But with less than two weeks until the 2010 mid-term elections, the Midwest has become the President’s biggest problem area.

The President’s party is poised to lose at least four Senate races in the Midwest (IN, MO, ND, OH) while two others remain tight contests in which the GOP candidate has been consistently leading (IL, WI). Of the four open Midwest gubernatorial contests, the GOP is posting solid results in three of them (IL, OH, WI) with another, Minnesota, still up for grabs.

Looking at swing Congressional races is where you really get an idea of the Democrats’ Midwestern problem. States that rarely have competitive races like Minnesota and Missouri each have several vulnerable incumbents in 2010. Missouri Blue Dog Democrat incumbent Ike Skelton, who has represented central-west Missouri for more than 30 years, is facing perhaps his toughest challenge yet. A similar situation is facing U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar, who represents northeast Minnesota. Oberstar has been in Congress consistently for nearly 40 years and is in the race of his life. Tim Walz, a second term Democrat from a southern Minnesota swing district, is facing a tough reelection battle as well.

Wisconsin — which is thought to be liberal but is more accurately categorized as a swing state — currently has only three Republicans in its eight member Congressional delegation but may have just two Democrats in its delegation by January, 2011. Vulnerable incumbents there include Reps. Steve Kagen (D) in the northeastern part of the state and Ron Kind (D) in the west.

Illinois and Ohio have between five and six seats each that are extremely competitive House races while four Michigan and three Iowa and Wisconsin seats are up in the air.

Illinois’ western-most district, represented by second term Congressman Phil Hare, was a seat pundits never thought would be in play. But the rural, gerrymandered district is now a national target of Republicans, who have an excellent candidate in businessman Bobby Schilling. Mark Kirk’s vacated seat in the moderate northern Chicago burbs is also up for grabs and is really the Democrat’s only pickup opportunity in the Midwest this cycle. Reps. Melissa Bean (D) in the western Chicago suburbs, Bill Foster (D) in the southern Chicago suburbs, and Debbie Halvorson (D) in central Illinois are also in tough reelection battles. Halvorson, who doesn’t shy away from any of her votes or support of the Obama agenda, has been down as far as eighteen points in recent surveys.

In Iowa, all three of the incumbent Democrat Congressmen, Reps. Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack, and Leonard Boswell could lose. Indiana’s Joe Donnelly (D) and Baron Hill (D) are facing tough challenges and Brad Ellsworth’s open seat in southern Indiana is poised for a Republican pickup.

The upper Midwest is heavily in play, too. Bart Stupak’s open Michigan upper Peninsula seat is leaning Republican, as are the two northern Wisconsin seats held by the retiring Rep. David Obey (D) and second term Democrat Steve Kagen.

The Democrats are losing rural voters who are deeply concerned about the economy and didn’t see any added benefits after the stimulus and Obamacare.

Voters in rural Ohio districts like the eastern-most districts of Reps. Zack Space (D) and Charlie Wilson (D) may be poised to boot out the incumbents. The same is true of swing districts in Ohio like that of northeast Ohio’s John Boccieri  and central Ohio’s Mary Jo Kilroy, first-term Democrats who rubber-stamped the entire Obama agenda. Suburban districts represented by Steve Driehaus (D) and Betty Sutton (D), which are centered around Akron and Cincinatti, are also in play.

Both the North and South Dakota At Large seats are up for grabs for the first time in many years, too. All told, the entire region is in play — from Skelton’s seat in central Missouri to Wilson’s seat in eastern Ohio and from Kagen’s seat in northeast Wisconsin all the way westward to the Dakotas.

A recent Rasmussen poll showed that voters are angry with Members of Congress who voted for Obamacare, the auto bailout, or the stimulus package. By significant margins, voters do not want to reelect incumbents who voted for these unpopular parts of the Obama agenda.

The Midwest’s economy is suffering and people are out of work. Jobs is the main topic of most Congressional debates in the region. Midwest voters are likely to make significant changes in who represents them in Congress. Whether those changes will help the struggling economy recover and foster job creation in the region remains to be seen.

But one thing is for sure: the Democrats have a Midwestern sized problem.

