The Patriotic Duty Of Blowing One’s Stimulus Check

The other day I saw an article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press:  The economic-stimulus rebate: Save it or spend it?   Having not yet received my check from Uncle George, I decided to read on.

America needs help. Sue Wagner, an economic patriot, is answering the call.

The Brooklyn Center telecommunications worker used her $600 check — part of the $168 billion national economic-stimulus package — for a spa that was installed in her back yard Tuesday.

“I want this country to be stimulated,” Wagner said.

That’s exactly what government officials want to hear. Checks began to flow from Washington, D.C., this week, part of a program to lift the economy out of the doldrums by boosting consumer spending. Every taxpaying adult is supposed to get $600, plus an extra $300 per child for families. But as officials await the impact of the rebates, a Pioneer Press online survey showed fewer than a third of volunteer respondents would spend the money as officials hoped.

It got me thinking.  Should I blow this thing?  And if I do, will I feel patriotic?

I sat and thought about all the things I could do with an extra $600, and my practical side kept telling me that I should put it on a gas card to combat the ever-soaring gas prices.  Then I thought I should just dump it into my mortgage.   Heck, there are probably a thousand things that I could have done that would have been financially safe and reasonable. 

As I was arriving to work the next day, I got out of my 2000 Cougar, walked toward my building and looked back to confirm that I had armed the car alarm.  As I looked at it I was reminded how old the car was getting, and that it wasn’t looking as good as it used to.  It had a crack in the fiberglass front bumper valence, and my carbon-fiber hood was looking cloudy and discolored (having been subjected to the elements for a few years).  I decided right then and there what I was going to do with that check:  My Cougar was going to get a makeover.

So, I contacted my body shop and scheduled the appointment.  I told the guys while I was there for the estimate that this was a stimulus check expense.  They smiled and a few of them told me that work had been pretty slow lately and that they really appreciate the business.  Apparently people had better things to spend their money on than repairing cosmetic damage on their vehicles, or so I guessed.  I handed over the keys and told them I’d see them in a week.

Well, I recently got the car back, and I gotta say that I couldn’t be happier.  I figure that I killed a couple birds with one stone.  I had fixed up something that had been bugging me for quite some time, and used my chance to stimulate the economy.  I guess the added bonus is that I get to advertise it all over town as I drive around:

Ahh…patriotism!

LOL-Worthy Local TV Spot

I listen to the radio personalities on the Twin Cities own KTLK radio just about every day. It’s the local home of national pundits like Hannity, Rush, and Levin, as well as local guys like Chris Baker and Jason Lewis. In other words, it’s a conservative-leaning station dawn ’till dusk bash-fest of all things liberal.  Of course, you wouldn’t have known that based on their brand-new TV spots they’ve been running lately:

click image to watch

As long as “in-depth analysis” of “all the latest news” really means a series of consecutive rants for 3 hours, I suppose the whitewash is acceptable.

Why Obama, Part VIII: Gas Prices

I know it’s been a little while since I added another installment to my “Why Obama” series, so I figured that with all the talk here in the Chamber about those obscene gas prices lately it was as good a time as any to highlight the issue. 

There’s been quite a bit of debate over this (with good reason), and a lot of attention has been paid to the fact that Obama is departing from McCain and Clinton with regards to suspending the 18-cent federal gas tax for the summer.  I know that when I first heard about it, my initial reaction was that it was a gimmick and wouldn’t really save people that much.  Of course, I’m no economist, so…

Luckily, the economists have weighed in, as the Obama campaign posted on the “fact-check” portion of the website:

Washington Post Fact Checker: Temporary Illinois Gas Tax Holiday Showed that Economic Benefit Was Minimal and the Majority of Consumers Didn’t Feel They Were Paying Less. “The gas tax moratorium proved politically popular in Illinois, but economically questionable. The Illinois Economic and Fiscal Commission estimated that the state lost $175 million in revenues during the six-month period. A subsequent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research showed that gas prices fell by 3 percent, meaning that only three fifths of the savings from reduced taxes was passed on to consumers. “It turned out to have a pretty small effect,” said Joseph Doyle, an assistant economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Consumers were slightly better off, but the benefits were spread very thinly, and the government was a lot worse off.” A poll by the Chicago Tribune showed that only 28 percent of motorists believed that they were actually paying less for gas as a result of the temporary suspension of the tax. Obama has changed his mind dramatically on the tax cut since voting for it back in 2000 in Illinois. On the campaign trail Monday in North Carolina, he described the proposal as a “short-term quick fix that we can say we did something even though we’re not really doing anything.” [Washington Post Fact Checker, 4/29/08]

Economists Agree: Most Savings from Gas Tax Holiday Are Passed on to Producers, Not Consumers. “James Hamilton, professor of Economics at the University of California-San Diego, said that most of the benefits from a temporary tax moratorium would likely go to producers rather than consumers. He said that states that suspend gas taxes are able to respond to rising demand more efficiently than the country as a whole, because gasoline supplies can be easily moved from one state to another. “Prices would certainly rise to the market-clearing level,” said Hamilton. “I would expect the price [of gas] to go back to very close to where it was before [the tax cut], in which case consumers would not see any benefit.” Another economist, Jeffrey Perloff, of UC-Berkeley, agreed that a federal tax moratorium would likely have less impact on consumer gas prices than a state moratorium. He said his models showed that a suspension of the 18.4-cent federal tax on gasoline would likely result in a temporary 9 to 12 cent reduction in the cost of a gallon of gas to the consumer, with the remainder of the reduction coming in wholesale prices.” [Washington Post Fact Checker, 4/29/08]

There’s a lot more there there, but the consensus is pretty universal.  In fact, when Clinton was pressed to name a single economist that has endorsed the “tax holiday”, her response was “I’m not going to put my lot in with economists,”, which is an answer that sounded like it came from George Bush.   It kinda begs the question as to who she is putting in her lot with, if it isn’t the experts.

The bottom line here is this is a phony gimmick; an easy thing to propose in light of the current situation as an attempt to buy some votes.   Obama’s position is grounded in reality.

What Obama should do right now is take this and pivot to a reminder to everyone that there are certain easy things we as Americans could do to relieve the financial burden of gas, as long as we’re talking about pennies on the gallon:

At this stage, I’d consider it a patriotic duty to make sure my air filter is clean and my tires are inflated.   hmmm…maybe I should be running a presidential campaign?

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

From Flag Pins To Rev. Wright To Ayers

I stopped by memeorandum today and noticed that we may have something of a baton pass in the works, as the media and the blogosphere appears to have gone hoarse from the 24/7 pontificating and debating the cosmic implications of the rhetoric of Obama’s former pastor.  Today’s feature shifts the focus a bit, and it comes with the discovery of a picture that was taken in 2001:

OMG!  He’s stepping on Old Glory!  In 2001!   That’s year 9/11 happened!  Why, Obama is going to pay for this, ’cause he, like, knew him ‘n’ stuff!

I think I’m beginning to see a trend here.  Let’s review the scorecard for the knocks on Obama coming from his opponents:  Flag pin, Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers.   Next will be Rezco.  I know… people must be saving the attacks on the real ISSUES for later.   Or is this the best they got? 

Speaking of which, a blogger at Just One Minute quips: Reaching? Those Are Warm-Up Stretches 

Lots of details on an unreported link between unrepentant Weatherman Bill Ayers and unforthcoming candidate Barack Obama are at this post, but here is the headline - in 1995 Bill Ayers founded and worked closely with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, first chaired by Barack Obama.

As if the loose Obama-Ayers connection of a charitable organization is just downright damning or something.  Nope, no reaching going on.   We’ve entered a no-reach zone.  Though I love how every blogger and radio pundit uses the phrase “unrepentant terrorist”.  As if to imply that somehow the attacks would be held back a bit if Ayers was repentant.  Yea right.

Somebody let me know if Ayers is on Obama’s advisory board, ’cause at least they had that to work with WRT Wright.   Till then I’ll just be shaking my head.  Sure, Ayers was/is a radical, but until I hear Obama echoing the sentiment…

Update:  H/T to Sphinx on this one.  Oops.

