Wednesday
"I'm nobody's conservative, but I'm pretty sure if I was telling conservatives how to think I wouldn't admonish them for failing to champion limited government within two sentences of praising FDR's pragmatism. It's like, I dunno, lecturing the Labour Party about demonstrating their pro-union bonafides while praising Margaret Thatcher's centrism. Sounds a bit off."
Matt Welch on the hapless Andrew Sullivan.
I don't understand why anyone at all takes Sullivan seriously. The poor man's obviously bonkers; always has been.
Posted by woccam at August 5, 2009 06:44 PM
Sullivan has stopped making sense for the past several years now. I seriously think he is too hopped-up on man-juice.
Posted by Dom at August 5, 2009 09:35 PM
I can't remember a more blatant version of the Broken Windows Fallacy than this nightmare of the "cash for clunkers" idiocy. You could argue that certain forms of welfare and medicaid are far worse and more expensive, but this one is just so putrid and wasteful it really saddens me.
An apt comment from the Reason.com link-
Abdul | August 5, 2009, 7:12am | #I like Andrew Sullivan's definition of conservative: anyone who agrees with Andrew Sullivan.
It's not accurate, but it's easy to remember.
Posted by Tman at August 5, 2009 11:06 PM
Is this the Cash for Clunkers mastermind? One of cinema's great depictions of the Broken Water Glass Window Fallacy.
"Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos."
Posted by Alan K. Henderson at August 7, 2009 06:15 AM
I see - so the taking of functioning cars and smashing them up (even the engine parts may not be used - the cars must be wasted, shoved in landfill) and replacing them with new ones (at a massive "environmental" as well as financial cost) is a "good thing that helps everybody".
Apart from the taxpayers, and (indeed) the people who buy the new cars - as the government subsidy does not cover the full cost (only a fraction of it) so they burden themselves with yet more debt.
And this is "limited" government - not "unlimited" government.
Almost needless to say the project is unconstitutional as the "general welfare" is the PURPOSE of the specific powers granted to the Congress in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United State, not some sort of "general welfare spending power" that covers anything Congress feels like spending taxpayers money on (the actual quote is "the common defence and general welfare" - the specific powers then follow). And the scheme is NOT for the "general welfare" anyway.
And this is in the background of a "balanced budget"? Sorry Andy - but there is a TRILLION Dollar (plus) deficit, not a "balanced budget"
Oh well at least the Korean car makers benefit (many American built cars do not qualify for the subsidy).
People can come over from Canada and Mexico and buy Korean cars in the United States - and the American taxpayer picks up part of the bill.
Not a good idea.
Posted by Paul Marks at August 8, 2009 12:26 AM
