CARS NOBODY WANTS

General Motors/Government Motors is ready to begin selling the Volt. For $41,000. They first thought, a long time ago (long before the bankruptcy, etc.) that they could sell it for $28,000. But things have changed.
Oh, wait! The majority shareholder, the Federal Government, is willing to subsidize purchases of the Volt with a $7,500 tax credit! That brings the actual cost of the base model down to $33,500! Except you have to finance the $41,000 up front, then get the tax credit when you file your next tax return. OK...
My first question is this: If someone wants to spend $41,000 on a brand spanking new car, why do I have to help them pay for it with my tax dollars?
My second question is: Who is going to spend $$33,500 - $41,00 on a car the size of a Toyota Corolla? I don't think many people will do that. I think this is the same old story, "General" Motors trying to sell cars nobody wants. This whole thing is about "Government" Motors pursuing a political agenda. On my dime.

DRILL, OBAMA, DRILL!

Everyone has known for a long time that the only way in the world that California can hope to ever balance its budget is to expand off-shore oil drilling, and get healthy on the royalties that it would receive.

Now recall Candidate Obama deriding Sarah Palin's "drill, baby, drill" slogan, saying that off-shore drilling would not save Americans any money. Now he has changed his mind about this, and will support drilling in the Gulf and the east coast, and in Alaska. Great. Look for Arnold to press for drilling off the California coast. This could easily be done using parallel drilling from existing platforms.

Now recall Teddy Roosevelt and his successful efforts to acquire lots of land in the western states, creating lots of national parks, reserves, and monuments. He was a great progressive. Let's just say, without cynicism, that this was his only motivation in buying up the western states. The federal government owns virtually all of Nevada and Utah. The government owns a great deal of Colorado and Wyoming. It's true that there is great natural beauty in the west. But that's also where the nation's natural resources exist, including oil. The government owns very little land east of Colorado.

Now recall Maxine Waters threatening the nations oil execs by saying that she would not be opposed to nationalizing all the oil companies in the country. Recall Hillary Clinton screaming about the oil companies' "obscene" profits, and calling for a large tax increase on their "excess" profits.

Recall that a lot of countries have nationalized their oil resources. These include not only the OPEC countries, but also Mexico and Venezulea, among others.

Although President"s plan for drilling is quite modest, it is a sign that something else is afoot: A plan to gain additional federal revenue from oil. Not by nationalizing the industry, at least not at first, but to gain revenue from royalties by expanding drilling on federal lands, and taxing the increased profits of oil companies.

Only a Democratic president can get this off. The environmentalists will be quieted by the fact that this kills two birds with one stone: Decreasing reliance on foreign oil, and solving the federal government's deficit problem. And throw in "job creation" as a rationale.

President Obama reluctantly got in the automotive business, the student loan business, the insurance and banking industries. Now watch him get in the oil business. Why would he do this? For the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks, and that middle-class tax increases are inevitable: Because that's where the money is.

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATE OF THE UNION PROMISES

President Obama, being the free-trader that he is, promises to get the free-trade agreements with Columbia and Panama approved. Wow! What has been taking so long? Nancy Pelosi?
Now the president also wants to pursue nuclear power and off-shore drilling for oil. What has been the hold-up on this? Nancy Pelosi?
Let's see who wins these arguments. And let's find out if the president really has his heart in these things, or is just appearing to shift to the Republican positions. President Obama had no interest at all in any of these things as a candidate.

THE MEANING OF THE MASSACHUSETTS SENATE ELECTION

The future of the Democratic Party's health care reform efforts are very much in doubt. Most people think that the only way a bill will be passed is if the House of Representatives swallows the Senate bill whole. Don't look for that. Instead, there will be several smaller bills passed that can be supported by some Republicans. This is what the Republican leadership has been after. This won't satisfy the left wing of the Democratic Party, but it's the best they can get. This way, the Dems can say they got some reforms passed on a bi-partisan basis.
The real consequence of this election, however, does not concern health care. It concerns "cap and trade". As legislation, it is dead. Democrats, after seeing the results in Massachusetts, won't have the stomach for legislation that Candidate Obama conceded would "necessarily" cause energy bills to "skyrocket". Not that President Obama will give up on "cap and trade". He'll just have the EPA impose regulations that will get the same results. This will take congressional Democrats off that particular hook.
But achieving "cap and trade" through administrative fiat will put President Obama on the hook all the way. He already is regarded as arrogant and unconcerned about the popular opinion of his policies. His turning EPA regulators loose on CO2 emission standards will only reinforce the negative opinion that Americans are developing about their president.

OBAMA WILL

OK, Congress, get this straight: If you won't, he will. If you don't pass Cap and Trade legislation to reduce CO2 emissions, Obama's EPA will reduce them by exercising its regulatory authority. One way or the other, it is "game on".
See the article on this subject from The Heritage Foundation by using the widget in the right-hand margin.