“The sky is falling, the sky is falling, give us your tax money and shut your mouth!"

                While today’s Democratic party leadership might get credit for saying, “Never let a decent crisis go to waste, invent one, if you really need to!”  It’s clear that with Chicken Littles like Obama Science Czar John Holdren on their side, climate alarmism has become the mother of invention. Back in the mid- 70’s Holdren was already warning that we needed to cut emissions to avoid the onset of a human-created ICE AGE! Public policy emergencies are imminent, they cried, government intervention is required immediately to drastically limit the population to prevent this global-cooling disaster.

                In a book, “Eco-Science,” which Holdren co-authored with the infamous Ehrlichs, draconian population measures such as mass sterilizations (via secret addition of chemicals to the drinking water); forced abortions; and mandated medical sterilizations of certain populations (eugenics) were all advocated as reasonable means to carry out the necessary population control that might save us from global-cooling and all sorts of other population-driven disasters the trio saw coming our way.

                The inconvenient pseudo-science behind global-cooling was that smog-like emissions were making the earth’s atmosphere “opaque” and preventing sufficient sunlight from reaching the planet’s surface. Now, of course, the alarmist’s party line is that “oops, we missed on that one, but we got this one right: the earth is heating up due to proliferation of green-house gasses and the planet’s entire ecology is at risk. Our only logical step is to immediately begin population control measures such as . . ." etc., etc., etc.

                All the poor ill-informed greenies who KNOW, just KNOW that global-warming is a scientific fact and inescapable without massive government interventions are all pawns in Barak Obama’s power struggle. Obama, as is clear to anyone who read his first book “Dreams from My Father,” is a Marxist. He sees the U.S. Constitution as fundamentally flawed and the country’s long successful history with free market capitalism as an abomination.  Cap and Trade; Obamacare; “creating five million ‘green-tech’ jobs; all the stimulus funding and soon coming back to ask for more stimulus funding; moving the national debt up to 225% from where it was when he took office just 9 ½ months ago . . . it’s all about . . .

1. 1.                   More government power                  Can I get a few "Hallelujahs" on that, Brother?
2. 2.                      More government control over the economy
3. 3.                      More government intervention in every aspect of our lives
4. 4.                       More redistribution of wealth
5. 5.                     Immediate socialism and moving toward a real Marxist government by the time he’s served two terms
6. 6.                     In short, the green and other emergencies (Swine Flu, etc.) besieging us on all sides are just convenient ploys to allow the government to step into our daily lives and jettison the U.S. Constitution.

One of Obama’s biggest obstacles to carrying out his mission is barbaric and antiquated ideas we Americans have toward the notion of private property. According to Adam Smith, “Give a man a 7-year lease on paradise and he will turn it into a desert, but grant a man a life-time lease on a desert and he will turn it into an Eden.” In other words, property ownership is one of the truly good things in this world according to Smith because it motivates people to improve themselves and their lot in life. 

Through the “magic of bigger government," Barak Obama seems hell-bent on destroying all wealth and redistributing it and gradually eliminating old-fashioned concepts like private property. As his father, Obama, Sr. is quoted in “Dreams from My Father,” “There is no reason that tax levels must be limited, 100% tax is feasible, so long as privileges commiserate with contribution are granted.” In other words, you do a good job for Obama’s USA and the government will grant you the right to drive one of their cars, live in a nicer one of their homes, etc., etc. 

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

        Does it not seem utterly unusual that these companies getting bailout money to the tune of over $14,000 per each new car, would shut down ANY profitable dealerships anywhere?  Not only creating a financial disaster to individuals and the taxbase in virtually every locale affected but also costing an enormous amount of jobs.  Perhaps they're doing it out of pity on Ford which hasn't received any lovely bailout bucks?  Seriously, it is a contradiction of the first magnitude.  OK, hope is, that for whatever reason . . . none of that'll happen now.

                     Instead of allowing an orderly bankruptcy which would have forced a renegotiating of union contracts, etc., the Obama personal diplomacy mission is taking much better care of the Union and also making the UAW 18% owner of GM and the U.S. Government around 67% owner.  On top of that, the initial profits of Chrysler and GM, should they come, will NOT be taxed.  Now that's another nasty slap in the fact of Ford!  In addition,The Treasury Department is suspendeing tax rules for all companies that receive bailout money, providing benefits not available to firms that don't receive government help. New Treasury rules could provide GM billions in tax breaks once it becomes profitable and starts paying taxes again, which could be years away.  The government is making up the rules as they go along that's obvious.

                  The government won't penalize firms for participating in the taxpayer-financed bailout, so the Treasury Department has issued several notices in recent months creating exceptions for firms that get bailout money. Under the new rules, corporations can keep their tax breaks if the government becomes a majority owner.  The notices have the full effect of a law, even though they aren't reviewed or approved by Congress. They also apply to banks and other financial firms receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.  But the new rules don't apply to corporations taken over by other private companies. That means Chrysler could lose the value of its tax write-offs in its merger with Italy's Fiat Group SpA, depending on the structure of the company after it emerges from bankruptcy protection, tax experts said.When the government eventually sells its stake in GM, tax experts expect the Treasury Department to issue new rules for how the tax breaks will be treated. Rules issued in the past few months protect the government's ability to use the tax breaks as an incentive for new buyers.

                        With all the money flying around, some lawmakers especially Republicans want the President to move more slowly and think over some of the conditions imposed upon the automakers, like closing down so many dealerships, including profitable ones.  They're concerned that the job losses could dreail any good done by the bailouts themselves.  Closing almost 2,000 dealerships by initial estimates and presumably many more now that GM re-organization is proving so contentious, is not going to help the economy, according to Republican Rep. Steve LaTourette, who asked Obama to "call a time-out."

                       Thirty-six members of Congress, mostly Republican, told the White House they were troubled by the work of the auto industry task force appointed by the president earlier this year. The panel has worked with GM and Chrysler to try to restructure the companies.  They said a pending June 1 deadline for a GM bankruptcy created more uncertainty for the industry, and could lead to a rash of more job losses and dealership closings.  "They represent various Wall Street interests who have long looked at exporting jobs out of this country," said Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who accused the task force of facilitating plans by GM to import Chinese-made vehicles to the U.S.  GM announced recently plans to close eight more manufacturing plants.

                        In a Forbes article, Richard A. Epstein, called the president's actions toward the auto industry "heavy-handed meddling that forced secured creditors to the brink."  He claimed that a "sound bankruptcy should do two things:  productively redeploy the assets of the bankrupt firm and correctly prioritize various claims against the bankrupt entity."  According to Epstein, thanks to Obama's interference, "the Chrysler bankruptcy fails on both counts."