Too Little Cash for Too Many Cars

The Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS, was recently created by Congress to take off old and inefficient vehicles off the road. Citizens, starting on July 1, were given the opportunity to take their vehicles to dealers, in exchange towards credit for a newer, more fuel efficient car. The Transportation Department only began to begin accepting applications on Monday, however dealers had already accumulated a large volume of applications to submit to the department. There were requirements that had to be met, and 250,000 applicants were accepted. With the allocation of an average of 4,000 per car, the $1 billion allocated to this program was used in about 4 weeks.
This program showed great promise. It was a step toward a better environment, and aid the economy by boosting sales of automobiles. Yet, the mark on the industry appears to be minimal, giving only a small boost up from the projected 10 million vehicles, a far cry from last year's mark of 16 million. This program has obviously been attractive to many people, and it has slightly helped the failing auto industry, but can it be argued that it has made a significant impact. A quarter of a million dollars, that's only a small fraction of a desired outcome nearing 16 million sales. During this recession Congress is trying to do its best to aid the nation, and the economy. Yet, what is the opportunity cost of this program? Was the 1 billion enough of an investment? Or was it to much for a program that made so little an impact? Selling 25% of a million in 4 weeks is no mean feat, and if Congress decides to allocate another 3 billion, maybe a total of 1 million new vehicles will be purchased. However, the program is now suspended because it has already used all of its funds, and there are still many other needs that Congress needs to address, rather than those of an auto industry with so little foresight.

Has the President Misjudged the Nation?

Common Sense May Sink ObamaCare is an article by Peggy Noonan. She discusses the new health bill that has been one of the main points of Obama's administration. She tailors her article not to include components of the bill, but instead negative reactions towards it, "Americans don’t fear the devil’s in the details, they fear hell is. Do they want the same people running health care who gave us the Department of Motor Vehicles, the post office and the invasion of Iraq?" She argues that there are three main flaws with the bill: "People are afraid of losing the parts of the system that sometimes work—the unquantifiable parts, the human parts.", "Second, and this is big, some of the bills being worked on in Congress will allow for or mandate taxpayer funding of abortion.", "We are living in a time in which educated people who are at the top of American life feel they have the right to make very public criticisms of . . . let’s call it the private, pleasurable but health-related choices of others."
Noonan addresses these points with well placed rhetorical questions, and assertions about the mindset of the American people as a whole. She uses her own opinions to construct the view points of citizens who watched the press conference with Obama, "Far more seriously, he didn’t seem to be telling the truth... Who would believe that?"
Noonan brings the reader into her mindset, subtly transitioning from, "I think", to "they are", making herself the authority on all Americans. She ends with another rhetorical question, "Who wants more of that?" for the final finish.
Peggy Noonan ultimately does an excellent job of presenting her opinion in a reasonable manner despite the somewhat assuming assertions. Her article flows cleanly, and presents its arguement in a reasonable light.

Guns Brought to You Courtesy of Alaska

At one time, when ruled by the British Empire, Americans had their freedoms restricted. With the aid of the Constitution and a vital Bill of Rights, the same civil liberties are no longer so abused. However, more often than not, issues get in the way of carrying out these freedoms to the fullest possible extent; one of these being the right to bear arms. On July 22, the Senate is to voting on an ammendment that would "force states with more restrictive standards to accept concealed carry permits from states with less stringent rules — in effect giving the lax rules national reach."
The editorial, Gun Crazy in the Senate is quite against this proposition. It argues that illegal activities concerning the possesion of firearms will be eased in the bill's passage. Citing the Violence Policy Center, " Between May 2007 and April 2009, people holding concealed handgun permits killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens." The central argument of this piece mainly focuses on the issues with this bill, and issues with states' policies, Alaska in particular.
What concerns me, as a reader, is the lack of information on a whole about this bill. Why was it put in place? Who else supports it, and why? From state officials, would it make things easier, or harder? I also would like to have more statistics, because while 'seven police officers and 44 private citizens' may seem like a shocking number, those deaths occured over a period of almost 3 years. That number pales in comparison to 631,636, the number of heart disease related deaths in 2006, according to the CDC. The writer also asserts that, "Other examples of crimes committed by concealed-carry licensees are plentiful." I would like to know where I can find those examples, and how accurate they are, I do not appreciate vague statements when trying to make a decision on whether this new bill is a sound one or not. So with no thanks to the writer, I now know about a new gun law, and don't know whether its worth supporting, or condemning.

Health Care Debate Continues

President Obama is determined to have legislature enacted that will give more Americans access to affordable health care. Chairman Bacus has attempted for months to pass a bipartisan bill. However, the August deadline is rapidly approaching, and interpartisan strife continues to hold up progress towards that goal. Republicans have submitted many "technical" ammendments, which have been passed for the most part, but are still unhappy with the trillion dollar price tag of the bill. Mr. Grassley, a Republican, lauds Mr. Bacus' patience in his effort to pass a bipartisan bill, despite the many frustrations involved, "He is willing to find a middle ground; he’s not an ideologue." Unfortunately, bipartisanship may be sacrificed in order to get this bill passed. Read this article for more information: Health Care Vote Illustrates Partisan Divide