RSS Feed

Posts Tagged ‘government’

  1. My Observations While Voting

    November 10, 2016 by Ryan

    While waiting in line to vote yesterday, I made some observations.

    I had plenty of time to observe.

    You see, the process took a full hour. I measured it from the time I walked into the school to the time I exited the school.

    My first observation… There were plenty of machines.

    In fact, from my vantage point at the back of the line, this confused me. I observed that almost always, at least half of the machines were not being used. There was even one moment when all machines were empty. Not a single voter touching a single screen. Yet the line was not moving.

    As I rounded the last switch-back of the line, I finally saw the sign telling me what the rules were. It told me what to bring to identify myself. It instructed me that I could not electioneer within 150 feet of the premises. I had to wonder why such a sign was not posted prominently at the front of the queue, instead of at the end? It wasn’t a problem for me, but I wondered how some would feel if they waited their turn for 50 minutes, only to find this poster and learn that they were not prepared with the right identification?

    The excitement built as I could see the judges table ahead. I finally took my turn at the table. It was then that I confirmed the real bottle neck to the operation.

    One judge verified my driver’s license very quickly.

    One judge waited anxiously, ready to hand me my electronic voting card.

    The judge in the middle fumbled with a giant book of voter registration. He was an older man with a shaky hand. He had trouble reading the print, and even some difficulty turning individual pages. Yet every voter needed to pass through this judge, assigned to handle the book.

    It was clear why many machines were always empty.

    I do not profess to know all of the rules of election judging, but it instantly occurred to me that if they could split this book in half – one containing names A-M and the other containing names N-Z – and if the other two judges could have handled the books, the entire operation would have been much more efficient.

    Yet there was nothing I – or any of us – could do but suffer through the process until our turn arrived.

    My final observation was that those with handicaps – older persons with difficulty walking, standing, or changing from sitting to standing positions – could really have used some kind of handicap pass to hold their place in line. Hand the person at the back of the line a card. Allow the disabled voter to come to the front and wait comfortably. When their position in line reaches the front (as indicated by the card’s arrival), call them up and allow them to vote. But do not make the elderly suffer through the hour wait, slowly shuffling through switchbacks.

    These were my observations while voting. I hope that maybe someone in charge will see them and be better prepared for the next time.


  2. Pet Peeve: Someone Should…

    July 27, 2015 by Ryan

    In my Facebook feed, I follow several restaurants and businesses. Almost always, when one posts something, comments follow saying, “You should open a Sticky Fingers in my city!” “You need another Wingers on the North / East / South / West side of such-a-town” “I really miss Target since I moved and wish there was one close to me.”

    I also follow my city’s Facebook page. Frequently, when they announce new developments, they get comments like “Cheesecake Factory should open in the city!” “Put a Starbucks location on the North / East / South / West side of town – with a drive through, because the morning traffic goes right by there and it would be an awesome location!”

    This just irks me every time.

    I get the thought they are trying to convey. But these posters are missing a fundamental point.

    What I hear them saying is, “Someone should do this for my convenience.”

    Why don’t you do it?!

    Yeah, I’m talking to you, poster of the comment!

    If this is such a great idea – a foolproof moneymaking operation – why don’t you get the capital together and make it happen?!

    These businesses and restaurants don’t just magically happen. It takes money. It takes management. It takes employees. It takes incentive. It takes guts. It takes risk. Someone stands behind it, and rises or falls with it.

    The city council doesn’t vote to open a new Taco Bell or Trader Joe’s or In-N-Out Burger and then – poof – construction machines show up and start moving earth.

    Real people decide that the venture is worth it, and they make it happen.

    Real people like you!

    If you don’t have the money to do it, pool together with your family or friends and invest in it. Or get a business loan. Find someone who has the money and pitch the idea; go in on it as a 5% or 10% investor.

    But don’t just complain on Facebook that someone else should make this thing happen for you. You do no market research. You assume no risk. You just want it to be there to suit you.

    That is downright cowardly to make such suggestions and not be willing to back them up.

    Yes, Facebook commenter, I just called you a coward.

    Understand that I know where I’m coming from. From 1998 to 2001 I owned and operated my own small business.

    In a small city, with my own money to invest, I signed a lease on some business space and I opened a computer store.

    I can say for certain that I didn’t make millions of dollars. I wasn’t exactly a failure either. I learned a lot of lessons, and I did well enough to get by during those years. It was very much a challenge. I wouldn’t trade what I learned from that experience for anything else.

    Especially what I learned about respect for a business owner. I take my hat off to anyone who makes that decision to invest themselves and their resources into making an honest enterprise happen.


  3. A Cause of Much Sorrow

    February 22, 2015 by Ryan

    This week in the news  President Obama has been participating in the “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism,” and the threat of terrorists extremist fighting in the name of Islam. He made a point that “if we are going to effectively isolate terrorists, if we’re going to address the challenge of their efforts to recruit our young people.” Using lies and deceptions, they are seeking out young people and persuading them to their unrighteous cause. If there is a void in their lives, they seek to offer fulfillment by joining their organization.

    As I listened to this thought, the Gadianton Robbers of The Book of Mormon came to mind. From The Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 1:27-29:

    27 And it came to pass that the ninety and third year did also pass away in peace, save it were for the Gadianton robbers, who dwelt upon the mountains, who did infest the land; for so strong were their holds and their secret places that the people could not overpower them; therefore they did commit many murders, and did do much slaughter among the people.

    28 And it came to pass that in the ninety and fourth year they began to increase in a great degree, because there were many dissenters of the Nephites who did flee unto them, which did cause much sorrow unto those Nephites who did remain in the land.

    29 And there was also a cause of much sorrow among the Lamanites; for behold, they had many children who did grow up and began to wax strong in years, that they became for themselves, and were led away by some who were Zoramites, by their lyings and their flattering words, to join those Gadianton robbers.

    The characters, locations, and tools are different, but the story runs parallel. In the next chapter (3 Nephi 2:11-12), we see what happened:

    11 And it came to pass in the thirteenth year there began to be wars and contentions throughout all the land; for the Gadianton robbers had become so numerous, and did slay so many of the people, and did lay waste so many cities, and did spread so much death and carnage throughout the land, that it became expedient that all the people, both the Nephites and the Lamanites, should take up arms against them.

    12 Therefore, all the Lamanites who had become converted unto the Lord did unite with their brethren, the Nephites, and were compelled, for the safety of their lives and their women and their children, to take up arms against those Gadianton robbers, yea, and also to maintain their rights, and the privileges of their church and of their worship, and their freedom and their liberty.

    The war commenced, and after a couple of years, there was still no successful resolution. Mormon’s explanation was that “because of the wickedness of the people of Nephi, and their many contentions and dissensions, the Gadianton robbers did gain many advantages over them” (3 Nephi 2:18). They could not pull it together as a people and they struggle for quite some time.

    I’m not intending to prophesy or declare that this is exactly how history will repeat itself; but I do foresee that the struggle will go on far longer than it should. As a nation today, most people are not paying any attention to this problem while they push for a redefinition of marriage; make wink-and-nod jokes about drug use and pornography; and fill their minds with entertainment glamorizing violence and sexual messages. Like the Nephite people, our nation won’t be able to come to the unity and resolve necessary – and mostly to recognize the need for repentance, and to call upon God for support – to let it happen.

    I say that because I’ve read the book and seen how it turned out the first time around.


  4. Marriage Rights and Wrongs

    June 24, 2011 by Ryan

    This writing will be an attempt to solidify many thoughts I’ve considered recently. I apologize if it doesn’t gel together completely. It has been on my mind and I wanted to get it in writing quickly.

    There has been some very emotional discussion about marriage recently, as another state has narrowly voted to accept marriage between two individuals of the same gender.

    Many are declaring that the “rights” of a minority are being affirmed and upheld in this decision. I caution anyone listening to consider that making up new “rights” is a very slippery slope to travel.

    Now that we all have open minds and embrace new ideas, how far do we want to swing that door of acceptable marriage practices?

    For example, is America finally tolerant enough to accept a man who petitions the government for recognition of his marriage to two women simultaneously? All of the parties are consenting adults, after all. All of them love one another with devotion, and seek to openly pledge that love before the world. How is it different than any of the emotional arguments that have persuaded us recently? The two women could now marry one another under the law, so why should we forbid a third party to enter the relationship?

    Or perhaps we should reexamine the behind-the-times thinking of age limits for the parties involved. If a fourteen-year old male wants to pledge his love to a sixty-two-year-old male, what should stop the two from joining in holy matrimony? Amend the example and make the younger partner into a female, and ask the same question?

    If you are shivering with repulsion on these ideas, then you are simply intolerant and bigoted. There can be no other explanation for your hatred and inhumane refusal to recognize the rights of these minority individuals. Are they not seeking the same happiness that you are entitled to? Should their right also be protected?

    My point in proposing these examples is not to advocate for them; rather, it is to open your eyes to the very real possibilities of what new marriage-defining may come next.

    So let me take you back to a discussion of basic rights.

    The largely accepted definition of marriage in European and later American culture has for centuries been defined as between one man and one woman. This definition likely came from religious preferences and teaching. Some would seek to dismiss any further argument or enforcement simply because of the religious definition. I again caution you to carefully consider that attitude.

    There has existed another religiously-based teaching for centuries. It is taught as a religious principle in many faiths that it is wrong to take the life of another human being. This religious ideal has found its way into American law. Should we now dismiss this too, simply because it has a rooting in religious tradition. Or is there wisdom in it?

    Apply the same question to the marriage debate. Recognizing that many religions stake a claim in the question, set all of that that aside and ask if it is beneficial? If a principle is of value, it should be able to stand on its own merit.

    A marriage between a man and a woman ideally will provide an opportunity for children to be born, raised, nurtured; and to grow to responsible adulthood. That is the ideal. This is probably the societal benefit expected when marriage was granted legal recognition and status.

    Some have argued that many marriages between one man and one woman fail frequently to fulfill that  purpose. Some marriages are entered into carelessly and recklessly from the beginning, and bear society no good. Many marriages suffer as years go by, and they fail. If your objective is to hold up examples of failure and say, “I want the right to do that too!” – then more power to you. The framework was available to the couple that they could succeed – that they didn’t was their own fault.

    The framework of traditionally-defined marriage does not allow same-gender couples to accomplish the same societal objective. It cannot.

    A counterfit $20 bill, though it be called a $20 bill, and painted to look like a $20 dollar bill, does not hold the same value as the genuine article.

    Psychologists are confirming in many studies that the nurture of a mother and the presence of a father in a home is beneficial to raising healthy, well-adjusted children. Yes, there are exceptions. Some children come from broken homes; some split time between homes with real parents and step-parents. Some come from homes with only one parent available. Some homes with both male and female parents are present but do a miserable job of parenting. There are always exceptions to the rule. If we are honest about what we know, we will acknowledge that no home will be perfect, but we know where the best chances can occur, and societies interest should be to encourage that framework and discourage the others.

    It will be interesting to see how and where this debate takes us. Religious freedom will certainly play into the debate. Will religious freedom be trampled by laws forcing the acceptance of new types of marriage? Will religious institutions that provide adoption or foster care programs be required to set their beliefs aside to accommodate secular policy? Will church-owned schools be forced to enact policies that contradict their stated religious missions?

    I read that some believe the acceptance of new marriage definitions will eventually be embraced upon the entire nation. As you might infer from my thoughts expressed today, it may take me some time and consideration before I do any embracing of the matter.


  5. Highway Crosses

    August 19, 2010 by Ryan

    The 10th Circut Court of Appeals has ruled that crosses on the sides of Utah Highways must be taken down. These crosses are  paid for and maintained by private individuals to honor fallen Utah Highway Patrol officers, though they are on public land and do have the UHP’s beehive logo on them.

    Let’s establish right away that I don’t agree with the ruling. I see it as another example of where the elected legislature approved something, and the appointed judges overruled the people’s will.

    From my perspective as a Utahn, the argument of the crosses takes on a greater meaning when you consider that the majority of Utah residents are Mormon, and do not use the cross as a symbol of their worship (Mormons do believe in Jesus, but tend to put more focus on the living Christ and joy of His resurrection rather than the symbol of His death). So the cross is not a common sight to see throughout Utah, yet it is easily recognized as a symbol of death. The court addressed this very thing in their ruling:

    “We agree that a reasonable observer would recognize these memorial crosses as symbols of death. However, we do not agree that this nullifies their religious sectarian content because a memorial cross is not a generic symbol of death; it is a Christian symbol of death that signifies or memorializes the death of a Christian….” (Page 29 of the Ruling)

    Right there in the ruling, the judges agree that most people won’t worry about the religious significance, and yet they have to give it full weight and consideration anyway just because it is.