 

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Dump The Truck

Today I spotted this NYT article (via memeorandum): As Gas Costs Soar, Buyers Flock to Small Cars

DETROIT — Soaring gas prices have turned the steady migration by Americans to smaller cars into a stampede.

In what industry analysts are calling a first, about one in five vehicles sold in the United States was a compact or subcompact car during April, based on monthly sales data released Thursday. Almost a decade ago, when sport utility vehicles were at their peak of popularity, only one in every eight vehicles sold was a small car.

The switch to smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles has been building in recent years, but has accelerated recently with the advent of $3.50-a-gallon gas. At the same time, sales of pickup trucks and large sport utility vehicles have dropped sharply.

In another first, fuel-sipping four-cylinder engines surpassed six-cylinder models in popularity in April.

I post this as a follow-up to the Gas Price Rant Thread, but also because I work at a dealership (yes, every once and awhile Chamber visitors will learn a little more about ChenZhen the man, and it’s true that I sell cars).

So, I guess I can say that this is hardly surprising to me, but I’m amazed at the change in the market in just the last 6 months.  We can’t give these trucks and SUV’s away, and the cars that many people would have previously laughed and pointed at (like the pictured Chevy Aveo) are now holding their values and flying off the lot.  People are doing the math at this point, and the cost of ownership of these V8 trucks is simply getting outta hand.  

For an example, let’s compare fuel costs between the Chevy Aveo (since I mentioned it) and the Chevy Tahoe (since the NYT mentioned it’s 35% drop in sales in the article), using my 10,660 mi. annual commute to work and back that I used in the “rant” thread:

 

That’s a difference of $832, or about $69 extra a month…just to drive to work.

Or, if one uses the default EPA estimates of 15K miles/year with 45% hwy and 55% city average, there is a difference of $1264, or an extra $105 a month.  Within the context of buying a new vehicle, it’s definitely going to be a factor because when you’re talking about a $600/month payment on a new Tahoe, you’re really talking about $700/month in relation to picking a more fuel efficient car instead.

The additional problem for those who already own one is that the market is so soft on them that they won’t get squat for it on a trade-in, so you’ll see more and more people flipped upside down on their payments (lingo we use to describe a situation where the owner owes more on their vehicle than it is worth), perhaps to the point that they can’t get out of it even if they wanted to.   We’re seeing these people more and more.

It’s getting rough out there, let me tell ya.  

 

Did Rev. Wright’s Recent Comments Hurt Obama?

Well, maybe if you ask that question, like…

50,000 times.

This is a media-driven controversy now.  The ironic paradox, I suppose, is found in watching the pundits on the cable news networks spending countless hours discussing how said countless hours of coverage will effect Obama politically.   It’d be a kind of a self fulfilling prophecy made effective by the principle of social proof; if enough people are talking about how it (the controversy) hurts Obama, then the impression is created to the casual observer that there is something in it all that should hurt him. 

The reality outside of the bubble is, of course, we’re still left where we started on this story, which is the same relatively weak guilt-by-association meme that’s been there all along:   Rev. Wright says controversial things, and he’s Obama’s former pastor.   Sure, there may be some arguments there about judgement in churches, and you can take that as you may.  But there really isn’t anything new here that moves that ball otherwise. 

But unfortunately, the prospect of this prophecy being effective has forced Obama to come out and make a statement on it and in turn adding to the drama a bit further.   And as someone in one of the plethora of cable news ”panel’s” pointed out, it is unlikely to end there, since they’ll undoubtedly stick a microphone in Wright’s face asking for a response.   And so on…

I’ll hand these media talking heads one thing though, in that they sure have an uncanny way of glossing over their own role in the whole thing.

For related reading, Glenn Greenwald sarcastically opines Why the Jeremiah Wright story deserves more attention , and HotAir pointed out that Amy Holmes may have predicted over a month ago that this circus was all part of Obama’s plan (I’m not sure if I’ve reached that conclusion yet, but it is interesting).

