The Public's Latest Sobriety Treatment for the Government

Oh my, my, my.  The President's RCP average is down to -1.9, Congress is at -49.4, the GOP is up to +1.7, and the country overwhelmingly feels that the country is going in the wrong direction.  Worse for the President and Democrats, Independents are abandoning them almost across the board.  I'd like to crow, but the reality is that it's too late for crowing - the country bought into a pile of hogwash and spin in 2008, and we're going to be reaping the consequences, particularly economic consequences, for long after this Administration.  That's too serious for enjoyment.  Additionally, while many GOP candidates are performing extremely well now (e.g., Fiorina is now tied with Boxer in a dead heat), there is no overall agreement on an economic recovery plan within the GOP.  Winning in 2010 will provide a short-lived celebration without one.

In short, the public would generally agree that many politicians on all side fit this fine quote from 'MI-5' ('Spooks' in the UK): "You're just another bureaucrat with erectile dysfunction."

Debt:GDP and the Future

(BMG: back from conferences and a short research trip, and returning to the blog for awhile; posting will be irregular through the end of June and will then pick up again).

According to the US National Debt Clock, the Debt to GDP ratio (converted to a percent of GDP) now exceeds 90%.  This is the largest Debt:GDP we have been at since the close of WWII and the largest ever peacetime ratio in our history.  The debt exceeded $13-trillion last week, and there is no sign that the rate of increase will slow anytime soon.  These values were projected by the CBO upon submission of the President's 2011 budget back in March, and are now exceeded even before the budget takes effect.  The dramatic increase in debt is accompanied by an aging population, and a subsequent decrease in government income regardless of any raises in tax rates.  To avoid following the path that southern and eastern Europe is now on, and which northern and western Europe may soon follow, a dramatic decrease in spending and services is necessary over the next five to ten years.

Those kind of tough decisions, however, are beyond this Congress and President (and beyond any for the previous thirty years).  'The End Game Draws Nigh,' an examination by Dr. Woody Brock of divergent paths to economic growth and slowing, places particular emphasis on macroeconomic trends in successful versus failed economic policies.  Most particularly, a high Debt:GDP value is a major indicator that a long-term economic slow-down is occurring or is imminent.  We can stick our head in the sand, but that will just leave our collective butt exposed.  We must demand tough decisions from our leaders, or we must find leaders who can make those decisions.  Without them, we're all going to be suffering for many more years.

Oink, oink

Citizens Against Government Waste has released its annual Pig Book.  Rather depressing reading, although some of the earmarks are so strange they're funny.  The entire 2009 book may be found here.  Many of the projects for which the funds are appropriated are actually worth while; the problems are the means by which the funds were appropriated (often tacked on to wholly unrelated bills for instance, rather than subjecting them to normal budgetary debate), and the use of funds for specific projects where few jobs are generated and little use to the rest of the country can be found.  Rather than taking tax dollars from Florida and spending them on research into the uses of wool and wood in a few states (especially since these products have had developed uses for thousands of years), take fewer taxes from the states and allow them to utilize those funds as they see fit.  Or, if we just can't stand that, issue block grants to states based on population and economic factors to divvy up for state priorities.

Some of my favorites:

'$4,545,000 for wood utilization research in 10 states by 19 senators and 10 representatives. This research has cost taxpayers $95.3 million since 1985. One would think that after 24 years of research all the purposes for one of the world’s most basic construction materials would have been discovered.'

'$206,000 for wool research in three states (Montana, Texas, and Wyoming) by Reps. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas). Since 1995, CAGW has uncovered 13 earmarks worth $3,417,453 for wool research, always in the same three states. While 47 states have figured out that wool can be best used to make a warm sweater, Montana, Texas, and Wyoming apparently are still trying to work out its practical utilizations.'

'$3,000,000 by Senate CJS Appropriations Subcommittee member Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) for the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks to help make data received from NASA satellite images more accessible to the public. Apparently the two senators have not heard of NASA TV. According to the NASA website, “The NASA TV Public and Educational channels are ‘free-to-air,’ meaning your cable or satellite service provider can carry them at no cost.” Interested viewers should contact their local cable or satellite service provider to get NASA TV, and ask the senators for a rebate of their share of that $3 million.'

Shell Games

While awaiting FL-19's special election results, I thought I'd take a look at the WaMu testimony, and got distracted by this. The court-appointed examiner of the Lehman Brothers failure has reported back to the court that the investment house's directors did not breech their fiduciary responsibilities. Of greater interest however was this little gem:

'A 2,200-page report by a court-appointed examiner says executives of Lehman Brothers manipulated the now-defunct company's balance sheet, using a "materially misleading" accounting trick to temporarily remove $50 billion of troubled assets, The New York Times and The Washington Post report.

The examiner's report says that then-Lehman CEO Richard S. Fuld Jr. was "at least grossly negligent" and that the accounting firm Ernst & Young could be accused of professional malpractice.'

It turns out that Lehman used a shell to hide it's toxic assets, trading them for cash out of a small company it owned on the side. This maneuver allowed Lehman to improve the appearance of its books. WaMu's whining to Congress notwithstanding, it seems less and less certain that any of these firms deserved the rescues they received in 2008 & 2009.

Down in the Weeds

Following yesterday's brief post, on declining poll numbers for the president, Congress and the Democratic Party, here's a more detailed analysis.  Today's RCP Average for the president is -0.7.

And for your general entertainment, here's a science-based approach to international negotiations.

Results of Blair House: 0.1

Following the 'Blair House Summit' this past week, the president's RCP average has sunk to +0.1. The lines aren't just kissing, they're entangled. Any bets as to how long it will take for them to cross?

Congress is faring no better (-56.8), while Republicans continue to lead the generic vote polling (+1.1), and the sense of 'direction of the country' has sunk to -24.4. These results seem to be inextricably linked to the opposition to the health care bills, the average of which has risen to +11. The more these bills are explained, the less people like them.

Happy Washington's Birthday

Another reason to celebrate? Congress takes a week long recess for the President's holiday week, following the better part of a week off for snow. Maybe the enforced time off will help restore a little sanity (not betting on it, but I'm ever hopeful).

Meanwhile, see how much you know about the holiday here.

Debt Ceiling Raised to $1.9 Trillion

As discussed here three days ago, the debt ceiling has been raised to a whopping $1.9 - trillion, on a strictly party-line vote. The Dems hope they don't have to vote to raise it again before November 2, but they have already signalled that it will be raised again no matter what.

Silent in Solidarity

In support of Milbloggers everywhere, and especially MSG CJ Grisham, The ModCon is going silent until December 18th.

Here's a cross-posting from Blackfive.

I urge you to contact your members of Congress to request that they act now to stop the suppression of open discussion about PTSD. Honorable warriors need to know they will be supported when they are injured - in any way.

Post-Afghan Speech Job-Approval Polling

President Obama's polling numbers, following the speech on revisions to the Afghanistan policy, have continued on a downward trend. RCP noted that the Gallup poll had an unusual drop of four points overnight.

'Obama suffered a net four point loss of support overnight - a noticeably sharp decline for a tracking poll that usually doesn't move more than a point or two in either direction on any given day.'

Polling Data

Poll	Date	Sample	Approve	Disapprove	Spread
RCP Average	11/12 - 12/6	--	49.0	45.1	+3.9
Gallup	12/4 - 12/6	1547 A	47	46	+1
Rasmussen Reports	12/4 - 12/6	1500 LV	49	50	-1
CNN/Opinion Research	12/2 - 12/3	1041 A	48	50	-2
USA Today/Gallup	11/20 - 11/22	1017 A	50	44	+6
FOX News	11/17 - 11/18	900 RV	46	46	Tie
CBS News	11/13 - 11/16	1167 A	53	36	+17
Democracy Corps (D)	11/12 - 11/16	1000 RV	50	44	+6

See All President Obama Job Approval Polling Data

These polling changes are largely meaningless to the Presidency at this point in time, and similar results only forced President Clinton to re-tool his agenda, pushing him closer to the center than he might otherwise have been. To many in Congress, however, these numbers have got to be troubling. Harry Reid continues to sound increasingly desperate, while his own poll numbers have taken a long, slow dive. Generic Congressional polls place Republicans within 0.4 points of Democrats, while 58.2% (as an average of multiple polls) state that the country is headed in the wrong direction. In general, these are not the numbers to make the Democratic Party happy, and may signal a trend back toward the center.