According to Forbes, the United States racked up a $1.29 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2010. Generally speaking, the slight decline in 2010 is due to somewhat higher tax receipts (up 2.7%) and slightly less spending (down 1.8%).

The Government Accountability Office projects that by the end of this decade, the vast majority of all federal tax revenue will be swallowed up by just four things: Interest payments on the country’s debt, and the payment of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits.

Now Republicans are talking about the problem of the debt and the deficit. But who was it that voted for the Wall Street Bailout under the Bush Administration? Bush’s Wall Street Bailout passed both houses on October 4, 2008. Republican House members who voted for the bailout are as follows. Keep them in mind this November.

Rodney Alexander. R-La.
Spencer Bachus, R-La.
J. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C.
Judy Biggert, R-Ill.
Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
John Boehner, R-Ohio
Jo Bonner, R-Ala.
John Boozman, R-Ark.
Charles Boustany, R-La.
Kevin Brady, R-Texas
Henry Brown, R-S.C.
Vern Buchanan, Fla.
Ken Calvert, R-Calif.
Dave Camp, R-Mich.
John Campbell, R-Calif.
Chris Cannon, R-Utah
Eric Cantor, R-Va.
Mike Castle, R-D.E.
Howard Coble, R-N.C.
Tom Cole, R-Okla.
Mike Conaway, R-Texas
Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla.
Barbara Cubin, R-Wy.
Tom Davis, R-Va.
Charlie Dent, R-Pa.
David Dreier, R-Calif.
Vern Ehlers, R-Mich.
Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo.
Terry Everett, R-Ala.
Mary Fallin, R-Okla.
Mike Ferguson, R-N.J.
Vito Fossella, R-N.Y.
Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J.
Jim Gerlach, R-N.J.
Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md.
Kay Granger, R-Texas
Wally Herger, R-Calif.
David Hobson, R-Ohio
Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.
Bob Inglis, R-S.C.
Peter King, R-NY
Mark Kirk, R-Ill.
John Kline, R-Minn.
Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich.
Randy Kuhl, R-N.Y
Ray LaHood, R-Ill.
Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.
Ron Lewis, R-Ky.
Daniel Lungren, R-Calif.
Mary Mack, R-Calif.
Jim McCrery, R-La.
John McHugh, R-N.Y.
Buck McKeon, R-Calif.
Gary Miller, R-Calif.
Sue Myrick, R-N.C.
John Peterson, R-Pa.
Chip Pickering, R-Miss.
Jon Porter, R-Nev.
Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio
Adam Putnam, R-Fla.
George Radanovich, R-Calif.
Jim Ramstad, R-Minn.
Ralph Regula, R-Ohio
Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y.
Mike Rogers, R-Mich.
Hal Rogers, R-Ky.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.
Paul Ryan, R-Wis.
Jim Saxton, R-N.J.
Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio
Pete Sessions, R-Texas
John Shadegg, R-Ariz.
Christopher Shays, R-Conn.
Bill Shuster, R-Pa.
Michael Simpson, R-Idaho
Lamar Smith, R-Texas
Mark Souder, R-Ind.
John Sullivan, R-Okla.
Tom Tancredo, R-Col.
Lee Terry, R-Neb.
Mac Thornberry, R-Texas
Pat Tiberi, R-Ohio
Fred Upton, R-Mich.
Greg Walden, R-Oregon
James Walsh, R-N.Y.
Zachary Wamp, R-Tenn.
Dave Weldon, R-Fla.
Jerry Weller, R-Ill.
Heather Wilson, R-N.M.
Joe Wilson, R-S.C.
Frank Wolf, R-Va.

Republicans in the Senate who voted for the bailout:

Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
Bob Bennett, R-Utah
Christopher Bond, R-Mo.
Richard Burr, R-N.C.
Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.
Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
Susan Collins, R-Maine
Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
Bob Corker, R-Tenn.
John Cornyn, R-Texas
Larry Craig, R-Idaho
Pete Domenici, R-N.M.
John Ensign, R-Nev.
Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa
Judd Gregg, R-N.H
Charles Hagel, R-Neb.
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
Kay Hutchison, R-Texas
John Isakson, R-Ga.
Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Richard Lugar, R-Ind.
Mel Martinez, R-Fla.
John McCain, R-Ariz.
Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska
Gordon Smith, R-Oregon
Olympia Snowe, R-Maine
Ted Stevens, R-Alaska
John Sununu, R-N.H.
John Thune, R-S.D.
George Voinovich, R-Ohio
John Warner, R-Va.