 

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Phony Flag Flap Fixation

If you won’t vote for Obama because he doesn’t wear a flag pin, what does that say about you?

I only ask, because it seems that Obama had to address this issue one more time* on Friday.  With everything that’s going on in this country, whether it’s the economy, Iraq, energy, health care, or anything else, I can’t believe that someone would actually bring this up as a dealbreaker. 

*The media obviously feels this is important to people, as this is the story they gleaned from the Kokomo town hall.

 

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Official Gas Price Rant Thread

First off, name this graph:

 

Filed Under “What The….?”

I can’t believe people get paid (a lot more than me, I would guess) to do this stuff:

I’ll just never understand.

Obligatory “Obama Flipped Hillary The Bird” Post

I should feel ashamed of myself for even entertaining this lunacy here in the Chamber, but since the story appears to have gone viral and somewhat mainstream, and I’ve spent a few moments commenting on it on other blogs, I might as well drag it in here for the WPPBA and the rest of my visitors.

Usually an analysis is followed by a verdict, but for this I’m going to do it backwards.  Bottom line:  NO, Obama did not subtly flip Hillary Clinton the bird in his speech yesterday. 

Good grief.  As if the premise alone doesn’t work sufficiently against the accusation, check out the evidence (h/t Balloon Juice):

Nothing, however, was going to stop both those in the Hillary camp and those on the right from seeing what they wanted to see, and declaring Obama’s actions to be childish and indecent.  One pro-Hillary blogger was so obsessed with it that he/she sat down in front of their computer and painstakingly composed a replay video of the event, complete with slo-mo and closeups:

One of my favorite hangouts, Hot Air, actually went from initially labelling the scrutiny “moronic” to, a few hours later, posting a thread about how Obama might have “let his guard down” and how the crowd “clearly recognized it”:

Obama has a pretty satisfied look on his face afterwards, which makes it look a little more purposeful than not. It’s subtle enough to have deniability for anyone who might get offended, but clear enough for his followers to enjoy the moment of disrespect towards Hillary. And who hasn’t wanted to flip off a Clinton at some time in their lives?

And Larry Johnson completely lost me as a fan as he spent the better part of a day and posted not one, not two or three, but four times making the accusation.  And this is a guy who used to work for the CIA.* 

How embarrassing.

*Update:  My apologies, as those posts weren’t posted by Johnson himself, but rather contributors to his blog.  But still…

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

You Know, Those Philly Debate Questions, Maybe Not A Bad Thing

I had to work today, so en route I had a chance to listen to the righty talk radio personalities gloat over what happened last night in the Democrat’s debate, as well as their mocking of the various lefty blogs and op-ed columnists’ whining about it.   So, I figured that I’d check out some more of the reactions and post a few thoughts…

I’ll admit that, at first, I was pretty dismayed that ABC’s Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous spent so much time focusing on the sort of trivial tabloid-esque “issues” such as flag pins, Bosnia gaffes, and yet another trip down Wright avenue, instead of focusing on the actual issues (you know, the ones that the candidates feature on their campaign sites, like Iraq, immigration, national security, etc.).  And throughout the day on memeorandum, I saw plenty of commentary from blogs echoing that sentiment.   But the more I thought about and read and digested all this, the closer I came to the conclusion that this wasn’t really that bad.  In fact, maybe Stephanopoulos and Gibson did the Dems a big favor.

This epiphany came when I revisited No More Mister Nice Blog, which had a post titled “THE REPUBLICAN TALKING-POINT DUMP, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE“.  I came to realize that the title described what happened pretty accurately.  If there are these various talking points out there (and Hannity won’t shut up about them, trust me), wouldn’t it be better to just put it all on the table, let them respond to them on the public stage, get it out of their collective systems and then put it behind them sooner rather than later?   If, as Rush Limbaugh mentioned today, those things are going to come up in the general election, would it be such a bad thing to have addressed them preemptively?  In the very least, it’s practice (for both of them), and if they weren’t paying attention to this stuff before, they sure as heck will now, so it would make it harder for the 527’s and others to blindside them with it and force them to waste countless dollars shooting back when they’d otherwise be spending it making their distinctions known on the real stuff.

Also, this is the 21st debate.  I suppose one could make the argument that the majority of the policy differences between Obama and Clinton have been covered by now.  From that perspective, it’s a little harder to view the first 45 minutes of the session as a complete waste of time. 

So, how did Obama handle it?  Fairly well, in my opinion, although he could have done better.  It was clear that he really didn’t want to go down this road, ’cause at times he didn’t look entirely comfortable and even slightly perturbed.   But he made it through, and at this point what he should do is brush it off…

…and move on.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Prediction: Debates Will Cost McCain The General Election

Yesterday, I read a multi-page analysis from the Politico’s John F. Harris & Jim Vandehei, detailing the political dangers facing Barack Obama in the general election should he win the nomination to represent the Democrats.  The piece predictably highlighted the various controversies and preconceived weaknesses that will supposedly continue to haunt him as the November vote looms, and suggested that the Clinton camp has restrained itself thus far in exploiting the bulk of it:

Republicans will also ruthlessly exploit openings that Clinton — in the genteel confines of an intraparty contest — never could. Top targets: Obama’s radioactive personal associations, his liberal ideology, his exotic life story, his coolly academic and elitist style.

The popular consensus I’ve gleaned over the last few months is that the majority of this war will be waged on the new-media battlefields of YouTube, blogs, and talk radio, with a mix of ads coming from agents of independent actors like 527 groups. Obama will be picked to shreds while McCain mostly sits on the sidelines, and the end result will be a disaster for the Democrats…or so the meme goes.

So, in light of the fact that I’ve seen scarce commentary on it, I’m going to go ahead and count my chickens before they hatch here for a moment, and predict that while Obama will certainly take his lumps, he will eventually find himself in the White House by utilizing a more old-fashioned forum: The presidential debates.

  VS.

Now, I can imagine what my readers might be thinking. “Um, Chen? By most accounts, Kerry won the debates in 2004, and he still lost. Debates are overrated”.  

That’s a fair point, but I should probably point out that we’re talking John Kerry vs. George W. Bush here.  It was like watching a spelling bee for 1st graders.  Sure, somebody won, but it was pretty tough to come away from it feeling particularly impressed.  They might as well have skipped them, quite frankly.

This time around, however, the stage is set a bit differently.  On the one hand, you have a young, highly educated, charismatic and articulate public speaker.   On the other, an aged, quiet and rather uninspiring man that is developing a track record of confusing basic facts (hence, my picture of Lieberman whispering into McCain’s ear; something he won’t have the benefit of come debate time) related to things that are considered his strengths (i.e. national security and foreign policy).   This could be the making of a political wrecking ball;  a situation where one candidate outperforms the other to the point of making him look like he doesn’t deserve to be on the same stage (as opposed to the 2004 situation, where neither of them appeared to deserve it).   Picture the highlight reels playing for days, complete with detailed analysis of the rout by the punditry and plenty of still shots of McCain’s scowls and assorted confused looks.   

I don’t think it’s unrealistic to think that a strong showing such as this could overshadow many of the swipes that had been taken at him by the various surrogates and hacks.  The visual of a head-to-head comparison can be a powerful, memorable and well-publicised event, after all.   It certainly could be enough to tip the scale in a very close election, so, I’m putting this prediction out there.  Or, to channel Hans and Franz…Listen to me now and believe me later:  McCain gets smoked in the debates, and it costs him the general.

BTW-  Like all threads here in the Chamber, the comments section is left open indefinitely, so feel free to come back and mock (or praise) me right here come November.   Of course, in the unlikely event that Hillary gets the nod, I’ll have no choice but to acknowledge my little jinx, and post an update.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

  

Send ‘Em To Boot Camp

I don’t watch a whole lot of daytime TV anymore, but I was pretty intrigued by this story I discovered over at Skippy’s place:

The TV talk show Dr. Phil McGraw confirmed on Saturday the fact that its staff bailed out of Florida jail one of the girls involved in the violent video posted on YouTube. The video depicted several teen girls beating one of their classmates while filming her.

