Cash for Clunkers program ended yesterday at 8p.m. EDT. Dealerships have until 12 noon today for finalize all paperwork inputs into a government website for claims repayment.
While it certainly was a novel idea (depending on you POV)to get gas guzzlers off the road, promote a more carbon friendly trend, and feed those starving car salesman, it is lacking in a few areas.
Scope: With only $3 billion in rebate funds available there was always going to be a limit to the impact the program could provide. Estimates are that 456,000 cars were traded and sold. However, that's 456,000 out an estimated 136 million gas guzzlers still on the road today. I am no math wiz but my windows based calculator says that's just more than 1/3rd of one percent.
Temporary: There seems to be a phenomena in sales and marketing that I have resigned myself to never understanding. The temporary nature of on-sale, incentives, and rebates. Some major companies have setup a system by which they move from sale to sale. They go by various names. Biggest sale of the year, biggest sale of the season, etc. What I don't understand from these companies is why they are incenting their customers to forgo a purchase today and 'wait for a sale.' Now I know the idea about 'making the sale an event' thereby cajoling even more than a customer would have spent and so on. However, I have also been in a store on a Friday night and the sale doesn't start until Saturday. I find myself asking. "You really don't want me to buy this now?" These same stores can't understand why a store like Wal-mart is raking in profits even in a rough economy. Well Wal-Mart operates on an everyday savings philosophy rather than a 'wait until I decide to have a sale' philosophy. Which do you think people are going to respond to in a tough economy. Additionally, when people's individual economic situation improves do you think they will flood back into your stores? Or go the fiscally prudent route and remind themselves of the valuable lessons espoused during the 'great recession.' Hint even the tv commercial about 'unused' minutes that ends 'these days we can't afford to be wasteful,' are reinforcing a mantra of frugality that will likley linger far into a recovery. Now how does all this fit into 'cash for clunkers?' Well C4C was extremely temporary. Yes, it sold 456,000 cars but all based on temporary incentives. Remove the incentives and all you have left is a sputtering economy, nearly 10% unemployment, and another two years of nearly zero sales in the auto industry. The only one buying a car in the next two years is someone who's car dies and 'has no other choice.' Of course, their is always the exception that proves the rule. Brett Favre is reported to have recently bought a new F250 after receiving his $12 million contract.
Artificial demand: The law of artificial demand is certainly in play for C4C. The government gave away $3,500-$4,500 in cash if you bought a new fuel efficient car right? Doing so prompted 456,000 sales. Think about it. That should scare the heck out of the auto industry. That's 456,000 sales otherwise 'would be sales' from 2-5 years from now. So slice these new car buyers out of your pool of 'would be buyers' from 2-5 years from now or longer. Moreover, if it takes $4,500 in free money from the government to prompt you to buy that's one otherwise purchase adverse buyer. Even further, think about those who need a new car were offered the same incentives and still decided not to purchase. That's an extremely purchase adverse buyer. Who can blame them, real or perceived this is one tough economy to be making medium term financial decisions. The problem with artificial demand is just that. It's artificial its not organic growth but is dependent on some outside variable like a temporary incentive and once removed it falls flat or worse.
Subsidy: Dare we wander into the throws of partisan bickering and a classic debate about tax policy, there is no dispute that the federal government funds expended for this program are from the taxpayers. So the only question left is how do you see it?
Potential View Point:
One may argue that the federal government has a role in regulating markets including interventions for ailing markets like the auto industry and thereby extending a rebate program to provide an extra boost is just what the doctor ordered, even if for just a little while.
Potential View Point:
Government should have no role or a very limited role in market forces. Trends and innovations should be based on responses to market demands. Taxpayer money should not be utilized to incentivize purchasing behavior in preference of one product over another.
Make Your Own View Point:
C4C was: 1) Extremely Successful 2) Successful 3) Below Expectaions 4) Extremely Wasteful
What should the Government Role be in Regulating Markets?
What is your personal tax policy?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Obama's Health Care Plan--What do I agree with?
The YEA and Nay on Health Care -- My Prospective
YEA
+ Guarantees Coverage for existing conditions
+ Prohibited from denying coverage because of a person's medical history
+ They will not be able to drop your coverage if you get sick
+ Focuses on prevention
+ Helps Seniors live independently
NAY
- Government Run
- Steps towards universal payer system
- Could lead to rationing care
- Government Involved in your health care decisions
- Focuses on covering everyone rather than Quality and Patient Results
- Costs savings are based on projections of savings from ER visits and more costly forms of health care delivery. It's very difficult to book those savings.
- Tends to usurp the private market
- Yes, fine I can keep my coverage if I "like it" but who's going to like it when the government plan prices the private market out of the market.
- Current world class health care could become second rate.
- There is a reason why people from all over the world come the U.S. for Health Care
- Health Care when delivered is excellent, it's the payment system we need to address. Let's incent insurers to achieve payment reform rather than create new mandates and re-invent the wheel by creating an entirely new government run plan.
The simply not true:
- Death Panels
- Elderly being put out to pasture
YEA
+ Guarantees Coverage for existing conditions
+ Prohibited from denying coverage because of a person's medical history
+ They will not be able to drop your coverage if you get sick
+ Focuses on prevention
+ Helps Seniors live independently
NAY
- Government Run
- Steps towards universal payer system
- Could lead to rationing care
- Government Involved in your health care decisions
- Focuses on covering everyone rather than Quality and Patient Results
- Costs savings are based on projections of savings from ER visits and more costly forms of health care delivery. It's very difficult to book those savings.
- Tends to usurp the private market
- Yes, fine I can keep my coverage if I "like it" but who's going to like it when the government plan prices the private market out of the market.
- Current world class health care could become second rate.
- There is a reason why people from all over the world come the U.S. for Health Care
- Health Care when delivered is excellent, it's the payment system we need to address. Let's incent insurers to achieve payment reform rather than create new mandates and re-invent the wheel by creating an entirely new government run plan.
The simply not true:
- Death Panels
- Elderly being put out to pasture
Health Care: Pawlenty In the Washington Post
DEAR READER: If you read this and can't agree with even some of it then you should question whether you have any ideas about health care at all that go beyond DNCC talking points. These things just make sense! Let's make the goal quality and pay for performance not just a 'cover everyone' government plan. -- Eric J. Myers
To Fix Health Care, Follow the States
By Tim Pawlenty
Monday, August 3, 2009
If you tie money to results, you'll get better results. Unfortunately, government often dumps money into programs without regard to accountability and outcomes. This past week, Democrats in Congress have been busy tinkering with a Washington takeover of the health-care system, but perhaps they should look instead to the states for models of market-driven, patient-centered and quality-focused reform. Rather than taking power away from states, federal health-care reform should use the lessons we've learned tackling this crisis in our back yards.
In Minnesota, our state employee health-care plan has demonstrated incredible results by linking outcomes to value. State employees in Minnesota can choose any clinic available to them in the health-care network they've selected. However, individuals who use more costly and less-efficient clinics are required to pay more out-of-pocket.
Not surprisingly, informed health-care consumers vote wisely with their feet and their wallets. Employees overwhelmingly selected providers who deliver higher quality and lower costs as a result of getting things right the first time. The payoff is straightforward: For two of the past five years, we've had zero percent premium increases in the state employee insurance plan.
Minnesota has also implemented an innovative program called QCARE, for Quality Care and Rewarding Excellence. QCARE identifies quality measures, sets aggressive outcome targets for providers, makes comparable measures transparent to the public and changes the payment system to reward quality rather than quantity. We must stop paying based on the number of procedures and start paying based on results.
Instead of returning power to patients and rewarding positive outcomes, many Democrats in Washington want a government-run plan that would require states to comply with dozens of new mandates and regulations. One study by the Lewin Group recently concluded that an estimated 114 million Americans could be displaced from their current coverage under such a plan, and another study by House Republicans said the plan could result in the loss of up to 5 million jobs over the next 10 years.
In typical fashion, the self-proclaimed experts piecing together this Democratic health-care legislation are focusing on only one leg -- access -- of a three-legged stool that also includes cost and quality. Expanding access to health care is a worthwhile goal. But equal or greater focus should be placed on containing costs for the vast majority of Americans who already have insurance. Those costs will not be contained by a massive expansion of federal programs.
Massachusetts's experience should caution Congress against focusing primarily on access. While the Massachusetts plan has reduced the number of uninsured people, costs have been dramatically higher than expected. The result? Increased taxes and fees. The Boston Globe has reported on a current short-term funding gap and the need to obtain a new federal bailout.
Imagine the scope of tax increases, or additional deficit spending, if that approach is utilized for the entire country.
Congress has an opportunity to take a genuinely bipartisan approach to health-care reform, which is unquestionably needed. Instead of tweaking the Democrats' plan to put Washington bureaucrats in charge of health care, I recommend a do-over. There are many common-sense elements that could form the basis for bipartisan health-care reform, including: medical malpractice reform, prohibiting coverage denials based on preexisting conditions, guaranteeing portability, electronic prescriptions and medical records, streamlining billing codes and practices, price and quality transparency, pay-for-performance measures, one-stop primary-care "medical homes," chronic disease management initiatives, tax equity for health insurance purchases, increased incentives for health savings accounts, creating the ability to purchase insurance or form risk pools across state lines, and much more.
As my friend Newt Gingrich said last month when he was at a health-care reform event in Minneapolis, Congress is considering a 1975 socialized medicine model, brought up 34 years later by people who have been in Congress since the early 1970s. The world has moved on. It's time for Democrats in Congress to catch up. Washington can and should do better. But they'll need to listen to and learn from our experience in the states to make it happen.
The writer, a Republican, is governor of Minnesota.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
To Fix Health Care, Follow the States
By Tim Pawlenty
Monday, August 3, 2009
If you tie money to results, you'll get better results. Unfortunately, government often dumps money into programs without regard to accountability and outcomes. This past week, Democrats in Congress have been busy tinkering with a Washington takeover of the health-care system, but perhaps they should look instead to the states for models of market-driven, patient-centered and quality-focused reform. Rather than taking power away from states, federal health-care reform should use the lessons we've learned tackling this crisis in our back yards.
In Minnesota, our state employee health-care plan has demonstrated incredible results by linking outcomes to value. State employees in Minnesota can choose any clinic available to them in the health-care network they've selected. However, individuals who use more costly and less-efficient clinics are required to pay more out-of-pocket.
Not surprisingly, informed health-care consumers vote wisely with their feet and their wallets. Employees overwhelmingly selected providers who deliver higher quality and lower costs as a result of getting things right the first time. The payoff is straightforward: For two of the past five years, we've had zero percent premium increases in the state employee insurance plan.
Minnesota has also implemented an innovative program called QCARE, for Quality Care and Rewarding Excellence. QCARE identifies quality measures, sets aggressive outcome targets for providers, makes comparable measures transparent to the public and changes the payment system to reward quality rather than quantity. We must stop paying based on the number of procedures and start paying based on results.
Instead of returning power to patients and rewarding positive outcomes, many Democrats in Washington want a government-run plan that would require states to comply with dozens of new mandates and regulations. One study by the Lewin Group recently concluded that an estimated 114 million Americans could be displaced from their current coverage under such a plan, and another study by House Republicans said the plan could result in the loss of up to 5 million jobs over the next 10 years.
In typical fashion, the self-proclaimed experts piecing together this Democratic health-care legislation are focusing on only one leg -- access -- of a three-legged stool that also includes cost and quality. Expanding access to health care is a worthwhile goal. But equal or greater focus should be placed on containing costs for the vast majority of Americans who already have insurance. Those costs will not be contained by a massive expansion of federal programs.
Massachusetts's experience should caution Congress against focusing primarily on access. While the Massachusetts plan has reduced the number of uninsured people, costs have been dramatically higher than expected. The result? Increased taxes and fees. The Boston Globe has reported on a current short-term funding gap and the need to obtain a new federal bailout.
Imagine the scope of tax increases, or additional deficit spending, if that approach is utilized for the entire country.
