Ripple effects of Cash For Clunkers

Back in 2009 I wrote about how the cash for clunkers deal Obama put forth was going to hurt the used car market, you can read the story HERE.

Interesting thing happened this weekend while I was shopping for a car with my family, we are now seeing the ripple effects exactly as I predicted them.

My wife and I are currently shopping for a slightly used car.  As we began discussing options with one of the dealers we meet he pointed out how the used car market is "suffering".  Because the cash for clunkers took many of the older cars out of the market, poor families had two choices, either push the cars they had even further or buy a newer model car.  And for many, the 2nd choice wasn't an option.

This resulted in even fewer older cars going into the resale market and an even higher demand on the newer used cars driving up the price.

This leaves me finding very poor selections at nearly new car prices.

Will Democrats take responsibility for this?  I doubt it.

Gun Questions For Democrats

Last week bill H.B. 388 went up for a vote at the state house.  The bill protects the owner of a fire arm taken from that persons control or premises without their permission if it is later used in a crime.

Seems straight forward.  Some discussion on it can be found HERE asking the reasonable questions that if someone were to steal your truck and use it in a crime should you be held in any way responsible or if someone were to steal your baseball bat and used it in a crime should you be held responsible for that. 

In the roll call vote taken, 166 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against this (Yeas vote was to kill the bill).

In the discussion to the article on the patch there were some Democrats who gave reasons they didn't support the bill.  Jan Schmidt for instance states that she would have voted for it had the bill contained the text "if the weapon had been reported to the police as stolen" and others echoed similar feelings that the bill did not promote safe gun ownership.  This of course relies on the fact the gun owner must know the gun was stolen in the first place.  Someone who keeps a gun in their house for safety may not routinely check to see if its in the drawer or safe location they keep it in so if someone they allow into their house like a maid for instance, finds it and steals it they may not know until long after it had been used in crimes.

Another poster (Rick Watrous) writes that "It is so broadly written ... that someone could leave an arsenal of loaded weapons on their open front porch and not be liable if someone grabbed one and killed someone".  In the summer time I often leave my axe laying in my yard while I head inside for a drink or a baseball bat laying out while my son and I take a break from playing.  If someone takes them from my yard how is it any different then a gun if its used for a crime?

The discussion lead to a couple questions, one of which I posted on the patch but have not received any answers.  I post them here in hopes that at least one of my Democratic readers will share with me their answers.

1) How is a gun any different from any other object you own if someone steals it from you and uses it in a crime (baseball bat, car etc)?

2) If a gun is stolen from my house and I wasn't aware of it being taken and that gun was later used in a crime yet never reported stolen, should I be held in any way responsible for the crime and if so what should the punishment be?

3) For those who don't even agree with Jan's suggested addition, if a gun is in my house and stored in a locked box but yet still stole and I report it stolen, and then that gun is later used in a crime should I be held in any way responsible and if so what punishment would fit this case?

4) Lastly, let's use Mr. Watrous' example.  I'm cleaning a gun on my front porch.  It's a hot day so I go inside for a drink leaving a pistol and loaded clip sitting on the table.  Someone sees it, grabs it and runs off.  Later they us it to hold up a store and shoot the clerk.  Since this is the example Mr. Watrous warns us about with a gun owner leaving weapons on their front porch, what would be the punishment appropriate for the gun owner who's gun was stolen in this case?

Atlas Shrugged

For those who haven't read the book, the idea behind Atlas Shrugged is that the leaders and wealth creators of society retreat from an overbearing government.  Without all the "do-ers" the rest of society that attempts to leach off of them slowly starts failing.

A recent story on Yahoo Finance shows that very same thing is starting to come true in America today.  You can read it in full HERE.

As of 2013, 77% of Americans will pay higher federal tax rates because the cuts in Social Security payroll taxes expired when Congress passed its tax package on New Year’s Day. But the wealthiest households face the highest tax increases.

The income tax rate rose this year to 39.6% from 35% for individuals earning more than $400,000 a year and married couples earning more than $450,000.

The Tax Policy Center estimated that those who earn more than $1 million would pay an average of  $170,341 more in taxes.

Federal taxes aren’t the only issue, though. Increases in state income tax rates factor into these decisions as well. Recently, California enacted Proposition 30, which raised state income tax rates to 10.3% from 9.3% for individuals making at least $250,000 and 13.3% from 10.3% for those earning at least $1 million.

 To put this another way, as liberals continue increasing spending then argue that the rich need to pay their "fair share".  The rich eventually get fed up and we see the 2nd part of what the article points out...

In the first three quarters of 2012, more than 1,100 people left the United States, according to the Federal Register, which tracks Americans who renounce their citizenship.

According to a 2012 study published by the Research Institute of Industrial Economics that examined the mobility of billionaires over the past two decades, “70% [of those billionaires] have migrated from higher to lower capital gains tax country … One-third of the billionaires that moved went to small countries defined as ‘tax havens,’” including Switzerland, Bahamas and Singapore.

The number of expatriates per year as gone up from a low of 231 in 2008 to 1781 in 2011 with most of them being the wealthy.

When we've built a system in which the government tries to take from those with money to redistribute to those who don't, what will happen when there are no more rich to "pay their fair share"?

Eventually we'll come to a point where one of two things will need to happen, either people will need to give up their hand outs and finally start pulling their own weight or it will shift to even higher burdens on the middle class.  As those burdens continue to weigh down the middle class how many will continue to work and pull that wagon when those choosing not to work have a higher standard of living?

Think about this, the average household on welfare gets $61,194 in 2011.  The average household income during that time is $52,377.  So most families could actually come out ahead of where they are today by quitting their jobs and living off the rest of us.

Eventually we're going to reach a point where everyone is in the wagon and there isn't anyone left to push.  What then?

Carol Pay Me Shea Porter

In the song Welcome to the Jungle Axle belts out the lyrics "You can have everything you want but you better not take it from me".  Current statements from Carol Shea Porter remind me of that line.

Democrat Jim Cooper came up with what I consider a brilliant bill, the No Budget, No Pay Act which will prevent members of Congress from getting paid unless they pass a budget (as the Constitution requires them to do).  This bill has received support from Democrats and Republicans alike.

Of course when push came to shove, our local Congress-woman Carol Shea Porter voted against the bill claiming "The wealthy people in the House and Senate can go without the pay, but others will be hurt along with their families for something that wasn’t their decision"

So its ok to take away money from other people as long as she isn't the one impacted.  And she doesn't even think it's right to withhold pay from people who aren't even willing to do the job of creating a budget that they are legally required to do.

And what about all the people hurting right now because Congress can't do the job they were elected to do?  What about the people who are hurting right now because gas and oil prices continue to climb and unemployment numbers remain high?

I guess its ok for them to hurt as long as Carol's ok.

US Money Turning Into Leaves

I love it when the left speak candidly and let you know what they really think or believe.

A discussion began to the following comment from Senator Ayotte (taken from WMUR.com as the version posted on Blue Hampshire is edited):

"While I welcome the president's openness to simplifying our tax code to spur economic growth, as well as his acknowledgment that we must reform Medicare to preserve it, I'm concerned that he proposed many new programs without saying how we could afford them. With over $16 trillion in debt and the economic challenges we face, we need to enact a large deficit reduction plan that includes tax reform and entitlement reform, and a Balanced Budget Amendment to put permanent limits on Washington spending."
– Senator Kelly Ayotte

Fair statement, right?  After all if we are going to spend money on something we in turn need to find a way to pay for what we're spending.

Here are two responses found in the discussion posted HERE:

Somebody needs to tell Senator Ayotte that the federal government is where our money comes from. All dollars, whether in circulation or stored in some bank, are nothing but certified IOUs — i.e. debt, what somebody owes to somebody else. A country that prints its own money can never run out. - hannah

That’s a concept way above Ayotte’s pay level to understand. She doesn’t get it. She needs to be replaced ASAP. The only thing she seems to do is get her picture taken with angry old white men, like McCain and Graham and McConnell. - mevansnh

Wow!

So in liberal land, money doesn't need to be backed by anything.  We as a country just keep printing more with the promise that someday down the road we'll pay it back or perhaps our kids or their kids will.

I wonder how long that would work in our private lives?

If I want food for lunch, don't worry... here's an IOU, I'll pay you back some other time.

I need new cloths?  Here's another IOU, I'll pay you back some other time.

New car, sure... here's another IOU.

How about a nice house too... here take this IOU.

At some point the cook who made my food, the tailor who made my cloths, factory who made my car and contractors who built my house will want something in return for the value they provided me.  Empty promises just don't work.

Government is no different.

For our dollars to be worth something when we trade with other countries they need to be backed by something.  Empty promises while we continue to print more and more money with nothing backing it only lowers the value of that money and eventually it will be viewed as no different then the leaves on a tree.  Every year more and more will drop with nothing backing them.