clunkers? It is to counter the seemingly intelligent people in and out of our government who are still claiming C4C was a great success and using that “success” as justification for other consumer driven “stimulus” programs such as the cash for appliances, cash for new home buyers (extending an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers). And now a cash for caulking program (aka – Home Star to make existing homes more energy efficient.) There will be more on Home Star in an upcoming post.

My point is that consumerism is dying and it should be laid to rest and buried. Unfortunately, our government is not only trying to resurrect consumerism, they are intent on dragging us into the coffin as a replacement and they are using these clunker programs (as discussed here, here and here) along with health care reform and any other legislation they can get passed as the shovels with which to bury us.

Our government and the Obama administration need to move beyond the old Nike slogan from the 80′s. To “just do it” does nothing but set us up with clunker goals. And clunker in = clunker out. We need and deserve better. Now more than ever, we need to focus not just on what we do, but how we do it. And if our government officials can’t understand that simple concept, then maybe they need step aside so more qualified professionals can do the job.

**UPDATE**

Ah, remember just a few weeks ago the White House was touting the success of “Cash for Clunkers” and attacking Edmunds for their faulty analysis with:

We found out that motor vehicle output added 1.7% to economic growth in the third quarter — the largest contribution to quarterly growth in over a decade.

Well, today the revised GDP numbers for the third quarter were released. AND …

… automotive consumption was less than half of what was initially estimated, contributing 0.81 of a percentage point to growth.

Not good. And from the AP, even worse –

Tuesday’s report showed that overall consumer spending grew at a pace of 2.9 percent last quarter. That was down from a 3.4 percent growth rate first estimated

And that is not just me saying it bad. Here’s Paul Krugman take:

Given the latest number, the date at which we can expect to see a return to full employment is … never.

And that’s if growth continues at this rate. The odds are good that growth will slow down next year: the stimulus has already had its peak effect on growth and will turn into a net drag in the second half, the inventory bounce — which was a major factor in 3rd quarter growth, such as it was — will fade out.

Basically, we may be in a technical recovery, but we’re not recovering.

For more GDP analysis at Memeorandum.

And now may I remind you of the incredible SNL “having sex” skit Larry Johnson posted here.

GMAC is back in line for another injection of YOUR money. Recall that GMAC was bailed out initially during the government takeover of GM. GMAC was then spun off in order for Uncle Sam to effectively provide taxpayer funded consumer auto loans and mortgages.

GMAC is not a public entity and thus not currently able to hoodwink investors and raise equity capital. What’s a cash strapped entity to do? Let’s play some more of that ‘bailout bonanza.’ The Wall Street Journal just reported on this developing story and writes, GMAC Asks for Fresh Lifeline:

In a stark reminder of how some battered financial firms remain dependent on government lifelines, GMAC Financial Services Inc. and the Treasury Department are in advanced talks to prop up the lender with its third helping of taxpayer money, people familiar with the matter said.

The U.S. government is likely to inject $2.8 billion to $5.6 billion of capital into the Detroit company, on top of the $12.5 billion that GMAC has received since December 2008, these people said.

The latest infusion would come in the form of preferred stock. The government’s 34% stake in the company could increase if existing shares eventually are converted into common equity.

The willingness by Treasury officials to deepen taxpayer exposure to GMAC reflects the troubled company’s importance to the revival of the auto industry. Founded in 1919, GMAC has $181 billion in assets and is a major financing provider on car purchases from General Motors Co. and Chrysler LLC. The new capital would help firm up GMAC’s balance sheet and solidify its auto-loan business.

Federal officials also are moving to shore up GMAC’s ability to fund its daily operations, with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. telling the company Tuesday the agency will guarantee an additional $2.9 billion in debt, according to people familiar with the discussions. The FDIC guarantee will make it easier for the company to sell debt to investors. The FDIC backed $4.5 billion in GMAC-issued debt earlier this year.

The FDIC approval came just four days before the expiration of the regulator’s program that guarantees debt issued by certain banks. It ended months of tense negotiations between GMAC and regulators. Without a deal, the company would have been forced to further reduce its lending volume. New-car loans by the company tumbled 55% to $5.6 billion in the second quarter from a year earlier.

Given these developments with GMAC, why are we allowing Barney Frank and friends to pander to the American public about how plans are being developed to wind down firms rather than bailing them out?

