Post Racialism...
The term "Post Racial is bandied about a lot, especially since Obama became President, but it really isn't very clear what it means. From what I can tell, it is supposed to mean that racism has been marginalized in America to the point that it is no longer a primary motivating force either politically, socially, or in business.
There is no doubt that great strides have been made in achieving such a goal, but there are two sides to a post racial society. The dominant culture/group needs to stop acting in a prejudiced manner, and the formerly oppressed culture/group needs to avoid crying oppression (racism) whenever they are subject to negative social power, such as arrest and the denial of advancement based on poor performance.
This can be difficult, and can take multiple generations to achieve. The biggest reason for this isn't really about prejudice, but about economics. An oppressed cultural group has difficulty amassing economic wealth and social/political power. Due to different social norms, different groups have a better or worse time succeeding in or dominant Democratic/Capitalist system. Having children before completing college, single mothers, and multiple children are all (in the short term) negative factors for gaining political, social and economic power (in the long term, in a democracy, this can also be very dangerous/destabilizing for other reasons). There is a limit to how much the dominant group can and will make allowances, especially when they have in fact for the most part given up their racist attitudes, and granted benefits to the previously disenfranchised group. Some of the dominant group goes to the point of wanting some sort of thank you (and some certainly resent the benefits that were granted). Of course, saying thanks for getting things to the way they should be is disingenuous, but I don't think that is the overall tone.
Still, there are people that had their life shaped by racism and racist attitudes. They may or may not have succeeded despite those impediments, but it seems less likely that they are able to see current situations and events without having it colored by their upbringing. Until those people can change their attitudes (and dying is one way that can happen), there will continue to be racist attitudes, and unwarranted cries of racism. And with immigration a continuing part of national demograpics, we will continue to import racist attitudes from other cultures.
I wouldn't say that racism is alive and well in America. But it it's not dead yet either (even if it was coughing up blood last night…).
Monday, August 10, 2009
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Can we still have Reasonable Discourse?
I am not an advocate or a fan of disruptiveness in public discourse. We seem to have become a terribly impolite, as well as a stupidly tolerant society. I don't understand why congressmen need to accept being berated by constituents at events that are intended to inform their constituents. If events of this type devolve into displays of disorderly conduct, then polite citizenry gets marginalized.
It's hard to figure out. Has the world become coarser over time? Or is this a sort of pendulum that is swinging the other way in reaction to the excesses of the past when the clamp down on this sort of activity was violent. American citizens have managed to get a lot of concessions against government crackdowns for the most part, but there has certainly been a lot of violence involved too. Still, there is a need for a government, no matter how much we may dislike it, and that also means we need to have some sort of public discourse.
What is sad is that the day of the town hall meeting may be over, and discourse will be managed through different mediums., at least when it comes to subjects that lead to passionate and loud protests disrupting what should be respectful discourse. But respectful discourse doesn't make for the nightly news either.
Civility will return when the fourth branch of government stops giving airtime to loud protests, which sadly means never. The squeaky wheel gets the grease is how the saying goes for a reason. So, when people get passionate about things, we are going to have to do our best to keep some perspective, and look to other resources to get our information.
Either that, or we are going to have to allow the police to more aggressively control meetings of this type. Honestly, I think that such police action is becoming necessary, but it probably has to be coupled with increased legal penalties for causing such a disruption. Protest is laudable, and a key part of democracy. However, so is education and communication, and tampering with the lines of communication is an attempt to subvert democracy, which is something we may have to address much more closely in the near future.
I am not an advocate or a fan of disruptiveness in public discourse. We seem to have become a terribly impolite, as well as a stupidly tolerant society. I don't understand why congressmen need to accept being berated by constituents at events that are intended to inform their constituents. If events of this type devolve into displays of disorderly conduct, then polite citizenry gets marginalized.
It's hard to figure out. Has the world become coarser over time? Or is this a sort of pendulum that is swinging the other way in reaction to the excesses of the past when the clamp down on this sort of activity was violent. American citizens have managed to get a lot of concessions against government crackdowns for the most part, but there has certainly been a lot of violence involved too. Still, there is a need for a government, no matter how much we may dislike it, and that also means we need to have some sort of public discourse.
What is sad is that the day of the town hall meeting may be over, and discourse will be managed through different mediums., at least when it comes to subjects that lead to passionate and loud protests disrupting what should be respectful discourse. But respectful discourse doesn't make for the nightly news either.
