Massive changes are planned by the Administration.
Huge bailout bill was just passed, and then Obama presents a budget with another 8% increase in the budget over just 6 months, or 16% increase in government spending per year.
While understated, Brook's New York Times article hit the nail on the head: this immodesty is making changes too quickly.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Happiness is a Low Benchmark
President Obama announced his intention to cut the deficit in half by the end of his four-year term. Of course, given the significant increase in the deficit this year an next, that only means getting back to a deficit of $600B/year. And with a decreasing GDP, this is an even larger percentage of GDP than it would have been in 2007.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Obama the car salesman
The New York Times reports that President Obama will allow 14 states (Why only 14? I haven't figured that out yet.) to enforce their own emissions standards on vehicles.
As a result, a car sold in California may be required to meet different standards than a car sold in Rhode Island. This may require car manufacturers to determine the state in which a car will be sold at the moment of manufacturer, raising assembly costs and diminishing flexibility in liquidating inventory.
Prior to this decision, the US Department of Energy estimated that California's 2002 law (A.B. 1493) will raise the average vehicle price by $1,860 vs. $1,029 without the law. That is, inflation of car prices will increase by 81%.
One can only imagine that a situation in which car manufacturers must sell cars that meeting differing (and potentially mutually exclusive) standards will require manufacturing and distribution complexities that will raise the inflation rate even even further.
If Obama thought tougher standards were such a good idea, why did he create such a cost inefficient and complex system and devolve the power to the states? Does he believe in federalism and conclude the issue doesn't meet the constitutional standard of interstate commerce?
This does not seem to me like an example of the good judgment we are all hoping for. I hope he now doesn't turn his eye to CAFE standards.
As a result, a car sold in California may be required to meet different standards than a car sold in Rhode Island. This may require car manufacturers to determine the state in which a car will be sold at the moment of manufacturer, raising assembly costs and diminishing flexibility in liquidating inventory.
Prior to this decision, the US Department of Energy estimated that California's 2002 law (A.B. 1493) will raise the average vehicle price by $1,860 vs. $1,029 without the law. That is, inflation of car prices will increase by 81%.
One can only imagine that a situation in which car manufacturers must sell cars that meeting differing (and potentially mutually exclusive) standards will require manufacturing and distribution complexities that will raise the inflation rate even even further.
If Obama thought tougher standards were such a good idea, why did he create such a cost inefficient and complex system and devolve the power to the states? Does he believe in federalism and conclude the issue doesn't meet the constitutional standard of interstate commerce?
This does not seem to me like an example of the good judgment we are all hoping for. I hope he now doesn't turn his eye to CAFE standards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