June 12, 2010

Lazio 2010, Inc.
P.O. Box 4818
New York, NY 10185

Dear Mr. Lazio:

I am writing as a registered Republican and a member of my Town’s Republican Committee.

Your opponent, Carl Paladino, has publicly stated that during your tenure as a full-time employee and lobbyist for JP Morgan Chase you lobbied for and arranged a payment of $25 billion from the US Treasury to your employer. In other words, Mr. Paldino has publicly alleged that you participated in the “bailout.”  In return you received a $1.3 million bonus.

If Mr. Paldino’s allegations are inaccurate, please respond to this inquiry publicly.

If Mr. Paladino’s allegations are accurate you are morally unfit to serve in public office.  I am posting this letter on my blog and stating explicitly that if Mr. Paladino’s allegations are accurate you are morally equivalent to a common criminal and belong in jail.  Consequently, I would urge you to step down from the gubernatorial candidacy and allow the better man to run.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

The Club for Growth recently listed its report card on fiscal policy for 2009. The results show that several endorsed Republican Liberty Caucus scored 100% on their legislative barometer, including Congressmen Jeff Flake (AZ), John Shadegg (AZ), Paul Broun (GA), and Doug Lamborn (CO). Scoring 95% or higher are RLC-endorsed Congressmen Scott Garrett (NJ), Tom McClintock (CA), Jim Jordan (OH), Jason Chaffetz (UT), Ron Paul (TX), and Ed Royce (CA).

Of these, Broun (GA), Royce (CA), Garrett (NJ), Paul (TX), and Flake (AZ) did not vote for any of the bailouts. Chaffetz and McClintock were not in Congress during any of the bailouts, so they cannot be held responsible for those votes.

Several of these Members of Congress also either voted against the Iraq War or believe it was a mistake. Those in the former camp include Congressman Ron Paul. Those in the latter camp include Congressman Jeff Flake and Congressman Tom McClintock.

Although this is a small group of Congressmen, we are starting to make some progress.  If we elect just one or two of our Republican Liberty Caucus-endorsed candidates to Congress in 2010, we will be even further on our path to a free society.

Conservatives love to hate Saul Alinsky but in fact all activists, conservative, libertarian or left-wing, follow his advice if they aim to succeed.  One of Alinsky’s rules for radicals is that a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.  This seems to be occurring with the Tea Party.

A reader suggested  this blog by the Alantic Magazine‘s Andrew Sullivan.  Sullivan argues that the Tea Party convention was not economically conservative but was rather dominated by Christian activists.  Sullivan writes:

“They have no plans to cut serious spending whatsoever. They love their Medicare, as they screamed at us last August. Do you remember them revolting against Bush’s unfunded, Medicare prescription drug bill, the worst act of fiscal vandalism since the Iraq war?”

I have attended my local Tea Party meeting in Kingston, New York.  I do recall others, besides myself, talking about economic issues. One individual brought up the exit of manufacturing from the US, another talked about corruption in government.  There are frequent references to the nation becoming worse for future generations.  These are all good signs and say to me that the Tea Party has potential left.

Since the Atlantic is not a libertarian source (disclaimer: I read it regularly more than a quarter century ago and not since) my gut would be suspicious of anything its writers have to say about the Tea Party.  However, Sullivan makes a good point.

It was obvious from the beginning that the Tea Party rank and file is largely inexperienced.  Moreover, these are people who have developed a bad habit of voting for big government candidates who say that they are for small government.  They did it for George W. Bush and they did it for George H. Bush.  They nominated John McCain, who lept at the bailout like a terrier at a steak, along with Palin and Obama.  The Tea Party people realize that something has gone wrong after decades of their de facto support for big government and their solution is…to do the same thing once again.  This is seen in their decision to ask John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, to be the keynote speaker at their convention.  Palin may speak economic conservative rhetoric at times, but she is not schooled in basic economics and can be seen in the September 2008 interview to be in the Progressive tradition.

I believe that libertarians need to work with the Christian right.  However, we have been hammered once before, with respect to George W. Bush.  The tactic of working with the Tea Party has helped expose our views, and it has been successful. But should libertarians continue to support the Tea Party?  I am not certain that the leadership of the Tea Party supports our mission of limited government.  Sarah Palin does not. I don’t think she understands that government activism in the bailout is logically inconsistent with support for limited government. The Tea Party may soon become a drag.

Nowhere is the challenge facing liberty Republicans greater than with respect to money and banking. The systemic lying about the role of the Federal Reserve Bank in the media and the misleading way in which the topic is taught in basic college courses in economics contribute to the problem. But the reality is that the subject is too abstract for Americans brought up to believe in “experts” and in the word of the federal government. Thus, a malaise of contradictions, confusion and just plain dumbing down makes it difficult for liberty Republicans to discuss economic and monetary issues.

The bailout was a major blow to freedom. Supported as it was by the media, university academics and most Republicrat socialists, it would take someone committed to freedom to say that they opposed. it.

Moreover, because the pro-banker socialist establishment from George W. Bush to Barack Obama favored the bailout, while the general public opposed it, it is a handy campaign issue. A candidate who can say they opposed the bailout and that there will be no more trillion dollar welfare plans for wealthy bankers can win.

Thus, we of the liberty Republican philosophy have a handy litmus test. We can oppose any candidate who favored the bailout, and favor candidates who opposed it.  This simplifies communication and offers a galvanizing campaign issue.  Moreover, the public is likely to be susceptible to our message. The likes of Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich have revealed their socialist core.

And we can stop them.

What concerns me, though, is that the left also opposes Bernanke’s reappointment. Given the nature of this term’s Democratic Party-dominated Senate, any alternative to Bernanke could be worse.  I would like to see some specific recommendations for alternatives.

Writing in a Democratic Party outlet, the New York Times, leftist Paul Krugman expresses a similar concern, that it is not clear that Bernanke the devil is worse than some crustacean that Harry Reid might pull from the deep blue sea.

Indeed, Krugman’s deliberations concerning Bernanke emphasize that Bernanke has not inflated enough or “done all he can”.  Unless the Democrats can come up with an alternative (e.g., a 21st century Paul Volcker), I’d prefer to stand pat despite what Krugman calls Bernanke’s “complacency”.

I recently blogged about Governor Johnson’s background.  He received good grades from the Cato Institute when he was governor and has a taste for honesty that is rare in politics and business today.

Besides serving as governor of New Mexico for two terms, he had built a significant corporation from scratch, which he sold in 1999.  Readers who would like to contribute or help Governor Johnson can find contact information on http://ouramericainitiative.com/. He also has a Facebook group page with 2,000 members.

Langbert: Governor Johnson, it is a privilege to interview you.  I teach business administration at Brooklyn College.  What are three things that you learned from your business career that could be applied to the federal government or that you did apply as governor of New Mexico?

Johnson: I started my company in 1974 and I was the only employee.  In 1994 we had 1,000 employees.  Things that I learned and applied as governor include the importance of hiring good people; cutting mistakes short; and sticking to basic principles.

I’m good at hiring people and have a great track record.  But mistakes are inevitable. When you make a mistake in hiring, you need to cut it short.   As governor, I avoided political appointments as much as possible.  There was one instance where I was forced to make one, and I closely monitored the individual’s performance.

The obvious things are most important. The basic principles:  being on time, sticking to principles, telling people to tell the truth.  As governor, I sat down in cabinet meetings and I told people to tell the truth.

L: One of the realities of large organizations is the use of information to manage conflict and improve social compatibility and coordination.  Managers call these patterns interpersonal skills.  Might not 100% truth telling interfere with interpersonal skills? Of course, if everyone in industry tells the truth, costs and performance will be improved.

J: On the contrary, being honest 100% of the time makes it easy.  If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.  What you’re talking about is managing conflict.  Someone once said that honesty is where what you say and what you think are the same as what you do.  But of course you can say things that minimize conflict.

L:  To what degree is it possible to cut the federal budget? How would you go about cutting?

J: I faced the same situation in New Mexico as the president faces.  I could have cut big government in New Mexico drastically and no one would have noticed.  (That is, these government employees produce no value for the economy.) The spending train is out of control.  But the Democratic legislature fought me and the courts handed down adverse rulings.  The legislature was 2 to 1 Democratic.  Common sense has gone out the window.  First you have to stop the spending.  The time is ripe for doing so in Washington, and it’s accomplishable.

We are a bankrupt nation.  We’re not taking care of our own house. Unlike the generation before us, interest and principle payments are due now. The enormous budget deficits will lead to inflation and an ever weaker dollar.

L:  What is your position on the bailout and TARP?

J: I would have opposed both.  Government should not have been involved in this. The Paulson connection amounts to this being an inside job.  Why should Goldman and AIG be saved but not Lehman?

L: What is your position on health reform?  How would you recommend the system control health costs?

J:  I would recommend a free market approach to health care reform.  Increase supply through the free market.  Gall Bladders R Us. We ended up with an insurance entitlement rather than health care.  Extending the current approach will lead to shortages and rationing health care.

The same principle applies to education.  We should blow the lid off publicly controlled education.

L: What is your position on the Fed and the gold standard?

J: The Federal Reserve deserves full responsibility for the housing bubble and as well deserves credit for mitigating the bust.  Overriding that, the dollar is now worth a nickel.  I understand the arguments for a free market in money and I support them.  I shy away from the phrase “regulate the Fed” because I do not want Barney Frank deciding monetary policy.  I wouldn’t say the Fed needs to be abolished.  I understand the argument for a gold standard, though.  The US government should be pursuing a strong dollar policy, which the Fed hasn’t done.

L: What is your position on the Middle East and Israel?

J: I’ve been to Israel and the Golan Heights and I understand the threats Israel faces from outside and within. I can’t summarize my position as the issues are too complex. I do believe in a strong national defense.  But our security is not threatened by Iraq and Afghanistan.

L: Where do you stand on Iraq and Afghanistan?

J: I believe we should pull out of both and return our focus to fighting terrorism. The focus needs to be protecting America. I’m not sure if that is still the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was surprised that Obama increased US presence in Afghanistan.

L: What about Social Security reform?

J:  Social Security is flawed.  When it was brought into existence the life expectancy was  55. Benefits started at 65.  Now, life expectancy is 75, and benefits start at about the same age. It’s a Ponzi scheme.  A combination of benefit reduction and/or privatization are necessary.  At least part of Social Security should include private accounts that are counted in your estate.

L: What do you think of making Social Security voluntary and converting it into a defined contribution plan?

J: That would make it viable.

L: What is your position on states’ rights and state sovereignty?

J: The states are 50 laboratories of democracy.  The burden that the federal government places on the states is outrageous.  The same is true of health care.  A return to federalism is needed.

L: Thank you, Governor.  I am certain that liberty Republicans will be interested in learning more about your ideas.

The culmination of Weyl’s ideas has occurred. The close linkage between the Progressivism of the Rockefeller Republicans (of whom Theodore Roosevelt was the first) and the social democracy of the Democrats (that traces back to Franklin Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan) is now evident. With the bailout we see that both Progressivism and social democracy are, as Weyl knew and advocated, complementary versions of socialism.  The triumph of Progressivism was, as Gabriel Kolko put it, the triumph of conservatism.

One side effect of this is we now know what to call them. They are not  “liberals”, which is what libertarians should be called. They are not “Progressives” because no ideology is more conservative than socialism.  Nor are they “social democrats” because they do not believe in democracy, preferring pandering to Wall Street and other special interests, especially public sector unions, failed manufacturing firms and banks to democracy.  Rather, they are SOCIALISTS.  I therefore say to you now:

KNOW YE BY THESE PRESENTS THAT HENCEFORTH I, MITCHELL LANGBERT, REFUSE TO CALL  ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS BY ANY OTHER THAN THEIR TRUE NAME: SOCIALISTS.