Civility will return when the fourth branch of government stops giving airtime to loud protests, which sadly means never. The squeaky wheel gets the grease is how the saying goes for a reason. So, when people get passionate about things, we are going to have to do our best to keep some perspective, and look to other resources to get our information.
Either that, or we are going to have to allow the police to more aggressively control meetings of this type. Honestly, I think that such police action is becoming necessary, but it probably has to be coupled with increased legal penalties for causing such a disruption. Protest is laudable, and a key part of democracy. However, so is education and communication, and tampering with the lines of communication is an attempt to subvert democracy, which is something we may have to address much more closely in the near future.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Bill Clinton and the Reporters
So, on August 4th, 2009, Bill Clinton managed to fly out of North Korea with Euna Lee and Laura Ling, two journalists who had been tried and sentenced in North Korea, but received a pardon, officially due to former President Clinton's "personal humanitarian efforts."
Now what happened is pretty much what diplomacy is supposed to do. I call this a coup for Obama, and a win for Bill Clinton. We can argue as to whether the journalists should have been there at all, but a amongst the functions of government is the duty to protect and assist its citizens abroad. Having said that, there is always a cost/benefit analysis that has to be reviewed. In this case we do not have transparency we might like to determine what the true cost was. If the true political cost here was simply a visit by former President Clinton and the photo op and "legitimacy" that such a visit grants to the North Korean dictator, I'm okay with that. But was that all? Hard to know.
What really bothers me about this is the fiction that is being maintained with regards to this having been some sort of independent mission that now Citizen Clinton put together on his own with no direct instruction by the White House or by the Secretary of State. Bill Clinton isn't directly on the government payroll, so technically he is a private citizen, but it strains credulity to believe that the White House wasn't in on this event very closely.
Governments lie to their citizenry routinely. Sometimes I wonder if it is actually reflexively. I have a hard time figuring what the downside is for the White House to say something along the lines of "We were aware of the negotiations to secure a pardon for the unlucky reporters and did everything we could to ensure a positive outcome for all involved in keeping with our larger foreign policy goals."
I believe that democracy works best with an educated and informed electorate. That may be a faulty premise, but if it is, I still don't see how claiming that there was no White House involvement benefits the administration. If you want the people to trust in your guidance, why mislead them?
Then again, maybe trust isn't something that is being cultivated here. If the goal is to have a portion of the electorate distrust you and seem "paranoid" and flat out crazy (like the Birthers), and you count on those in the middle to give you the benefit of the doubt based on positive results, then maybe there is an advantage.
But that sort of reasoning is pretty twisted. Occam's razor and Carlos' first law tell me that this is not some devious ploy, but simply business as usual.
But from what I see now, the fact is that the reporters were released without any significant concessions from the United States Government, and that's a good thing.
So, on August 4th, 2009, Bill Clinton managed to fly out of North Korea with Euna Lee and Laura Ling, two journalists who had been tried and sentenced in North Korea, but received a pardon, officially due to former President Clinton's "personal humanitarian efforts."
Now what happened is pretty much what diplomacy is supposed to do. I call this a coup for Obama, and a win for Bill Clinton. We can argue as to whether the journalists should have been there at all, but a amongst the functions of government is the duty to protect and assist its citizens abroad. Having said that, there is always a cost/benefit analysis that has to be reviewed. In this case we do not have transparency we might like to determine what the true cost was. If the true political cost here was simply a visit by former President Clinton and the photo op and "legitimacy" that such a visit grants to the North Korean dictator, I'm okay with that. But was that all? Hard to know.
What really bothers me about this is the fiction that is being maintained with regards to this having been some sort of independent mission that now Citizen Clinton put together on his own with no direct instruction by the White House or by the Secretary of State. Bill Clinton isn't directly on the government payroll, so technically he is a private citizen, but it strains credulity to believe that the White House wasn't in on this event very closely.
Governments lie to their citizenry routinely. Sometimes I wonder if it is actually reflexively. I have a hard time figuring what the downside is for the White House to say something along the lines of "We were aware of the negotiations to secure a pardon for the unlucky reporters and did everything we could to ensure a positive outcome for all involved in keeping with our larger foreign policy goals."
I believe that democracy works best with an educated and informed electorate. That may be a faulty premise, but if it is, I still don't see how claiming that there was no White House involvement benefits the administration. If you want the people to trust in your guidance, why mislead them?