    The plaintiffs allege to have had “direct personal and unwelcome contact with the crosses.” One of the plaintiffs stated that he has “occasionally altered [his] travel route or [has] not stopped at a particular rest stop to avoid contact with the crosses” (see page 10 of the Ruling). Well, guess what guys… I drive down the highway and I come in contact with billboards that depict messages that I disagree with and would prefer not to see, but buck up and I deal with it. If Jesus has no meaning to you, then the cross is just a couple pieces of wood. Deal with it, ignore it, move on. Shake your head in disbelief at those foolish religious people who hung it there, or find a way to overcome your own discomfort and instead focus a kind thought for the trooper and his or her family, or even admire the memorial for the courage of convictions that those who erected it shown. But if it bothers you so much that you feel like you have “direct personal and unwelcome contact” with a large piece of dead wood, then you have bigger psychological issues that you need to learn to deal with. The cross does have a big sign or blaring loudspeaker saying “Become a Christian too” or “Join Our Church!”

    If I were not a Christian, I’d like to show you what some “direct personal and unwelcome contact” really is – like people who routinely stand outside my places of worship loudly and disrespectfully protesting my beliefs; or like my ancestors who were literally run out of town by angry mobs who didn’t like their religious and/or political presence. But Christ’s teaching is to treat others with the same respect as I’d like to be shown back to me; to turn the other cheek; and to be respectful of my brother. Oh, and not be prideful about any of those actions.

    Don’t let me give the impression that a follow of Christ has to be weak-kneed. We should be a light on the hill, standing up and shouting on the rooftops, spreading the Word. And as citizens of the nation, we should be doing our part to elect those who are honest and responsible to make the laws and appoint the judges.

    In this case, the local elected Utah legislature approved it and the appointed federal judiciary said no. For one, that frustrates me.

    The community loses something, as piece by piece, we declare good evil and evil good. Then becomes much tougher and the burden much greater to teach children what is right, while the competing voices of evil grow louder and unchallenged.

    The ruling can be read here, if interested: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/08/08-4061.pdf


  6. Go Green!

    April 1, 2010 by Ryan

    I am pleased to pass along this important information… everyone in America now has a convenient way to recycle the used cardboard tube left over after you finish up your roll of toilet tissue.

    The “Welcoming Individual Persons of Environmental Designs” organization is pleased to announce their 2010 project, the “Outreach Under Tissue” recycling campaign!

    They will accept your donation in the following way… Simply write their collection address directly on the roll, and drop it in any United States Postal Service collection box. Your roll will be sent to recycling headquarters, where they will even pick up the postage for you!

    Once again, be sure to print clearly and legibly their address on your roll, and mail it in.

    W.I.P.E.D.  O.U.T.
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
    Washington, DC 20500-0003

    It is a fabulous opportunity for every citizen to get involved and show your spirit, while supporting such a fine cause.


  7. Daylight Dummy Time

    March 14, 2010 by Ryan

    It’s a conspiracy, I tell you!

    It used to be, for more years than I can remember, that at the beginning of every April the government would have us turn our clocks forward. In effect, we’d give up an hour of our lives, at the demands of the law. Then every October, like clockwork, we’d switch our clocks back, and the government would happily claim that we were “gaining an hour!” Officials made it sound like we are getting a new hour. In reality, they were just giving us back the same hour! No interest gained! No thank you! Just a pretty name assigned to the hour we complacently sacrificed earlier in the spring.

    More recently in 2007, an act of congress told us that we would somehow save more energy if we extended the time from March to November! And like uninformed, compliant citizens, we went along with it.

    So now, even earlier than before, we all “spring” our clocks forward and “fall” our clocks back. Twice-a-year. Running-ourselves-ragged. Maybe when this tradition started, there was only one grandfather clock in the home. But now, how many clocks do I find myself having to change over? Dozens of digital devices – and each one has a slightly different procedure to remember.

    Offer void in Arizona and Hawaii. They retained sanity and do not participate in the ritual. Aloha!

    So here is the real heart of the conspiracy. I demand to know what the government is doing with my hour from March until November? I have noticed absolutely no difference in the amount of energy I am supposedly saving, so I don’t believe that excuse. No, I think this goes much deeper…

    You see, every year, between March and November, a number of citizens pass away. They obediently surrender their hour in March, and die before the hour is returned to them in November. One hour for  each of the deceased.

    What is being done with their hours?

    I believe that these hours being stored up in a secret underground bunker. Then, they are being brought out and given to top federal officials.

    I have solid evidence to support this. How else can you explain how the President has time to fit in an exercise routine, all those state dinners, his family responsibilities, sleep, run for reelection, and still govern the country? The only answer can be that he is using up those extra hours for himself. Pulling a couple of them out of storage each day and adding them to his own schedule!

    Besides, have you ever compared a photograph of the president at the beginning of his term with one taken at the end? You’ll notice he will appear to age much more than the average citizen would in four years. The answer is simple. Because he has been applying those extra hours for himself, he has effectively aged longer than the rest of the population – and his photo cannot hide it.

    It is not just the current president – compare the before-and-after photos of any of our past leaders, and you will find that this has been going on for quite some time, right under the public’s noses!

    I say we should not take it anymore! We must demand that Daylight Dummy Time laws be repealed immediately! Our president cannot have more hours than the rest of us, and our elderly should not die an hour too soon!

    y


  8. California (Hearts) Iowa

    February 8, 2010 by Ryan

    The Goven-a-tor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, made a speech proclaiming that no one wants to take a vacation in Iowa.

    Being the governor, his job is to promote his state. And from the financial news reports I’ve been hearing lately, his state could use some promoting.

    Said Arr-nold, “There’s no one screaming like, ‘I can’t wait to get to Iowa.’ That I can guarantee you. They want to come here to California.”

    All three residents of Iowa were outraged when they heard the news. “Why, who does’n he a be think’n heis?” said one. The Associated Press declined to provide a better translation.

    One of the Iowa residents determined to call their own Hawkeye State governor, upon which it was discovered that they had plum forgot to elect one since 1984. The resident, still infuriated over California’s accusation, located a pen and paper and began writing a letter to the California governor. The Iowa citizen could not finish the letter, however, because he was unaware how to correctly spell “Schwarzenegger.”

    In an apparent change of heart, Arnold apologized the next day, wearing to the press conference a baseball cap that read “California (Heart) Iowa.”

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700006980/People-briefs.html


  9. My take on the issues today

    November 19, 2009 by Ryan

    Some days I read the newspaper, and just want to yell back at the articles. The paper doesn’t listen, so I write about it here instead.

     

    It was an innocent mistake, I’m sure. The government has written a small check out for $1.1 million dollars to Utah’s fourth district. Problem is, Utah only has three districts. So who cashed the check? Rob Bishop, congressman from Utah’s first district, loudly poked fun at the mistake, and pointed to an inefficient government at work.

    (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705345242/Utahaposs-apos4th-Districtapos-received-12-million.html)

    There is another check out there for $29,180 for Utah’s 68th congressional district, which we clearly don’t have a location for as well.

    I was worried for a while there that some teenager was going to find one of those checks out there on the side of the roadway, and spend it on ice cream cones. But there is good news though… Some sharp eyed pencil pushers have found the money. The $1.1 million actually went to fourth district of the state of Washington, who then subcontracted it to a company that is in Congressman Bishop’s first district. The error was in the reporting. And the $29,180 went to the city of Ephraim in Utah State District 69. (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13811416)

     

    Meanwhile, someone should let Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah (who represents the real live third district of Utah) know that nothing good can ever come of interviewing with the “news organization” TMZ. Period.

    Perhaps when he got the invite, he thought that “TMZ” was a text message abbreviation for the “Times,” as in the New York Times.

    They are not exactly the same publication, Jason.

    (http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/17/congressman-prejean-should-be-a-politician/)

    (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705345152/Chaffetz-clarifies-Carrie-Prejean-comments.html)

     

    Meanwhile, the debate becomes more heated each day in the editorial section of the paper on whether The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made some huge error by endorsing the radical idea that people who choose to a lifestyle that it opposes should still be allowed to have a place to live or a employer to work for in the city.

    While the official stance of the Church is that people have a right to be treated kindly and decently, rest assured that they do not endorse sinful behavior. Two lines from the Church’s statement at the hearing: “The Church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.” and “[The Church] believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree – in fact, especially when we disagree.”

    Seems like there was some Historical Figure that said something along the lines of, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone….” If only I could remember Who it was that offered that good advice. Hmmm…

    http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-supports-nondiscrimination-ordinances

    http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/8/1-11#1


  10. A Clunker of a Government Program

    August 30, 2009 by Ryan

    I write this in response to questions I’ve received about where I stand in the current health care debate. To answer that, I don’t want to talk about health care at all. Instead, I want to talk about another recent government take-over of a private industry, and the tremendous successes it is! That is, of course, the American auto industry.