Mercades Nichols is one of the eight teen girls who face charges in the case of the vicious beating posted on YouTube. She was bailed out by a representative of the show on Friday night, MyFOXTampaBay.com reported.

The bails for the violent girls were set on Friday and they are ranging from $30,000 to $37,000. The girls are aged from 14 to 18.

The bailing out was confirmed via e-mail by Terri Corigliano, a show spokeswoman. In his e-mail, Corigliano explained that the show has previously helped other “guests and potential guests” of the show with different needs, but in this case “certain staff members” who were in the process of booking guests for the Dr. Phil McGraw show went a bit too far and broke the rules of the show.

Initially, I thought that this was pretty outrageous, given the fact that Dr. Phil was essentially giving these kids the fame and notoriety that they had craved by posting this heinous stunt on YouTube in the first place.  The more I thought about it, however, the more I felt that perhaps my views were being tainted by my utter dislike for Dr. Phil himself (I’d say that I had considered him to be one of the top 10 most annoying people on TV, right in front or behind Ryan Seacrest, depending on my mood).  Eventually, I came to the conclusion that I would be OK with this sort of sacrifice to the almighty TV ratings god if, and only if, I knew that after being subjected to a jeering studio audience, the kids would eventually be confronted by this guy:
 

John Kerry Gets It

I’ve never been a big fan of John Kerry (in fact, I remember rejoicing the fact that he wouldn’t be running for president this year), but Mr. “Reporting For Duty” said something today that I thought I’d comment on, since lately I’ve been spending an inordinate amount of time blogging, debating and discussing the McCain “100 years in Iraq” issue.

First, the Think Progress link: Kerry: McCain’s ‘100 Years’ Remarks Show A ‘Fundamental Misunderstanding Of Iraq Itself’ 

The vid:

I say that Kerry “gets it” in the sense that he understands that Clinton and Obama really shouldn’t be issuing misleading charges that McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq, but that they should instead be stressing that the insistence on establishing permanent bases there just might mean that’s essentially what the result would be.  He could have done a better job making the point, actually, because there is some data that backs this up pretty well:

The belief that the United States plans to have permanent bases in Iraq is highly correlated with support for attacks on U.S.-led forces. Among those who believe this, 68 percent approve of attacks. Among those who believe that the United States plans to withdraw once Iraq is stabilized, only 34 percent approve of attacks. Beliefs about whether the United States would respond to an Iraqi government request to withdraw follow the same pattern.

I suppose I could ask how many troops have died because of rhetoric like McCain’s, but I won’t go there.   It would appear that perhaps the “permanent base” propaganda is a little more dangerous than the “anti-war” propaganda that war supporters consistently lament, however.  But I’ll let my readers draw their own conclusions.

Now, I know that Maverick qualified his “100 years” comment by saying “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me”, but based on the sentiment in the region, does McCain have any reason to believe that the hostilities will stop anytime soon?  And I’m not suggesting that he’d be able to say exactly when here. I’m talking more broadly about a rational assessment on whether or not we can expect the hostilities to stop at all if our intention really is to establish permanent bases, and if we can, would it come months, years, or even decades from now?  That’s not an unfair question to pose to someone who his maintaining that a 100 year presence is possible, and it should be posed.   What Kerry did here was put the debate over what McCain suggested in the proper framework, and put the ball in McCain’s court… but it should have another follow up question attached:

“If a 100 year presence in Iraq is fine by you, on the condition that the shooting had stopped, how much of America’s time, money and bloodshed would be acceptable to achieve that condition, assuming it’s possible?”

Update: To reiterate the point that stating a policy of permanent presence is counter-productive to what we’re trying to accomplish over there, take it from this guy:

CentCom’s planning director, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, has said the building of permanent bases would not be in the US interest.

“We must continue to show that we will not become a permanent force of occupation… because we need to operate in that region in an environment of consent,” Jane’s Defence Weekly quoted him as saying.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance