A professor at the University of West Virginia in Morgantown for the last
forty some years says that.
A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of
gas a year. A new vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons
of gas a year. So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction reduced gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
The government claims 700,000 clunkers were replaced so that is 224
million gallons saved per year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels is
about 5 hours worth of US consumption. More importantly, 5 million barrels
of oil at $90 per barrel costs about $450 million dollars.
So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $450
They spent $6.67 for every $1.00 they saved.
We did get a lot of Obama stickers off the road.
We’ve been assured, though, that they will do a much better job with our
The No Bailout for Insurance Companies Act of 2014. Make it one line long: “Sections 1341 and 1342 of the Affordable Care Act are hereby repealed.”
On Dec. 18, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers was asked what was the administration’s Plan B if, because of adverse selection (enrolling too few young and healthies), the insurance companies face financial difficulty. Jason Furman wouldn’t bite. “There’s a Plan A,” he replied. Enroll the young. But of course there’s Plan B. It’s a government bailout. And they don’t have to say it because it’s already in the Affordable Care Act, buried deep.
First, Section 1341, the “reinsurance” fund collected from insurers and self-insuring employers at a nifty $63 a head. (Whom do you think the cost is passed on to?) This yields about $20 billion over three years to cover losses. Then there is Section 1342, the “risk corridor” provision that mandates a major taxpayer payout covering up to 80 percent of insurance-company losses. Never heard of these? That’s the beauty of passing a bill of such monstrous length.
Nancy Pelosi was right, The whole scheme was risky enough to begin with — getting enough enrollees and making sure 40 percent were young and healthy. Obamacare is already far behind its own enrollment estimates. But things have gotten worse. The administration has been changing the rules repeatedly — with every scrimmage-line audible raising costs and diminishing revenue. Deprived of their best customers. Forced to offer stripped-down “catastrophic” plans to people age 30 and over (contrary to the law). These dictates, complained an insurance industry spokesman, could“destabilize” the insurance market. Translation: How are we going to survive this? Shrinking revenues and rising costs couldbring on the “death spiral” — an unbalanced patient pool forcing huge premium increases (to restore revenue) that would further unbalance the patient pool as the young and healthy drop out.
End result? Insolvency — before which the insurance companies will pull out of Obamacare.
Solution? A huge government bailout. It’s Obamacare’s escape hatch. And — surprise, surprise — it’s already baked into the law.
Without viable insurance companies doing the work, it falls apart. No bailout, no Obamacare. Democrats know it could be fatal for Obamacare. The only alternative would be single-payer. And try selling that to the country after the spectacularly incompetent launch of — and subsequent widespread disaffection with — mere semi-nationalization. Who can argue with no bailout? Let the Senate Democrats decide: Support the bailout and lose the Senate. Or oppose the bailout and bury Obamacare.
Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), who on Monday will be sworn in as director of the Federal Housing Financial Agency (FHFA), once boasted of a program he pushed to allow more mortgage loans to welfare recipients who could make a down payment of as little as $1,000 toward a loan guaranteed by government sponsored enterprise (GSE) Freddie Mac.
Democrats have used the Senate’s newly eased filibuster procedures to clear the way for confirmation of the man President Barack Obama wants to become a top housing regulator. The Federal Housing Financial Agency (FHFA) runs both Freddie and Fannie.
Watt, who supported several of the policies that led to the last housing crisis of 2008, also led the strongest opposition to a bipartisan 2010 proposal to subject the Federal Reserve to an audit by the Government Accountability Office, the same as every government agency is subjected to. He wanted to make home loans to welfare recipients, with minimum down payments, forcing Fannie and Freddie to back up those loans.”
In October 2002, Watt announced public-private partnership called “Pathways to Homeownership” designed to help welfare-to-work program participants buy homes with minimal down payments.
“I want to thank Freddie Mac and their local partners for developing this collaborative effort aimed at helping Charlotte residents realize the dream of homeownership.”
Watt supported other policies to promote home loans in abundance often to those least able to pay them back — expanding mortgage insurance, government grants for mortgages and more tax credits. He is also expected to support potential abuse of eminent domain property seizures. In 2003, the Bush administration proposed increased oversight of Fannie and Freddie to shield the two GSEs from potential problems of subprime lending. Watt and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) led the effort to successfully block the Bush reform. 2007 Watt again teamed with Frank on a bill to force Fannie and Freddie to make more loans for inner city communities through an “Affordable Housing Fund.”
During the debate over Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, which was presented as an effort to prevent another financial crisis, a left-right coalition led by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) backed an amendment to audit the Federal Reserve. Watt – whose top campaign contributors benefited most from Fed’sincreased money printing—led opposition to the increased transparency for the Fed, reported the Economic Policy Journal. The industries that contributed most to his campaign in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles were commercial banks, securities and investment industry and lawyers, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Sources—gao, human events, Krauthammer, the blaze, fred lucas