    Very recently, our current government officials took under their wing the inefficient and broken-down system of leadership of two of the three major car dealers. They assisted them through bankruptcy proceedings, and carefully and expertly guided them through the company rebuilding experience. At the suggestion of the President of the United States himself, the president of one of these private companies even lost his job. That doesn’t matter though, for in the end, our heroic government created two much leaner and more efficient car manufacturing businesses, one-of-which the federal government was now part-owner! Hurray!

    But as part of this “trimming of the fat,” there had to be some very sorrowful cutbacks. Not at the car manufactures themselves, mind you. But at the privately-owned dealerships that day-in and day-out took the risks and made the sales of those vehicles. By order of the bankruptcy recipe, the manufactures had to cut off distributing to the people who would actually sell the cars. Why not? It makes perfect sense! Produce cars and reduce the amount of places that can sell the cars. The dealers take the risk upon themselves, and employ and sustain large parts of the tax base and economies in the cities, counties, and states that they reside. So let’s cut of their supply! It had nothing to do with the financial troubles of the car manufactures, but it had everything to do with punishing local dealers who donated more money to the Republicans rather than to the Democrats. Those folks are just going to have to sell used cars now.

    Next, our the wise government leaders saw a need to boost sales for their newly-acquired properties, the auto manufactures. How best to do this? Hmmm, let’s think… Oh, I know! Let’s offer people to bring their “clunker” cars in, and we will trade them for far more money than they are worth, taking tax dollars to pay the “rebate” costs. We’ll require those people to buy a brand new car (which they might not be able to actually afford).

    Now, what should we do with the “clunkers” we have collected? Oh, I know, let’s destroy them! Require that nothing be salvaged from the car – I mean, we can’t go saving save the “clunker” horn, “clunker” plastic light covers, or even the “clunker” oil cap and sell those for scraps now, can we?! The junk dealers, who make their money off of this kind of business, will just have to look elsewhere for their junk parts to sell, because the clunker parts are going to be destroyed! Oh, and no matter that many of those clunker cars still had plenty of life in them – we can’t have them resold to some teenager on the used car market. No No No No No! Can’t even let those dealers that we just cut off from selling new cars have them. Uh-uh, no sir, that would be Un-American through and through. Used cars will now have a short supply, and feature a low starting price of $4500 or more. What is that you say? People who are shopping for used cars can’t always afford $4500 – that is why they are in the used car market? No matter – they should just get a new one instead with this great program the government has provided for them!

    Then the reports came in, one week into the clunker program – it was “wildly successful” and had ran out of money. The budget was one billion tax-dollars (your taxes used to help buy a new car for your neighbor), but they were out of money in one week. Now, if we accept the notion that giving away tax money to some of the people is a form of welfare, and we can gauge the success of the program as “wildly successful” because it gave away all of its money months before it was budgeted for, then what is the only appropriate response? Ram through the congress a quick bill to triple the budget of the program! And even at that, it still ran out of money two weeks earlier then forecasted! Wow! That is one wildly successful, highly-efficient government at work!

    So how did the dealers feel about this voluntary program? They were kind of stuck participating. I mean, if they didn’t, the dealer down the street would, and they would lose the sale. So they had to play the game. For every car they took in on the program, they had to take the $4500 out of their own pocket to make the sale, and then turn in the paper work to be reimbursed. Some dealers were out $300,000 or more of their personal money – money they ordinarily would have used to buy more cars and restock their lot. Instead, they were waiting for the government to reimburse them. And how was that going? The government was so overwhelmed with requests for reimbursement that they were just completely caught off-guard. They didn’t have the manpower or computer server power to handle the requests. So as the program was ending, they were just about ready to catch up to the necessary staffing levels to handle it all. I stand back and marvel at the efficiency of the operation, as I’m sure the private dealers do too. It turned out that some of the dealers quit playing the clunker game several days before the program was officially to end, because they couldn’t afford to take the risk of not knowing if and when they would actually be paid. That shows the confidence they had. Personally, I just don’t understand how anyone could not have confidence in the government!

    And what was the success of the program? Eight out of every ten cars were foreign made automobiles! On the bright side, that means that two out of every ten cars sold under the wildly successful cash for clunker program mean an American car rolled off the assembly line. Let’s take a minute to applaud that fact. ‘Course, as soon as it was done, business dropped like a rock, and is expected to stay low because many who bought then were planning to buy later, so they just pushed their purchase up sooner. Dealers are expecting some tough and lean times in the coming months.

    So after I’ve pointed out my observations of of our current efficient government, and how they seamlessly play with and compliment the economics of the private sector, who is ready to talk about health care?