UPDATES: Is Gen. McChrystal Being Muzzled?

UPDATE 1: Defense Secretary Gates has said that he will formally receive Gen. McChrystal's troop request by the end of the week, but that the report will stop there until the President and his staff are 'ready to consider it.' Apparently, doing more than one thing at a time only goes so far. Meanwhile, Gen. McChrystal has stated that there is no rift between he and the White House, and that he welcomes the debate. He also warns that taking too long to decide on the troop request will, in essence, be a decision to lose any hope of defeating the Taliban. Hopefully, we'll have a decision in two weeks, after the UN and G20 hoopla are over, but I'm not holding my breath.

From Gen. McChrystal's report to the President:

'"The situation in Afghanistan is serious; neither success nor failure can be taken for granted. Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating. We face not only a resilient and growing insurgency; there is also a crisis of confidence among Afghans in both their government and the international community that undermines our credibility and emboldens the insurgents. Further, a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents.

"Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or 'doubling down' on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate."'

The problem may be that the President is too boxed in by promises on Afghanistan, health care, stimulus-spending, and most especially, his party supporters, too develop a coherent and winning strategy.

'Obama, who issued a new war strategy for Afghanistan just six months ago, has signaled he will change it again.

"One of the things that I'm absolutely clear about is you have to get the strategy right and then make the determinations about resources," he said last week. "You don't make determinations about resources, and certainly you don't make determinations about sending young men and women into battle, without having absolute clarity about what the strategy's going to be."

Anthony Cordesman, a Center for Strategic and International Studies analyst who went to Afghanistan, has rebuked the White House for vetoing McChrystal's request before it even arrives.

"Quite frankly, it would probably be just as well if people in the National Security Council and the White House made their judgments after they get the assessment they need rather than try to resource constrain an assessment in a way that can lose the war," he told reporters.'

Compare this thinking with the 'new' strategy on Afghanistan issued in March:

'So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.'

There's just no way to do (and pay for) it all. Gen. McChrystal is probably feeling like he has a target painted on his back right about now, and that's the wrong approach. He was given a mission (albeit a vague and self-contradictory one), and has given his professional assessment as to the best way to meet that mission successfully. Now political game-playing seems to be cutting his legs out from under him. When commentators wonder if Afghanistan is the new Vietnam, they may be right, but not in the way they're thinking. Our involvement in Vietnam would have been far more successful, if Congress had not constantly tampered with the mission, and the means by which that mission was resourced and fulfilled. If the same tendency toward 'mission-creep' grips this Congress and White House, Afghanistan will indeed resemble Vietnam. The President needs to clearly state his mission objectives for Afghanistan, properly resource those objectives per the recommendations of the professional tasked with carrying them out, and then let those professional succeed. Anything less is disingenuous.

The Color Purple

Resurgent Republic has published the results of an extensive polling of self-identified Independent voters, with an eye to the 2010 elections. As has been evidenced in a number of recent polls, these voters (who are often the determining factor in national election cycles) still like President Obama, and generally support him. Support for specific policies however, is steadily slipping, particularly as pertains to fiscal policies.
The most intriguing results related to questions about support for Congress that were aimed at predicting outcomes in the 2010 Congressional election cycle. Here, Independents are generally united - they want to throw the bums out. Charlie Cook writes about these results in the National Journal Magazine.

'A whopping 48 of those Democrats -- eight more than the size of their party's majority -- are from districts that voted for both Bush and McCain. That America is very different from the Democratic base in blue America, and it sees many major issues very differently.

Resurgent Republic's findings corroborate a growing view that the cumulative impact of Democratic missteps has reached a critical mass, with Obama receiving some damage and with Democrats in Congress and the Democratic Party receiving much more. Critics point to the Troubled Asset Relief Program; the takeovers of banks and auto companies; an economic stimulus package that they see as ineffectual and stuffed with pork; and climate-change and health care reform efforts as all being contributing factors to Democrats' decline.

The 17-point advantage that Democrats enjoyed in the January Gallup Poll (when "leaners" were included) shrank to 5 points in August. Their edge on the generic congressional ballot test has vanished, according to most national polls. For three years, Democrats enjoyed high single-digit or low double-digit leads on this question -- a very good indicator of which direction (and how hard) the political winds are blowing as a congressional election nears.

What we are seeing is an electorate growing just as disgusted with the Democratic majority as it did with the Republican one in 2006. The mounting ethics problems of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., combined with ongoing allegations about House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., and others on his panel threaten to make matters still worse for their party.'

The poll results also match up with other polling, which consistently place the Republican brand within the statistical margin of error of the Democrats. In general Congress is strongly disfavored across the board. The running average reflected in the daily RCP average has consistently placed Congressional approval at -30 or lower for an extended period. Since January, no single poll has placed the Congressional approval at better than -15. This does not bode well for the 2010 election cycle. Looking at these results, it's doubtful that the Republicans can regain either the House or the Senate (after all, some of them are the bums that voters want to shed), but 29-37 House seats, and several Senate seats up for re-election (think Reid and Dodd), are vulnerable. We may end up with a deadlock in Congress starting next January, and that may be the best thing for the country. It would force bipartisanship to accomplish anything, and would push the President toward the centrality he campaigned on. Purple states (and voters) may lead the way next year.

Poll	Date				Approve			Disapprove		Spread
FOX News	9/15 - 9/16				27			64		-37
Associated Press/GfK	9/3 - 9/8				28			69		-41
Gallup	8/31 - 9/2				31			63		-32
CBS News	8/27 - 8/31				26			58		-32

See All Congressional Job Approval Polling Data

What's Good for the Goose Should be Good for the Gander

Congressman John Fleming (R, LA) is a physician who is a co-sponsor of the 'Empowering Patients First Act,' and of House Resolution 615, a measure to ensure that Congress is required to participate in any health reform plan passed in Congress. You can click on a link (included below) to send a request to your own members of Congress, asking that they agree to House Resolution 615. The website also allows one to view a summary of his health care reform proposal. I encourage you to read the summary of the act, and to send the request to each member of Congress for your state.

From the congressman's website:

THE LATEST UPDATES:

Empowering Patients First Act

We need to bring about changes that make health care affordable, accessible and available to the millions of Americans that want health care insurance, but either can’t afford it or are denied for reasons such as a pre-existing condition.

To address these and other fundamental reforms that are necessary to improve our health care system, Congressman Fleming is proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Empowering Patients First Act.

This bill preserves the important decisions made between an individual physician and the patient and improves the quality of care offered across the country.

This bill contains all the essential elements of good health care reform including expanding private insurance to all Americans who want it, removing pre-existing illnesses, portability, subsidies to the working poor, access to excellent primary and specialty care and lawsuit reform. All of this is accomplished without a government takeover, gutting Medicare, long lines, bureaucrats interfering in the sacred doctor-patient relationship, and it is budget neutral.

Keeping the Truth From the Public

Opponents of a government run take over of health care have put together an organizational chart of what this plan would look like. House Democrats DO NOT want the American people to see this and even constructed roadblocks in approving communication between Republican congressman and their constituents. To view what House Democrats don't want you to see, click here.

There are "Seven Dirty Words" the House Democrats don't want you see when it comes to their health care plan. To view the list, click here.

House Resolution 615

Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration's proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, I believe this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.

Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating.

Together we will work to ensure that any plan that is good enough for American families is good enough for every member of Congress.

View Resolution

If you would like to download a letter and ask your representative to consider supporting House Resolution 615, click here.

To see a list of Representatives who currently support H. Res 615, please click here.

Raising the Debt-Ceiling Will Impress Our Lenders?1

On August 5th, I wrote about the three possibilities for Congress to deal with ballooning expenditures and debt: '... there are only three options available to he and to the Congress: cut spending (not going to happen with all the continued spending proposals), allow the debt to balloon to the point where we create long-term stagflation (which will kill any possibility of a second term), or increase income in the form of taxes.' In that same post I also discussed Treasury Secretary Geithner and Larry Summers floating the idea of raising taxes on all but the poor. Now Geithner wants Congress to pick door-number two, requesting that it raise the debt-ceiling from $12.1 trillion (where it was set to accomodate the stimulus package) to an as yet undetermined amount. The annual deficit expanded to $1.3 trillion in the first six months of the year, and is expected to hit $1.8 trillion by October when we also are expected to reach the current debt ceiling.

