Whose problem is the homeless problem? Not the president’s

I hope the president and the federal agencies stay out of California's homeless problem. It's a state and local problem exacerbated by the green/environment/climate regulations, building codes and their tax laws which keep some costs artificially low for a few. If California were a country, it would be one of the richest in the world--the 5th largest economy--and wouldn't need our "foreign" aid if it were managed correctly and didn't have Democrat law makers.

Just as Obama took affordable older cars off the road and destroyed them with “cash for clunkers,” so state officials in collusion with builders, architects and real estate firms are destroying affordable housing calling it necessary because of climate change or healthier housing. And it's not just California. My husband's architecture magazines are cringe worthy. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-homeless-how-we-got-here-20180201-story.html

Remember this boondoggle—Cash for clunkers

Cash for clunkers" (part of Obama's 2009 stimulus) actually cost the auto industry 3 billion in less than a year, according to recent research. I wonder why no one ever calculates the cost to low income families, who if they could buy a c...ar, any car which was destroyed by this program, could get to work, the super market, family reunions, recreation, etc.? And how many moderate income family took on new debt to buy that environmentally friendly vehicle due to the carrot of a discount? It's about more than the auto industry losses. http://www.nber.org/papers/w20349

“Cash for Clunkers was a 2009 economic stimulus program aimed at increasing new vehicle spending by subsidizing the replacement of older vehicles. Using a regression discontinuity design, we show the increase in sales during the two month program was completely offset during the following seven to nine months, consistent with previous research. However, we also find the program's fuel efficiency restrictions induced households to purchase more fuel efficient but less expensive vehicles, thereby reducing industry revenues by three billion dollars over the entire nine to eleven month period. This highlights the conflict between the stimulus and environmental objectives of the policy. “

The cash for clunkers clunk

Now the White House is going after Edmunds for telling the truth.



"A total of 690,000 new vehicles were sold under the Cash for Clunkers program last summer, but only 125,000 of those were vehicles that would not have been sold anyway, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the automotive Web site Edmunds.com.

Still, auto sales contributed heavily to the economy's expansion in the third quarter, adding 1.7 percentage points to the nation's gross domestic product growth. [That's a gummit lie because moving government money around is not expansion.]

The Cash for Clunkers program gave car buyers rebates of up to $4,500 if they traded in less fuel-efficient vehicles for new vehicles that met certain fuel economy requirements. A total of $3 billion was allotted for those rebates.

The average rebate was $4,000. But the overwhelming majority of sales would have taken place anyway at some time in the last half of 2009, according to Edmunds.com. That means the government ended up spending about $24,000 each for those 125,000 additional vehicle sales." Money CNN

Cash for Clunkers end result

According to this report from Edmunds, sales of new vehicles in September 2009 fell off a cliff, dropping 41% from August 2009 and down 23% from September 2008. This shows that the primary sales effect of the “Cash for Clunkers” program was to harvest sales that would otherwise have occurred later in the year and compress them into an earlier time period.
More details at Taxman Blog (another great Ohio blogger)

A tax increase on the vain and poor alike

In Ohio, vanity tags will go from $15 to $50, and 30 day tags from $8 to $18.50. Pity the poor working man--first the federal government decreases the supply of lesser value, inexpensive used cars by promoting a "cash for clunkers" program in which they are destroyed, thus raising the prices on used cars still in the market pipeline, then the state raises the price on everything concerning tags and licenses. I just renewed my driver's license two days ago, and noticed I was charged $1.00 for a "vision" test--that consisted of reading one line of numbers and waving my hand if I saw a flashing light. That 10 second test will now go up to $2.75, and the only reason it didn't go up in July with the other fees is they couldn't get the computers reprogrammed fast enough. Before he was elected, our Governor Strickland, a former Methodist pastor, insisted that raised fees were hidden taxes, and that he was against state sponsored gambling. Well, those morals went out the window. These d.l. and tag fees are supposed to raise an additional $55 million dollars. This is not supposed to overburden the BMV "customers," but will make up the funding gap in safety services.