Congress has an opportunity to take a genuinely bipartisan approach to health-care reform, which is unquestionably needed. Instead of tweaking the Democrats' plan to put Washington bureaucrats in charge of health care, I recommend a do-over. There are many common-sense elements that could form the basis for bipartisan health-care reform, including: medical malpractice reform, prohibiting coverage denials based on preexisting conditions, guaranteeing portability, electronic prescriptions and medical records, streamlining billing codes and practices, price and quality transparency, pay-for-performance measures, one-stop primary-care "medical homes," chronic disease management initiatives, tax equity for health insurance purchases, increased incentives for health savings accounts, creating the ability to purchase insurance or form risk pools across state lines, and much more.
As my friend Newt Gingrich said last month when he was at a health-care reform event in Minneapolis, Congress is considering a 1975 socialized medicine model, brought up 34 years later by people who have been in Congress since the early 1970s. The world has moved on. It's time for Democrats in Congress to catch up. Washington can and should do better. But they'll need to listen to and learn from our experience in the states to make it happen.
The writer, a Republican, is governor of Minnesota.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Tinklenberg pulls out of 3-way race against Bachmann
DFLer Elwyn Tinklenberg abruptly withdraws from 6th District congressional race so party can focus on beating Rep. Michele Bachmann
Tinklenberg pulls out of 3-way race against Bachmann
By Bill Salisbury
bsalisbury@pioneerpress.com
Updated: 08/04/2009 11:59:01 PM CDT
Just eight days after announcing he would make a second run for the 6th District congressional seat, Democrat El Tinklenberg on Tuesday abruptly pulled the plug on his campaign, saying a prolonged fight for the Democratic-Farmer-Labor nomination would make it difficult to defeat Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann in 2010.
Tinklenberg, a former Blaine mayor and state transportation commissioner, last year narrowly lost to Bachmann, 46 percent to 43 percent.
But he would have faced two strong contenders for the DFL nomination next year, Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark, of St. Cloud, and Dr. Maureen Reed, of Stillwater.
Tinklenberg said in a statement that he didn't want to devote the next 13 months to spending time and money "trying to defeat each other, rather than defeating Michele Bachmann. That is not a campaign I want to wage, nor is it the kind of campaign that strengthens our chance of electing a Democrat next fall," he said.
Clark declared her candidacy last Wednesday, while Reed, the Independence Party candidate for lieutenant governor in 2006, jumped into the race in May.
"This has never been about me," Tinklenberg said. "It's about restoring responsible, productive representation to the 6th District. It is my hope that by removing myself from the race, I am advancing our chances of achieving that goal."
His campaign manager, Dana Houle, said a DFL intraparty battle for the nomination appeared inevitable, and it would have
Advertisement
drained the resources needed to win in November 2010.
"To beat Michele Bachmann is going to take a lot of money, time and focus," he said.
Tinklenberg didn't see the situation changing in the next three to six months, "so it was better to do it now," Houle said.
Tinklenberg had raised $55,000 this year for what is likely to be a multimillion-dollar race. Reed, by contrast, had raised $232,000 by the end of June.
"Maureen Reed has done well, and I suspect that Tarryl will be able to easily raise money," said Bill McCarthy, president of the Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation and a DFL activist from Blaine. "So El was in a difficult spot."
Moreover, McCarthy, who backed Tinklenberg in 2008, said he had told the candidate that unlike last year, he would not get early labor support this time. He said most unions wouldn't endorse a candidate before the DFL convention next spring.
But Monday night, just hours before Tinklenberg's announcement, a large and politically active union, AFSCME Council 5, endorsed Clark. The union represents 43,000 public and nonprofit workers, including 5,000 members in the 6th District.
Other 2008 Tinklenberg supporters said he made the right decision.
"Tinklenberg had a great opportunity in 2008, and it didn't work out," said veteran DFL strategist Todd Rapp, of Woodbury. "A lot of DFL delegates and primary voters will be looking for a different, fresher candidate this time. The cards were stacked against him."
Clark concurred with Tinklenberg that a divisive DFL primary in September would make it difficult to wage a strong challenge to Bachmann in November.
"I agree with him that it's time to get unified and start making sure we are accomplishing the task in front of us," she said, noting that she has agreed to abide by the endorsement of the DFL convention next spring.
Reed has not agreed to abide by the endorsement. She issued a statement praising Tinklenberg but could not be reached for further comment.
Tinklenberg pulls out of 3-way race against Bachmann
By Bill Salisbury
bsalisbury@pioneerpress.com
Updated: 08/04/2009 11:59:01 PM CDT
Just eight days after announcing he would make a second run for the 6th District congressional seat, Democrat El Tinklenberg on Tuesday abruptly pulled the plug on his campaign, saying a prolonged fight for the Democratic-Farmer-Labor nomination would make it difficult to defeat Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann in 2010.
Tinklenberg, a former Blaine mayor and state transportation commissioner, last year narrowly lost to Bachmann, 46 percent to 43 percent.
But he would have faced two strong contenders for the DFL nomination next year, Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark, of St. Cloud, and Dr. Maureen Reed, of Stillwater.
Tinklenberg said in a statement that he didn't want to devote the next 13 months to spending time and money "trying to defeat each other, rather than defeating Michele Bachmann. That is not a campaign I want to wage, nor is it the kind of campaign that strengthens our chance of electing a Democrat next fall," he said.
Clark declared her candidacy last Wednesday, while Reed, the Independence Party candidate for lieutenant governor in 2006, jumped into the race in May.
"This has never been about me," Tinklenberg said. "It's about restoring responsible, productive representation to the 6th District. It is my hope that by removing myself from the race, I am advancing our chances of achieving that goal."
His campaign manager, Dana Houle, said a DFL intraparty battle for the nomination appeared inevitable, and it would have
Advertisement
drained the resources needed to win in November 2010.
"To beat Michele Bachmann is going to take a lot of money, time and focus," he said.
Tinklenberg didn't see the situation changing in the next three to six months, "so it was better to do it now," Houle said.
Tinklenberg had raised $55,000 this year for what is likely to be a multimillion-dollar race. Reed, by contrast, had raised $232,000 by the end of June.
"Maureen Reed has done well, and I suspect that Tarryl will be able to easily raise money," said Bill McCarthy, president of the Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation and a DFL activist from Blaine. "So El was in a difficult spot."
Moreover, McCarthy, who backed Tinklenberg in 2008, said he had told the candidate that unlike last year, he would not get early labor support this time. He said most unions wouldn't endorse a candidate before the DFL convention next spring.
But Monday night, just hours before Tinklenberg's announcement, a large and politically active union, AFSCME Council 5, endorsed Clark. The union represents 43,000 public and nonprofit workers, including 5,000 members in the 6th District.
Other 2008 Tinklenberg supporters said he made the right decision.
"Tinklenberg had a great opportunity in 2008, and it didn't work out," said veteran DFL strategist Todd Rapp, of Woodbury. "A lot of DFL delegates and primary voters will be looking for a different, fresher candidate this time. The cards were stacked against him."
Clark concurred with Tinklenberg that a divisive DFL primary in September would make it difficult to wage a strong challenge to Bachmann in November.
"I agree with him that it's time to get unified and start making sure we are accomplishing the task in front of us," she said, noting that she has agreed to abide by the endorsement of the DFL convention next spring.
Reed has not agreed to abide by the endorsement. She issued a statement praising Tinklenberg but could not be reached for further comment.
Elk River Community Wide Open House
Sunday, August 16,; 1-4p.m.
See over (40) Open Houses in Elk River!
Go on a self-guided tour!
Time is running out on the $8,000 First Time Homebuyer Tax Credit. The credit expires November 30, 2009.
Don't wait, don't let low prices, low interest rates, and a great federal tax credit pass you by. Not to mention some homes in Elk River may be Neighborhood Stabilization Program eligible which could mean Down Payment Assistance to those who qualify.
More information at: http://www.northmetro.com/events/events-detail.php?intResourceID=5321
See over (40) Open Houses in Elk River!
Go on a self-guided tour!
Time is running out on the $8,000 First Time Homebuyer Tax Credit. The credit expires November 30, 2009.
Don't wait, don't let low prices, low interest rates, and a great federal tax credit pass you by. Not to mention some homes in Elk River may be Neighborhood Stabilization Program eligible which could mean Down Payment Assistance to those who qualify.
More information at: http://www.northmetro.com/events/events-detail.php?intResourceID=5321
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)