I would recommend we eat our loss on the money already injected in GMAC. Wind it down and let the free market work.

Rest assured, any new money injected in GMAC is nothing more than ‘good money after bad.’

LD

No need to take my word for it. Watch this short video (from a traffic camera) to get an idea of just how many people were there (and again, thanks to Logistics Monster, who was THERE, for this video link):

The thing that bugged me about the MSM reporting is that they consistently copied each other – oh, no wait – it just LOOKED that way (check out their opening lines in the articles above and you’ll see what I mean). No, it is that they consistently claimed the marchers were all Conservatives. Apparently, this was their way to dismiss the real anger and frustration people have toward this Congress, whose approval rating is LOW, something else these writers could have looked up easily, and this President, whose ratings continue to decline. They just write them off as some right-wing whackos (1.5 million or so of them), and pay no attention to their actual concerns.

And they have plenty of them. You know, concerns like the fact that the US Government now owning 61% of GM (hey, anyone want to buy a Cadillac?); or that the Obama Administration is adding $3 MILLION to the National Debt EVERY MINUTE; or maybe it’s the 32 czars – oops, make that 31 czars (see ya, Van) Obama is appointing left and right; or the Health Care Bill; or I could go on and on and on. These aren’t just Conservative concerns – these are AMERICAN concerns. But they won’t report it that way, because it doesn’t suit the meme they have created. Had they bothered to talk to some more people on the ground, they would have found out they were Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, all coming together to protest the out of control spending of this Congress and this Administration. To put it in perspective, we are $1 TRILLION more in debt since Obama took office. $ONE TRILLION. Once again, that’s not just an issue for Conservatives. That is an issue for ALL Americans.

Here are some photos of signs at the march – they came via Barbara Espinosa who sent them to Pajamas Media at THIS site. You can see more there:

This video from – of all places – MSNBC – is a fairly good synopsis (though they still couldn’t refrain from painting this as a wholly conservative movement – until the very, very end, when the reporter actually spoke the truth). I saw it at Michelle Malkin’s site while looking for an awesome photo I saw last night, which I have not been able to find again. The sign said, “We Are Not Wee Weed Up: We are PISSED!” If I find it, I’ll add it. Here’s the video:

This is but a snapshot of the day. There is so, so much more to the events of the day, the numbers of people, the calls for accountability in our government.

For those people who aren’t upset about the added $Trillion to our deficit, the takeover of GM, the unvetted czars, the $Trillion Health Care Plan, etc., etc., those people who are downplaying the size of this march, who blow it off as just some group of conservatives going off half cocked, my question is, Why the hell are you NOT upset at what our government is doing??? Bill Clinton downsized our government tremendously, Bush increased it, and now Obama is bankrupting it. Why AREN’T they upset??

Uh, yeah. I’m kinda wondering what’s taken that Ethics Committee so long, too. That was my major field of study, and I’m pretty sure that it would not take me almost a year to come to a determination about this man’s lack of ethical behavior (hypocrisy aside, just the ethical issues alone). Sheesh. This is not the first time Rangel has had “ethical” problems while in office. You might recall that he paid his parking tickets out of his campaign funds. Tsk, tsk – that’s not allowed. You’d think he’d learn.

And speaking of not learning one’s lessons, how about Obama appointing ANOTHER czar after his Commie 9/11 Truther guy had to resign (though through no pressure from Obama, who seemed A-Okay with keeping Van Jones close in the West Wing)? Yep – he wasted no time in thumbing his nose at Congress, and us, by elevating Ron Bloom to the position of Czar of Manufacturing Policy (so he uses the term, “Senior Counselor,” but same difference). I might add, once again, it wasn’t just Republicans who thought it was inappropriate to have a Communist working in the West Wing with the ear of the President, either. That’s just a smokescreen to try to blame it on anyone else but Obama. But I digress.

You may remember Bloom from his previous job on the Task Force for the US takeover ofGM. Oops – I mean, Bloom was a member of the Auto Task Force. Again, same difference. And, Bloom was formerly with the United Steel Workers. I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise that Obama decided to make his announcement before the AFL-CIO at a picnic, right? Didn’t think so.

And I guess none of us should be surprised when Obama continues to thumb his nose at the process, at Congress, and more importantly, US. I suppose I should be grateful that Bloom isn’t a Marxist Name Calling Fruit Loop, but still – this defiance, no, make that insouciance, by Obama is just a tad irritating, isn’t it? I wonder what position he’ll give Charlie?

And again, the top cars being purchased are FOREIGN – Toyotas and Hondas are the ones being bought the most, with Ford Focus thrown in there. Just to be clear. (Toyota and Honda are non-unionized, just in case you are keeping score.)

NY state dealers have had it with the program:

Hundreds of auto dealers in the New York area have withdrawn from the government’s Cash for Clunkers program, citing delays in getting reimbursed by the government, a dealership group said Wednesday.

The Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association, which represents dealerships in the New York metro area, said about half its 425 members have left the program because they cannot afford to offer more rebates. They’re also worried about getting repaid…

“(The government) needs to move the system forward and they need to start paying these dealers,” said Mark Schienberg, the group’s president. “This is a cash-dependent business.”

You betcha it is. Check out just how quickly the dealers are getting reimbursed for their cash outlay:

The program offers up to $4,500 to shoppers who trade in vehicles getting 18 mpg or less for a more fuel-efficient car or truck. Dealers pay the rebates out of pocket, then must wait to be reimbursed by the government. But administrative snags and heavy paperwork have created a backlog of unpaid claims.

Schienberg said the group’s dealers have been repaid for only about 2 percent of the clunkers deals they’ve made so far.

Many dealers have said they are worried they won’t get repaid at all, while others have waited so long to get reimbursed they don’t have the cash to fund any more rebates, Schienberg said.

“The program is a great program in the sense that it’s creating a lot of floor traffic that a lot of dealers haven’t seen in a long time,” he said.

“But it’s in the hands of this enormous bureaucracy and regulatory agency,” he added. “If they don’t get out of their own way, this program is going to be a huge failure.”

“If they don’t get out of their own way…”Wow. That’s a pretty telling comment right there, isn’t it? And that sounds SO like the Federal Government, too, doesn’t it Uh, yeah, sure:

The program is administered by the Department of Transportation. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Wednesday that dealers will be repaid for the clunkers deals they have completed.

“I know dealers are frustrated. They’re going to get their money,” LaHood told reporters. He said the Obama administration would soon announce how much longer the $3 billion car incentive program will last.

Through early Wednesday, auto dealers have made clunkers deals worth $1.81 billion, resulting in 435,102 new car sales, according to the DOT.

This begs the obvious question: if the Federal Government is incapable of reimbursing these automobile dealers for less than half a million cars, how in the HELL do they think they are going to be capable of running health care for millions and millions of people? That is to say, their track record just isn’t great in this area.

And that is what makes the current threat by Harry Reid to use the “Nuclear Option” to push through what the Wall Street Journal says is “the most expensive part of the plan.”

Oh – and the “Nuclear Option,” in case you don’t know, is a simple majority. Not a veto-proof one, a simple one of 51 – 49.

And they WONDER why so many people are hesitant to have the Feds control our health care? Really?? Wow – kinda makes you wonder about them making decisions for us about, well, EVERYTHING, doesn’t it? Holy smokes…

I just happened to catch this Tuesday morning, and thought it raised some interesting questions on the issue of health care reform:

So, why isn’t this man helping to shape policy? He sounds pretty smart to me.

By now, I am sure many of you have seen footage of the Town Hall with Sen. Specter and Secretary Kathleen Sebellius. And while the following video begins with some of that footage, the bigger issue deals with how health care reform would affect veterans and their families. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D) is on the House Armed Services Committee, and addresses this issue:

Feel free to take issue with some of his statements. One that jumped out at me was his comment about the “Cash for Clunkers” program. There have been SO many issues raised about that, someby me, including this: Congress expected the funds to last for four months, and they lasted for four days. This was a $1 Billion dollar program. If they failed to project how quickly the funds would run out for that, why should we trust they will do better with a FAR more expansive program in scope and scale, not to mention COST, like Health care reform?

Here’s the short hand: if they can’t predict how quickly $1 billion will go, how can they accurately predict how over $1 TRILLION will go?

Back to the veterans for just a moment. Good of Rep. Cummings to discuss this issue with his constituents who are veterans. Here is one veteran who has his own take on this issue (H/t to Logistics Monster for this video):

In case you are wondering what Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution says, here it is:

Article 1 – The Legislative Branch; Section 8 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

It is good to see with what the Congress is officially charged under the Constitution that governs this land. For me, at least, it helps to put things into perspective. Kind of like the soldier who spoke up did, cutting through a whole bunch of rhetoric. I think our politicians could learn a lesson from him on that score, too – speak clearly, speak plainly, and base ALL of your decisions with the Constitution as a road map, rather than as a stumbling block.

Better yet, maybe they should all wear bracelets like, “WWJMD?” = “What Would James Madison Do?” Or, “WWJD?” = “What Would Jefferson Do?” Just a thought…

You are absolutely NOT going to believe this. Don’t be put off by this being Glenn Beck – I’m not a huge fan, but he is absolutely right to be outraged by this. You should be, too:

My favorite part is the “…and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.” Say WHAAAAA??? What the hell does THAT mean?

And how in the world can any of this be legal?? They can jump inside your computer? Listen to your phone conversations on Skype with no warrant?

If you were considering checking out this program, whatever you do, do NOT log onto this website and check, “I agree” at the “Privacy Act and Security Statement” to continue. Unless you want the government to forever be able to access your computer.

This is insane. Absolutely insane. What has our country become??

Okay. I can see some wisdom in that. It is great to get these old gas guzzlers off the road, recycle the vehicles, have people driving new, more efficient vehicles, and helping out the automobile industry. Not bad! Oh, but wait. Maybe it’s bad for the taxpayers, and those who have been more energy conscious all along:

Well, there’s a problem. Not to mention that many people will not be putting the money back into the AMERICAN automakers’ pocket, but foreign automakers who are making affordable, fuel efficient vehicles. So there is that.

But here’s a HUGE problem: The program is already broke. I am not kidding you. In FOUR days, the program has expended ALL of the money, $1 BILLION dollars, allocated to it. I guess that’s a good news/bad news kind of thing. It worked, but now the funds have gone * poof *! There’s hope, though:

A source told FOX News that senior Congressional leaders, the Obama administration and other lawmakers involved with the program are exploring potential options to either undertake administrative or possibly even Congressional action to infuse the program with cash.

Lawmakers were examining whether there was a possible avenue to provide much-needed reserves for the program as early as Friday.

Rep. Ed Markey, D.- Mass., co-author of the cash for clunkers provision, pledged to work with the Obama administration to ensure the program continues.

“Cash for Clunkers may have run out of cash, but America’s consumers haven’t run out of clunkers. We’re going to work with the Obama administration to keep this wildly successful program going until it reaches its goal of helping consumers take 1 million gas guzzlers off the road,” he said.

Like I said, glad the program was successful for the consumers for all of four days.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t TOTALLY successful:

A survey of 2,000 dealers by the National Automobile Dealers Association found about 25,000 deals had not yet been approved by NHTSA, or nearly 13 trades per store. It raised concerns that with about 23,000 dealers taking part in the program, auto dealers may already have surpassed the 250,000 vehicle sales funded by the $1 billion program.

“There’s a significant backlog of ‘cash for clunkers’ deals that make us question how much funding is still available in the program,” said Bailey Wood, a spokesman for the dealers association.

Alan Helfman, general manager of River Oaks Chrysler Jeep in Houston, said he was worried that the government wouldn’t pay for some of the clunker deals his dealership has signed because they aren’t far enough along in the process.

His dealership has done paperwork on about 20 sales under the clunker program, but in some cases the titles haven’t been obtained yet or the vehicles aren’t yet on his lot.

“There’s no doubt I’m going to get hammered on a deal or two,” Helfman said.

Oops. Sorry, dealers!

So the dealers are left holding the bag. They may get reimbursed, or they may not. Who knows?

But what does that say about how the government will manage HEALTH care?? That’s just a tad more serious for many, many people – getting in to see their doctors, or having surgery – than trading in an old car. Nice program and all, but if they cannot handle that without huge complications in the very first week, running out of money, how in the world can we trust them to do right by us in terms of our HEALTH?? Sure gives one pause, doesn’t it?

UPDATE: The House has just voted to give an additional $2 Billion to this program. Well, gosh – maybe it will last a whole week then, especially if you figure there are lots of dealers who haven’t been paid for the first four days…