Geithner's argument? '"It is critically important that Congress act before the limit is reached so that citizens and investors here and around the world can remain confident that the United States will always meet its obligations," Mr. Geithner said in the letter.' This request is already raising a debate about the effectiveness of the debt ceiling and the message we send to our lenders:

'"It's a clear that we've got a sign that we've got a federal government that is out of control from the fiscal standpoint," said Rep. Tom Price (R., Ga.), who leads the conservative Republican Study Committee in the House. "I don't see how anyone can vote in favor of an increase in the debt ceiling and say they're doing it is a responsible way." Robert Bixby, executive director of budget watchdog the Concord Coalition, said the debt ceiling has little practical application in curtailing government spending. "You can't not raise it, because if you do, the Treasury in effect would be defaulting on the debt, which would be crazy," Mr. Bixby said. "It doesn't really provide a whole lot of restraint."'

Continuing down this road of out-of-control deficit-spending may very well force us through both increased taxes and the type of debt cycling we experienced in the late 1970s and 1980s. During that period, deficit loads increased dramatically enough that the nation was forced to print money, devaluing the currency and helping to create stagflation. What a legacy that would be. Further, there is no particular reason why increasing the debt-ceiling while failing to reign in spending will reassure our lenders (particularly China which has expressed increasing concern over our current fiscal policy). Congress and the Obama Administration may be collectively pushing us into a situation from which there is no clear or easy return.

The CBO Continues to Deep-Six Obama Proposals

From the failure of the current 'cap and trade' proposals to do much to either help the environment or limit cost over-runs, to the current health-reform proposals (with analysis sent by request to members of Congress here), to the long-term effects of various budget proposals, the CBO has continued to throw cold-water on Congressional and Administration claims that the stimulus, annual budget, and spending proposals will do much if anything to help the economy. Much of their analyses point to a further increase of both annual deficits as well as the national debt, and to an increase in costs. And yet, Congress and the Administration continue to hawk their proposals as benefiting the overall economy, decreasing the debt and deficit and improving the prospects of middle-America.

Now it seems that there is a serious debate within the Administration about the raising of taxes on the middle class. Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, both of whom were heavily involved in the current economic meltdown prior to entering the Administration, have floated the idea as a necessity to reduce the deficit. While President Obama certainly doesn't want to look like he's backing out on his version of the 'read my lips pledge,' there are only three options available to he and to the Congress: cut spending (not going to happen with all the continued spending proposals), allow the debt to balloon to the point where we create long-term stagflation (which will kill any possibility of a second term), or increase income in the form of taxes. Given the ambitions and preferences of both the Congressional leadership and the President, it's pretty clear that continued tax hikes for most income levels are in store. Some increases may be hidden (as in the cap and trade package), and some may be open (after all, taxes are our 'patriotic duty' according to VP Biden, who also has declared that the stimulus is a success), but they're going to happen. Another clue: 'Everyone must sacrifice' according to President Obama.

CBO Expanding Its Analysis

The CBO Directors' Blog states:

'In this year’s discussion of health reform, many people have put forth the goals of “bending the curve” of the federal budgetary commitment to health care, the federal budget deficit, or overall national health expenditures. Accordingly, Members of Congress are asking CBO to analyze the extent to which different health reform proposals meet these goals. Last month we wrote to Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg: “CBO does not provide formal cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget window because the uncertainties are simply too great. However, in evaluating proposals to reform health care, the agency will endeavor to offer a qualitative indication of whether they would be more likely to increase or decrease the budget deficit over the long term.” ... We are very reluctant to extend these extrapolations further into the future, because the uncertainties surrounding them magnify considerably. Although we publish projections of the federal budget 75 years ahead, those projections are inherently uncertain and are designed to identify broad trends rather than to reflect specific pieces of legislation. Trying to project several decades ahead not just the evolution of the health care system under current law but also the effects on that system of a particular comprehensive and interacting set of reforms is extremely difficult. One particular challenge is that our long-term projections under current law incorporate changes that we expect would be made by state governments and the private sector in response to the growing burden of health care spending (responses which could occur under current federal law). Because that burden will mount over time, the responses will likely increase in intensity as well; as a result, determining whether reforms proposed in current legislation might ultimately have occurred through the actions of these other agents becomes increasingly complicated as the time horizon lengthens. Indeed, our Panel of Health Advisers has encouraged us to focus on estimating the effects of legislation during the next couple of decades and not to attempt to estimate effects further out.'

