Ulterior Motives in "Cash for Clunkers?"

When one remembers that the left is often indirect in working toward their goals, one can take a look at a wide range of their actions, and see their statements put into action.  I think “Cash for Clunkers” may be such an example.  It’s a plan that looks good to many, and is obviously popular, but there are consequences that seem to fit some of their other goals.  Let’s take a look.  My first observation is a bit unrelated to the premise, but I think it’s important all it’s own.

They planned to have this program for four months.  It ran out of cash in four days!  And this is the same government that KNOWS how much their single payer plan will cost?  They can’t even estimate how to fund a four-month plan, but they can plan for decades of health care expenditures?  This is laughable.  Again, the cheerleaders at the MSM are simply saying that the program is “SOOOOO SUCCESSFUL!”

The cars traded in on the program are to be destroyed.  Now, in normal situations, a trade in will either go on the dealer lot, go to auction, or go to the junkyard.  In any of those situations, others will have the opportunity to benefit from this car, either by driving it, or by purchasing the usable parts from it.  When the car is destroyed, there is little benefit.  Or is there?  I wrote here about how the new Secretary of Transportation wants to “coerce” people out of their cars and onto public transportation.  Here are some quotes…

The moderator of the press club event asked LaHood: “Some in the highway-supporters motorist groups have been concerned by your livability initiative. Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars?”

LaHood answered: “It is a way to coerce people out of their cars.

And some more…

Lahood then made a joke about the fact that some conservatives believe that the way he wants to use the Department of Transportation represents an increased government intrusion in people’s lives.

“Some conservative groups are wary of the livable communities program, saying it’s an example of government intrusion into people’s lives,” said the moderator. “How do you respond?”

“About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people’s lives,” said LaHood. “So have at it.”

“So have at it.”  Pretty cavalier attitude regarding manipulating the public into a pre-arranged goal, isn’t it?

In the “Cash for Clunkers” plan, how many cars will be taken out of the market?  How many fewer Americans will be able to own a used car due to this?  New cars that are to be made to the messiah’s specifications will be more and more expensive.  To reach the mileage and emissions goals, more, newer technology will have to go in, increasing the cost.  With so many used cars sent to the crusher, where will people go for a car when they cannot afford the newer ones?  Funded with $1,000,000,000, the initial plan was to scrap 250,000 cars.  The congress wants to add another $2,000,000,000 to the plan, does that mean a total of 750,000 cars?   How many people will that “coerce” onto public transportation?

Am I reaching here?  Quite possibly, however, if we look at what the left says, and compare it to what they do, some interesting patterns emerge.