A second side effect is that there is an important struggle ahead: to retake control of the GOP.  In the early twentieth century the GOP was the party of Progressivism.  William Howard Taft was what today would be called a conservative, and Theodore Roosevelt bolted the GOP to start the Progressive or Bull Moose Party by which time he was aggressively socialist.  William Jennings Bryan had captured the Democrats in 1896 on behalf of populism, and these ideas found final articulation not in the Progressivism of Wilson, who was for most of his life a Bourbon or laissez faire Democrat, but of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The fact is that most of FDR’s ideas had already been advocated by TR in 1912.

The GOP never recovered from the harm that TR did. Subsequent presidents, Harding and Coolidge, were not ideologically astute and did absolutely nothing to alter the Progressive institutions that Roosevelt and Wilson had initiated. Hoover was a Progressive from the time he had worked for Woodrow Wilson as his food industry price fixing Czar during World War I.  The New Deal was just a continuation of Hoover’s failed Progressive ideas such as using public works to cure unemployment. Eisenhower did nothing to reduce government and added his share, such as the Interstates.  Goldwater and Reagan were a departure, but George W. Bush was part of the Progressive tradition, and waited until several years into his office to make it clear.

We are left with a situation where socialist extremists are in control of both parties. The pro-bailout Republicans of McCain and Bush and the socialist Democrats constitute a twin-headed hydra.  We can win, though, because a healthy 30 percent of America still favors freedom.  If we align ourselves with various other interests, such as the religious,  we can win.

But there is a big fight ahead. Liberty Republicans need to think about how to convince the Rockefeller Republicans to move to their true home–the Democratic Party.  Yes, let’s get rid of them.  They predominate in the unwinnable Blue states anyway, and the public will not care if oil, health care and insurance executives align themselves with the party of greed, the Democrats.

In any case, we have a good argument:  the pro bailout Republicans lost because of their ideas. They have failed. They should step aside.

Mitchell Langbert blogs at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com.

The late economist Milton Friedman, whose wife Rose sadly passed away earlier this week, used to say that “nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” Generally this is true, but — despite the fact that Congress authorized an additional $2 billion in emergency funding for the bill two weeks ago — there are reports that the Cash for Clunkers program may already be out of cash yet again.

No problem, since the government has an unlimited source of revenue: namely, We the People. Another Friedman quote may be better fitting for this particular case: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there would be a shortage of sand.”

Okay, so the Cash for Clunkers program is immensely popular — so why the criticism?

The program, administered by the the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (you trust them, don’t you?), was created to help boost the auto industry while helping the environment.

Sounds good, right? Consumers who own a car with low fuel efficiency can receive $3,500 to $4,500 from the federal government if they buy a new car with higher fuel efficiency.

Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron explains several problems with the program, namely: 1) the program pays people to junk cars that still have economic value; 2) the program will cause an increase in driving; 3) Official government policy favors one industry (automobiles, in this case) at the expense of other industries. Miron concludes that Congress “should end the program, not expand it”.

Of course, the government solution does not come without inefficiencies. This article points out that many car dealerships are considering pulling out of the program because they are not receiving payments from the government. Many of the dealerships understandably need that money to pay their bills and meet their payroll. Surprise, surprise — the government is not responding to local car dealerships who are participating in its own program.

Finally, there is today’s headline in The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: “Charities worry that car donations will go clunk” — which is very concerning.  Talk about a good way to stifle the market — let’s just put charities out of business altogether and have the government save us all.

The article highlights how very worthwhile endeavors such as Kidney Cars Program and the Rawhide Boys Ranch are now competing with the government. These private charities — along with scores of others — both use donated vehicles to raise funds for their programs.

This underscores Professor Miron’s point about the negative impact of the government coming to the rescue of one industry and impacting it to the detriment of other industries.

A program like Cash for Clunkers is simply not an appropriate role for a constitutionally limited government to administer in a free society.

Cash for Clunkers is a temporary solution that will soon go broke.

We’ll just have to wait and see how long it takes for the politicians to — once again — rescue the overzealous program with the hard-earned dollars of cash-strapped American taxpayers.