Then again, maybe trust isn't something that is being cultivated here. If the goal is to have a portion of the electorate distrust you and seem "paranoid" and flat out crazy (like the Birthers), and you count on those in the middle to give you the benefit of the doubt based on positive results, then maybe there is an advantage.
But that sort of reasoning is pretty twisted. Occam's razor and Carlos' first law tell me that this is not some devious ploy, but simply business as usual.
But from what I see now, the fact is that the reporters were released without any significant concessions from the United States Government, and that's a good thing.
Birthers
Birthers are fascinating, and I find them doubly so because they may give us some insight into the way many of us think.
So, was/is Obama constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States by virtue of being a "natural born citizen?" There is something fascinating about this question, because it leads to the question of what people believe and why they believe it. How much evidence do you need to believe a premise. The problem with this sort of issue though is that "proof" can only be presented in the form of eyewitness accounts, and documentation. It's not like you can run any experiments to show this. You can't take some sort of tissue sample and extrapolate from it the likely LOCATION of birth.
But eyewitnesses can lie, and documentation can be forged. But it's even worse than that. You see, records from that period can also be pretty shoddy. I have heard that people want a copy of the original "long form" birth certificate provided as evidence. There are some claims that the long form has been destroyed (a tricky claim at best, since if it is found now, it is even more likely to be declared a forgery).
Conspiracy theories are interesting in how they can come up with a counter to what most consider as evidence. What I don't understand is how conspiracy theorists mind's work. Clearly there is some need to make an attempt to rationalize their belief in order to try and convince others of their theory. And if this is the way some segment of the voting population thinks, is it possible that we all have that sort of logic circuit in our brains without realizing it? These sorts of thought processes seem to occur for all sorts of reasons. Birthers, creationists, flat earthers, the list goes on. Most religions seem to often tread on this sort of thinking behavior, and many downright require it.
I have to say, I try to avoid this sort of thinking. What I find most weird is that people that do think this way are generally very sure about their premise (for Birthers it is the belief that Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States). As for myself, I'm generally unsure about a lot of things, and try to cite my sources when I can (of course I can always make stuff up, build a website for my verification purposes, and then point to that. One of the miracles of modern technology).
What I really wonder though is whether people may be generally hard wired to have this way of thinking.
Birthers are fascinating, and I find them doubly so because they may give us some insight into the way many of us think.
So, was/is Obama constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States by virtue of being a "natural born citizen?" There is something fascinating about this question, because it leads to the question of what people believe and why they believe it. How much evidence do you need to believe a premise. The problem with this sort of issue though is that "proof" can only be presented in the form of eyewitness accounts, and documentation. It's not like you can run any experiments to show this. You can't take some sort of tissue sample and extrapolate from it the likely LOCATION of birth.
But eyewitnesses can lie, and documentation can be forged. But it's even worse than that. You see, records from that period can also be pretty shoddy. I have heard that people want a copy of the original "long form" birth certificate provided as evidence. There are some claims that the long form has been destroyed (a tricky claim at best, since if it is found now, it is even more likely to be declared a forgery).
Conspiracy theories are interesting in how they can come up with a counter to what most consider as evidence. What I don't understand is how conspiracy theorists mind's work. Clearly there is some need to make an attempt to rationalize their belief in order to try and convince others of their theory. And if this is the way some segment of the voting population thinks, is it possible that we all have that sort of logic circuit in our brains without realizing it? These sorts of thought processes seem to occur for all sorts of reasons. Birthers, creationists, flat earthers, the list goes on. Most religions seem to often tread on this sort of thinking behavior, and many downright require it.
I have to say, I try to avoid this sort of thinking. What I find most weird is that people that do think this way are generally very sure about their premise (for Birthers it is the belief that Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States). As for myself, I'm generally unsure about a lot of things, and try to cite my sources when I can (of course I can always make stuff up, build a website for my verification purposes, and then point to that. One of the miracles of modern technology).
What I really wonder though is whether people may be generally hard wired to have this way of thinking.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Fairness vs. Order
As I was looking over information and opinions on Gates Gate, I came across an article by Tonya A Weatherbee dated July 31, 2009. In it she states that there is a need to listen for those on either side of the Gates' arrest issue. But one premise she espoused is one that I feel has a lot more to do with the problem than any other. In essence she espoused the right to argue with the police in the heat of the moment.
Here's how she put it:
Since Gates' arrest and subsequent release, there's been more yelling. And not enough listening. There's yelling from the people who support Crowley; people who are only hearing the fact that he taught diversity classes. But if he was such an expert, he should have been sensitive to the fact that, to an elderly black man like Gates who defied stereotypes and rose to the top of academia, being mistaken for a criminal might not sit well with him. Others only see Gates as a man who shouldn't have raised his voice to a police officer. Yet, I utterly reject the notion that people should be subservient to the police if they believe they are being mistreated. The police are the ones who are the public servants, not the other way around. People ought to be able to argue with them - see First Amendment - without being arrested for it.
To believe otherwise is to put more of a premium on order than on fairness.
http://www.jacksonville.com/opinion/columnists/tonyaa_weathersbee/2009-07-28/story/professor_police_showdown_dramatizes_the_need
So, how is the citizenry supposed to relate to the police? And how are the police supposed to relate to the citizenry?
I find the reference to the first amendment to be amusing, because so many people construe the first amendment to mean all sorts of things. It gets invoked a lot for all sorts of things where it isn't applicable. Let's review:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As far as I can tell, Tanya is declaring laws against disorderly conduct to be unconstitutional, at least as long as the conduct is limited to verbal actions. Given that interpretation, I'm not sure why Tanya doesn't believe that people should have the right to berate policemen verbally under any circumstances, not limited to arguing.
"Fairness vs. Order" seems to be Tanya's argument, but I think we have laws specifically because "fairness" is a very subjective concept.
In the world of fairness, if someone steals my property (say a laptop, something easily portable) and I know that they have it in the bedroom of their apartment, it seems fair that I could go into their home and reclaim my property. Assuming I do not have their permission to enter, in this case fairness lets me trespass. In some people's mind, fairness lets me break and enter. I expect in some people's mind, fairness lets me commit assault. Clearly there is some limit here, and that's why we have laws and put a premium on order.
There is another issue though. Does order undermine fairness? If it does, I believe that is clearly a problem. Order/laws are there to ensure that fairness prevails over time. If they fail to perform that function, then they need to be changed. Is that the case here? If the officer was acting inappropriately, is there a lawful mechanism to address that? I don't know about the rules in this case, but berating the policeman does not seem to me to be the appropriate course of action. Is it an illegal course of action (and should it be?). When it reaches the stage of disorderly conduct, it is illegal. The policeman on the scene does get to make that determination (although in this case there were other witnesses, the only ones that have gone on the record that I know of are other police officers, and the agree with the disorderly conduct arrest, and for those of you keeping score, it is my understanding that one of the police witnesses was a black officer).
Police do hold a special place in our society, and we have to grant and acknowledge that they have special powers, amongst which is the power to detain and arrest for reasons they see fit. We do have the right to give a police officer crap of course, but they have the power to arrest us. If we feel that the actions taken were unfair given the circumstances, there should be a system to report and address grievances in place (which there is). When they cross the line, there should be consequences (and police definitely cross the line, even though I believe sometimes it is part of their training to do so, which was what I believed happened to Rodney King years ago).
I just have a hard time accepting that people have the right to argue (to the point of berating) with the police during an investigation without the possibility of an arrest for disorderly conduct. And even if an arrest is to be made, the police must still adhere to a code of conduct that requires the use of reasonable force.
A perception of "fairness" just doesn't seem to be a reasonable position to take to argue with an officer. And using age, race, sexual orientation or religion, or even just a bad day as a justification for giving a policeman a hard time seems unreasonable.
Then again, maybe I'm just a fascist at heart. Somehow though, I don't think so.
As I was looking over information and opinions on Gates Gate, I came across an article by Tonya A Weatherbee dated July 31, 2009. In it she states that there is a need to listen for those on either side of the Gates' arrest issue. But one premise she espoused is one that I feel has a lot more to do with the problem than any other. In essence she espoused the right to argue with the police in the heat of the moment.
Here's how she put it:
Since Gates' arrest and subsequent release, there's been more yelling. And not enough listening. There's yelling from the people who support Crowley; people who are only hearing the fact that he taught diversity classes. But if he was such an expert, he should have been sensitive to the fact that, to an elderly black man like Gates who defied stereotypes and rose to the top of academia, being mistaken for a criminal might not sit well with him. Others only see Gates as a man who shouldn't have raised his voice to a police officer. Yet, I utterly reject the notion that people should be subservient to the police if they believe they are being mistreated. The police are the ones who are the public servants, not the other way around. People ought to be able to argue with them - see First Amendment - without being arrested for it.
To believe otherwise is to put more of a premium on order than on fairness.
http://www.jacksonville.com/opinion/columnists/tonyaa_weathersbee/2009-07-28/story/professor_police_showdown_dramatizes_the_need
So, how is the citizenry supposed to relate to the police? And how are the police supposed to relate to the citizenry?
I find the reference to the first amendment to be amusing, because so many people construe the first amendment to mean all sorts of things. It gets invoked a lot for all sorts of things where it isn't applicable. Let's review:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As far as I can tell, Tanya is declaring laws against disorderly conduct to be unconstitutional, at least as long as the conduct is limited to verbal actions. Given that interpretation, I'm not sure why Tanya doesn't believe that people should have the right to berate policemen verbally under any circumstances, not limited to arguing.
"Fairness vs. Order" seems to be Tanya's argument, but I think we have laws specifically because "fairness" is a very subjective concept.
In the world of fairness, if someone steals my property (say a laptop, something easily portable) and I know that they have it in the bedroom of their apartment, it seems fair that I could go into their home and reclaim my property. Assuming I do not have their permission to enter, in this case fairness lets me trespass. In some people's mind, fairness lets me break and enter. I expect in some people's mind, fairness lets me commit assault. Clearly there is some limit here, and that's why we have laws and put a premium on order.
There is another issue though. Does order undermine fairness? If it does, I believe that is clearly a problem. Order/laws are there to ensure that fairness prevails over time. If they fail to perform that function, then they need to be changed. Is that the case here? If the officer was acting inappropriately, is there a lawful mechanism to address that? I don't know about the rules in this case, but berating the policeman does not seem to me to be the appropriate course of action. Is it an illegal course of action (and should it be?). When it reaches the stage of disorderly conduct, it is illegal. The policeman on the scene does get to make that determination (although in this case there were other witnesses, the only ones that have gone on the record that I know of are other police officers, and the agree with the disorderly conduct arrest, and for those of you keeping score, it is my understanding that one of the police witnesses was a black officer).
Police do hold a special place in our society, and we have to grant and acknowledge that they have special powers, amongst which is the power to detain and arrest for reasons they see fit. We do have the right to give a police officer crap of course, but they have the power to arrest us. If we feel that the actions taken were unfair given the circumstances, there should be a system to report and address grievances in place (which there is). When they cross the line, there should be consequences (and police definitely cross the line, even though I believe sometimes it is part of their training to do so, which was what I believed happened to Rodney King years ago).
I just have a hard time accepting that people have the right to argue (to the point of berating) with the police during an investigation without the possibility of an arrest for disorderly conduct. And even if an arrest is to be made, the police must still adhere to a code of conduct that requires the use of reasonable force.
A perception of "fairness" just doesn't seem to be a reasonable position to take to argue with an officer. And using age, race, sexual orientation or religion, or even just a bad day as a justification for giving a policeman a hard time seems unreasonable.
Then again, maybe I'm just a fascist at heart. Somehow though, I don't think so.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Cash for clunkers
In principle I am generally opposed to government redistributing wealth directly amongst the population, but I admit that I do believe there should be some exceptions. So, when a program is created that does this, it has to be reviewed closely. As it turns out I have a friend who had a stroke at age 43, and now requires long term invalid care, and has essentially been an invalid for the last two years. He had no insurance at the time of his stroke, and his care is paid for through public funds. Without public funds, his standard of care would be much lower than what it is now (which isn't great), and a further financial burden would be placed on his family. Of course, if he had no family, such a burden would go to charitable institutions, or of course he could die due to lack of care. So, we have set up a system where wealth is transferred to the disabled to keep such a scenario from playing out.
Back to Cash for Clunkers. This program gives money to those that have a functioning vehicle that is old, gives them a $4,500 credit (paid to a car delearhship) The people that get this windfall are people that have older, more polluting cars that they are still paying insurance on (and so in theory driving). The old car is destroyed (scrapped/crushed, so I guess recycled), eliminating a higher polluting vehicle, and giving a more reliable vehicle to the program beneficiary. The beneficiary is rather likely to be a lower net worth individual since they have held on to a "clunker" or chosen to purchase one in the secondary market since they probably couldn't afford a new vehicle. They probably have some sort of income (even if it is a low income) as they are able to qualify for a new vehicle with the government incentive. Overall, as transfers of wealth go, I have to say that this is far better than handing over hundreds of billions of dollars to big businesses that mismanaged themselves to the point of bankruptcy. I wonder if the program would have been as popular if it was means tested though. There are some reports that a large number of sales are being made on a cash basis, so the clunker owner probably could have afforded a new car (although I must say that I don't see a problem with rewarding a frugal saver either, but it does keep the question open as to who really is benefiting).
Unfortunately, this program also seems to have shown that legislators really don't have a good grip on how much things will cost.
When I heard about the program, I questioned just how many people really could qualify for the program. Assuming the cost per vehicle was actually $5,000, with an initial budget of One Billion dollars, that would translate to two hundred thousand cars. I didn't think that there were that many "clunkers" that would be available for the program, and apparently neither did the legislators. Now I can be excused, as I didn't do any research into the number of vehicles that could qualify, but I would think that this information would be available to the legislators. Seeing as the initial funding limit was hit within two weeks for what was supposed to be a 2 month plan, somebody's numbers were off.
I still object to government redistributing wealth (note that this is a transfer not only to car purchasers, but to dealers and manufacturers). I have a hard time buying that this amounts to a general public good (as opposed to long term invalid care). And while this is still playing out, it is already clear that there are already operational and cost questions that are already making this program cost more than expected, and while I am sure it is popular with people that are getting the benefits, it's usually a good bet that a government program like this generally just doesn't wind up with the cost benefit ratio that one might hope for.
In principle I am generally opposed to government redistributing wealth directly amongst the population, but I admit that I do believe there should be some exceptions. So, when a program is created that does this, it has to be reviewed closely. As it turns out I have a friend who had a stroke at age 43, and now requires long term invalid care, and has essentially been an invalid for the last two years. He had no insurance at the time of his stroke, and his care is paid for through public funds. Without public funds, his standard of care would be much lower than what it is now (which isn't great), and a further financial burden would be placed on his family. Of course, if he had no family, such a burden would go to charitable institutions, or of course he could die due to lack of care. So, we have set up a system where wealth is transferred to the disabled to keep such a scenario from playing out.
Back to Cash for Clunkers. This program gives money to those that have a functioning vehicle that is old, gives them a $4,500 credit (paid to a car delearhship) The people that get this windfall are people that have older, more polluting cars that they are still paying insurance on (and so in theory driving). The old car is destroyed (scrapped/crushed, so I guess recycled), eliminating a higher polluting vehicle, and giving a more reliable vehicle to the program beneficiary. The beneficiary is rather likely to be a lower net worth individual since they have held on to a "clunker" or chosen to purchase one in the secondary market since they probably couldn't afford a new vehicle. They probably have some sort of income (even if it is a low income) as they are able to qualify for a new vehicle with the government incentive. Overall, as transfers of wealth go, I have to say that this is far better than handing over hundreds of billions of dollars to big businesses that mismanaged themselves to the point of bankruptcy. I wonder if the program would have been as popular if it was means tested though. There are some reports that a large number of sales are being made on a cash basis, so the clunker owner probably could have afforded a new car (although I must say that I don't see a problem with rewarding a frugal saver either, but it does keep the question open as to who really is benefiting).
Unfortunately, this program also seems to have shown that legislators really don't have a good grip on how much things will cost.
When I heard about the program, I questioned just how many people really could qualify for the program. Assuming the cost per vehicle was actually $5,000, with an initial budget of One Billion dollars, that would translate to two hundred thousand cars. I didn't think that there were that many "clunkers" that would be available for the program, and apparently neither did the legislators. Now I can be excused, as I didn't do any research into the number of vehicles that could qualify, but I would think that this information would be available to the legislators. Seeing as the initial funding limit was hit within two weeks for what was supposed to be a 2 month plan, somebody's numbers were off.
I still object to government redistributing wealth (note that this is a transfer not only to car purchasers, but to dealers and manufacturers). I have a hard time buying that this amounts to a general public good (as opposed to long term invalid care). And while this is still playing out, it is already clear that there are already operational and cost questions that are already making this program cost more than expected, and while I am sure it is popular with people that are getting the benefits, it's usually a good bet that a government program like this generally just doesn't wind up with the cost benefit ratio that one might hope for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)