Let's try to understand these numbers, before we give another 2 billion to the CARS program.  The CARS Program is already out of their 1 billion dollars authorized through congress becuase so many people have traded in their cars to recieve their 4500.00 voucher towards a new car.

This assumes the government pays out 4500.00 for each trade in.  1 billion divided by 4500.00 = 223,000 ( rounded ) units traded in.

The most popular car purchase after through this program is the Ford Focus, the brand does not matter, but we will use the low advertised price of a Ford Focus as our base number.  2009 Ford Focus: 14k - 16k ( 2009 Ford Focus Reviews, Pictures and Prices - U.S. News Rankings and Reviews )

14,000 car price - 4500 voucher = 9,500.00 in new consumer debt financed.  Let's take that new consumer debt number, and multiple it by the number of units traded in.  223,000 = 2,118,500,000 in additional Consumer DEBT!

Now congress wants another 2 billion to fund the CARS program.  When you take the numbers, add another 2 billion worth of trade ins,  you get an additional 4,237,000,000 in consumer debt.  The total CARS result is 6,355,500,000 in additional consumer debt.  This means the government took 3 million in tax payer money to give them an additional 6 billion in consumer debt.  Now that my friend is a double edge sword.

What does this really mean for the economy?  It means the economy has an additional 6 billion in debt it has to work through it's system, and that's 6 billion dollars that would not naturally go into the market through the the next few years.  The end result of this program is a much deeper hole and climb out of what we've been trying to get out of.

Government involvement in the markets do not work, they never have, they never will.  This program is sham, and the only people who benifit is the bloated car manfactures who have a failed business model, and can not turn profits without tax payer money.

Ask yourself, wouldn't you like to run a business in which the government ensures your profits?

Glenn Beck yesterday on his program mention a little interesting note about this CARS system that would have any Liberty minded person up in arms.  As a dealer principle, or the primary person who inputs all of the information into the CARS system, the system which dealerships use to process the trade-ins, the below warning is displayed.

"This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the U.S. Government. Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign."

Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/28815/

This is completely unconstitutional.  That our government would even stoop to this level of verbage for those who must use the CARS system, is beyond reason.  Furthermore, do the dealers even have a choice?  Is it reasonable to ask them to decline that privacy warning, and NOT accept a consumers trade in?  Would the consumer shop there? 

In essence, the government institutes a hand out program for consumers, and then forces dealerships to hand over all access, and privacy of all content on their computer in order to take advantage of the American Tax Payer handout for those who can afford a new car. 

Even at a lower cost, do we really need to be bailing out those who can afford a new car right now? Who does this program truely help?  The only thing this does is temporarily support car dealerships as long as government is willing to hand over cash, and subsides the cost of a car.  Will it last forever?  What happens once the cash for clunkers funding is over?

An article I read today at AlterNet ( www.alternet.org ) suggests we ban Tobacco, claiming the adverse effects long term compared to those of banned substances.  I ask the question, should anything be banned?  Should we be prevented from using anything we want to? 

I personally have just kicked the habit of smoking tobacco, 9 days free from it so far, I understand the lack of breath, and other health reasons that smoking causes. 

"Cigarettes kill; 400,000 people die prematurely every year from smoking. When we analyze the harm from drugs, there is no doubt that cigarettes are the worst.  They kill more people than cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and all other illegal drugs combined."

Instead of banning yet another free choice, we should use this as a stepping stone of removintg the war on drugs, putting that money back into the hands of the people, and stop locking away non-violent citizens simply becuase they had a little dope on them for personal use.

Most people have the ability to get and use illegal drugs, open any medicine cabinet, and there is a variety of drugs that if used in ways not directed, would be considered illegal.  Most people decide to not use drugs illegally becuase it is not for them, think of the savings, and lower taxes we could see by stopping the wasteful and worthless war on drugs.

Source: http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/141723/should_we_ban_tobacco/

In a report released this week titled "Combating Tobacco in Military and Veteran Populations", the Institute of Medicine strongly recommended to the Department of Defense (DoD) to curb smoking by veterans and active duty personnel and to go as far as ban it all together.  The recommendation points to the rise in health care costs associated with smoking related disease and details how those who have served in the armed forces are 10% more likely to use tobacco products than the average 1 out of every 5 American who smokes.

As the report notes, the DoD already spends $1.6 billion per year on tobacco related care.  Couple the steadily more expensive health care costs, and "personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may be 50 percent higher [for using tobacco] than rates among non-deployed military personnel", you can see the writing on the wall for a budget crisis looming for the DoD.

This story caught the eye of Reason and Liberty becuase I wanted to pose the question, if the DoD were to ban smoking on bases,  would that be a infringing on a soldiers right to use tobacco, or is it simply a way of protecting the investment the United States Government made in training, and deploying their property in the best fighting shape it can?

(Source: Combating Tobacco in Military and Veteran Populations)

Yesterday (July 9th, 2009),  Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Donald L. Kohn, sat down with the Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, Committee on Financial Services, to discuss why the Federal Reserve needs to remain independent.  Ranking member Ron Paul, along with Chairman Watt and other members of the subcommitee were presented with tesimony provided by Chairman Kohn on why it is esential for the health of the economy to maintain and potentially remove some accountability of the Federal Reserve.

Kohn notes that "A well-designed framework for monetary policy includes a careful balance between independence and accountability." with "appropriate checks and balances within our government".  The case Kohn presents is one which paints the Federal Reserve as a strong defender of sound policy which requires indenpendance in order to protect and watch over the American economy.  Ironicaly making the claim that "political interference with monetary policy can damage the economy by promoting an undue focus on the short term."  Which we can only infer from that statement that the current operations of the Federal Reserve has not put a focus on the short term...

However Chairman Kohn fails to explain how artificially setting interest rates by the Federal Reserve has indeed accompliahed exactly what he claims would be the result of additional auditing.  The Internet and Real Estate Bubbles, which are the latest example of the policy of artifically lowered interest rates, has set the tone for the past 10 years of short term gain without long term vision.  Artifically lowered interest rates have lured investors into markets that did not deserve the level of investment they recieved, creating bubbles, which has caused more damage to investor confidence than any short term gain artifical rates could repair.

The Irony of Kohn's testimony is that he actually makes the case that the Fed understands the need of the public to know what they do behind closed doors, while defending their need for privacy and independence.  Kohn continues with "Americans have a right to know how the Federal Reserve is using taxpayer resources and they need to be assured that we are acting in a responsible manner that minimizes risk and maintains the integrity of our operations".  Which only prompts the question, how have they performed their "responsibility" of minimizing risk and integrity over the past, let's say 2 years?

To send Chairman Kohn's message home with policy makers, he ends his testimony with, the "Federal Reserve policymakers are highly accountable and answerable to the government of the United States and to the American people."  Of course that applies until they are asked to actually answer to the people, Bankers Privalge says hello Chairman Kohn.

( Source: Vice Chairman Donald L. Kohn - Federal Reserve Independence )