There obviously is no end to the ways that members of Congress can devise to hand out “free” money that the government doesn’t have. It’s popular, of course, for those who are on the receiving end.
The latest boondoggle is the “cash for clunkers” foolishness.
In the name of “promoting the economy” and “environmentalism,” Congress unconstitutionally, financially unsoundly and foolishly voted recently to hand out a billion dollars to pay people $3,500 to $4,500 each if they traded in “clunkers” — older cars or trucks getting low gasoline mileage — for new models with as little as just one to a few more miles per gallon.
Who’s surprised that the billion-dollar fund was quickly exhausted? The billion dollars is gone — with little benefit for the nation’s economy or air quality.
But already there is a rush for Congress to appropriate $2 billion more!
The money will have to be borrowed, mortgaging your future.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., declared, “My children and grandchildren are going to have to pay for those cars, and we’re helping auto dealers while there are thousands of other small businesses that aren’t getting the help.”
Isn’t the “cash for clunkers” deal typical of the financial irresponsibility of many members of Congress? They have voted a $3.5 trillion budget, adding a trillion dollars to the $11.5 trillion national debt, which is eating up many billions of dollars each year in required interest payments as red ink flows deeper.
But President Barack Obama’s Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood warned, as the initial $1 billion appropriation was near exhaustion, that the handouts would run out — unless Congress voted more money quickly.
So last Friday, a majority of the House of Representatives voted to waste $2 billion more on “cash for clunkers.” And Secretary LaHood said, “If we don’t get the $2 billion from the Senate ... we would have to suspend the program next week.”
Do you feel confident that the president and Congress are exercising really good financial judgment with your best economic interests in mind?
The auto industry was handed over $30 billion or more to keep them afloat- I think another $3 billion to stimulate their mfg is a better investment than more "afloat" money. Plus it give the buyer a break for a change, good for the environment and reduces arab oil demands. What could be better use of govt spending, unless of course it would be on Haliburton.
Or login with:
New Account