I can't help noticing two items. 1. It appears that Congress is putting some pressure on CBO to project past the point where statistical analysis can comfortably take them. Hence, CBO will attempt a qualitative assessment, that they warn should be taken with a good dose of salt. 2. In reading the whole blog, one gets the feeling that the pressure is to make some sort of an indication that the very long-term effects of the proposed health-care reform will have a positive effect on the deficit and multi-decadal debt. It leads me to wonder if Congress may be giving up on selling the proposals as fiscally prudent in the short-term.

UPDATES: Is CARS a Clunker?

Update 1: Congress finished passing the CARS (Cash for Clunkers) bill today.  

A overly cutely-named bill, the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act (CARS), is moving from the House to the Senate, where it is expected to pass.  The bill was introduced to the House on June 8, passed on the 9th (note, some article refer to passage on the 5th, but the House calendar records it as passing on the 9th), sent to the Senate on the 11th, and entered the Senate calendar on the 11th.  A little fast, no?  A quick look at govtrack.us reveals the following information.

Overview
Sponsor: Rep. Betty Sutton [D-OH13]show cosponsors (59)

Text: Summary | Full Text 
Cost: $15 per American over the 2009-2010 period. This is computed from a Congressional Budget Office report, merely by dividing the estimated cost of $4,000,000,000 by the U.S. population. The figure is extracted from the report automatically and may be incorrect. See the report for details.

Status: Introduced Jun 8, 2009 
 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments 
 Reported by Committee Jun 11, 2009 
 Passed House Jun 9, 2009 
 Voted on in Senate ... 
 Signed by President ... 

This bill has been passed in the House. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate. Keep in mind that debate may be taking place on a companion bill in the Senate, rather than on this particular bill. [Last Updated: Jun 12, 2009 8:41AM] 
Last Action: Jun 11, 2009: Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 74. 

Jon Markman (MSN Money) wrote today:

'The program, which has been approved by the House but still needs to go to the Senate, would provide vouchers of $3,500 to $4,500 to Americans willing to trade in their old gas-guzzling vehicles as part of transactions for new vehicles that consume gasoline at slightly less fearsome rates. ... It's sort of like a store advertising a 15%-off sale, then billing the customer for the cost of the discount at the cash register. It sounds like a great deal until you realize the money doesn't come from outer space. It comes from taxes. It's like socialized medicine, but with mudflaps. The bill is called the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act -- CARS, get it? -- yet the main thing to be recycled would be taxpayers' money. It's a Pinto painted to look like a Ferrari. If [the return to GDP figures are] accurate, those would amount to gigantic swings off the negative-5% GDP growth of the first and second quarters and create a lot of political capital for Democratic lawmakers going into the 2010 re-election season. Perhaps we should rename the program "clunkers for Congress." ... As for the new vehicles, all 25 of the top-selling light vehicles of 2008 would meet the minimum. However, Barclays' analysis indicates Honda would see the greatest benefit because its fleet of fuel-efficient small cars and light trucks would fit the program best, with Toyota Motor (TM, news, msgs) a close second. The cost of the program is expected to hit $4 billion in the first year, and many lawmakers are already balking. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who originally backed the concept, said the latest version "doesn't make much sense" because the fuel savings sought is small compared with the cost. After a junker got turned in, the dealer would be prohibited from selling or using it and would have to hand it over to the government -- so don't expect any premium over the voucher value. The feds would then drive it straight to a metal recycler, which would turn it into soda cans and maybe new fenders. This would create a lot of business for recyclers, though it might depress the price of metal due to a flood of supply.'

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy