The Squad Has a Meltdown Over Pro-Terrorism Encampments Getting Dismantled
Dutch Police Bust Up Pro-Hamas Camp With Bulldozers at the University of Amsterdam
Joe Biden Is Unraveling American-Israeli Relations Before Our Eyes
Joe Biden Just Lost Another Battle With His Teleprompter
PolitiFact Hates Facts From Campuses
Police Officer Stuck in BLM Nightmare
Liberal Media Shocked to Learn Joe Biden Isn't Doing Too Hot In the...
Rep. Brian Mast Has Perfect Response to Pro-Hamas Activists Ambushing Him
Speaker Mike Johnson Gets to Keep His Job
Prosecutor Leading Stormy Daniels Questioning In Trump Trial Is a Major Biden Donor
Trump Finds Brilliant Way to Sidestep Judge Merchan's Unconstitutional Gag Order
Lloyd Austin Confirms Delay in Aid to Israel: 'We’ve Paused One Shipment of...
Here’s Why This Democrat Rep Thinks NPR Is 'Necessary’ for Americans
Department of Education's Move Forces Jewish Groups to Pull Out of Meeting
Sickening: 'Newcomer' Illegal Immigrant Arrested in Florida for Heinous Crime
Tipsheet

Government Control Into Perpetuity?

Language in the House-passed auto bailout bill seems to allow the "Car Czar" to dictate to automakers what cars they can make and how much they can charge for them
Advertisement
 -- at least under certain conditions (i.e., failure on the part of the companies to come up with a plan that meets the czar's approval).

So Democrats really believe that the government can find one person who is equipped to make these central planning decisions?  What if the person has an agenda of his own (for example., he decides that having "green" cars will make the car companies more "competitive" -- and is more important -- than consumers being able to choose larger cars)?

The point is that at least the car companies are incentivized only to produce cars that will be competitive in US markets -- that's how they will make money.  That's their sole mission.  But the "car czar" doesn't necessarily have that incentive (at least, not to the same degree).

Finally, has anyone heard of anything in any of this "bailout" legislation specifying a time and a manner that government oversight and control would end -- something like a certain period of solvency, or repayment of loans, or some other benchmark?  Or is the Obama administration and its ideological allies on Capitol Hill happy to have the government control American business into perpetuity?

And isn't there something a little ironic about the government -- the least profitable, most profligate, most inefficient entity in America -- presuming to tell companies how to do their business?

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement