The Enemies List Grows

The ObamaHouse sought a "truce" with Fox News because the former was getting its ass kicked, not so much by FNC (which is, after all, only doing the "watchdogging" a news organization is SUPPOSED to do) as by their own selves.

Clearly, they've sought smaller game they think they can handle:

On the same day that we found out that motor vehicle output added 1.7% to economic growth in the third quarter – the largest contribution to quarterly growth in over a decade – Edmunds.com has released a faulty analysis suggesting that the Cash for Clunkers program had no meaningful impact on our economy or on overall auto sales. This is the latest of several critical “analyses” of the Cash for Clunkers program from Edmunds.com, which appear designed to grab headlines and get coverage on cable TV. Like many of their previous attempts, this latest claim doesn’t withstand even basic scrutiny.

The Edmunds analysis is based on two implausible assumptions:

1. The Edmunds’ analysis rests on the assumption that the market for cars that didn’t qualify for Cash for Clunkers was completely unaffected by this program.

In other words, all the other cars were being sold on Mars, while the rest of the country was caught up in the excitement of the Cash for Clunkers program.  This analysis ignores not only the price impacts that a program like Cash for Clunkers has on the rest of the vehicle market, but the reports from across the country that people were drawn into dealerships by the Cash for Clunkers program and ended up buying cars even though their old car was not eligible for the program.

Um, is the WHITE HOUSE supposed to be talking trash AT ALL?  Much less lame-o trash like this?

What did Edmunds say?  Nothing but the car facts, m'am, nothing but the car facts:

What happened?

Well, it’s in how Edmunds crunched the numbers. A valid way to evaluate the program economically, it says, is to look at how many people purchased cars that otherwise wouldn’t have been bought. The firm says that number is about 125,000 cars. By that measure, the government spent $24,000 to generate each sale of a new car.

For comparison, the average price for a new vehicle in August 2009 was $26,915, minus an average cash rebate of $1,667.

In all, the government spent $3 billion on a program that provided cash toward 690,000 car purchases – about $4,348 per car. That makes 565,000 people who got as much as $4,500 to buy a car they would have bought anyway, according to the Edmunds analysis.

The rest of the story upon which Edmunds didn't touch was that the federal government squandered over three billion dollars moving those 565,000 car sales from fourth quarter or first quarter next year into third quarter '09 in order to artificially goose up 3Q GDP numbers for PR purposes (i.e. "the recession is over!!!!!").  Instead of a tepid car market as stagnant as the rest of the economy, the Dems robbed the future - the car market will now actively suck (i.e. double-dip recession) - in order to stage what they evidently considered to be a desperately needed publicity stunt.  The ObamaHouse, intolerant of any dissent but having no genuine argument against Edmunds' analysis, descended to lockerroom chest-thumping.

If Edmunds was supposed to be intimidated by "the Chicago way," you can't tell by their rebuttal:

At issue is one point of the analysis showing the taxpayer cost for every incremental vehicle sold was $24,000. To be clear, Edmunds.com is not disputing the government’s statements regarding total voucher applications, vehicles sold or voucher values. The key question is how many of these sales would have occurred anyway.

Apparently, the $24,000 figure caught many by surprise. It shouldn’t have. The truth is that consumer incentive programs are always hugely expensive when calculated by incremental sales — always in the tens of thousands of dollars. Cash for Clunkers was no exception.

The White House claims that our analysis was based on car sales on Mars and that on Earth, the marketplace is connected. We agree the marketplace is connected. In fact, that is exactly the basis of our analysis.

It is also claimed we missed the possibility that Cash for Clunkers generated excitement and consumers bought vehicles even if they didn’t qualify for the program — a claim that has been widely supported by anecdote but by little analysis. It does, after all, seem a bit odd that masses of consumers would elect to buy a vehicle because of a program for which they don’t qualify — doubly so when you add in the fact that prices shot up during Cash for Clunkers, creating a disincentive to buy.

Finally, the White House claims that the increase in fourth-quarter production reported by the car manufacturers can be attributed to Cash for Clunkers. But here is a better reason: the economy is recovering accompanied by improved car sales. No manufacturer increases production — a decision with long-term consequences — based on the 30-day sales blip triggered by an event like Cash for Clunkers.

With all respect to the White House, Edmunds.com thinks that instead of shooting the messenger, government officials should take heart from the core message of the analysis: the fundamentals of the auto marketplace are improving faster than the current sales numbers suggest.

If Edmunds is off in their analysis, it is in this rose-colored-glasses optimism.  Car sales will not improve unless the rest of the economy does, and there is still no rational reason to expect any improvement with the anti-growth regime still running the show in D.C.

Frankly, I'm a tad surprised that the ObamaHouse didn't play up on that green-shooty attitude instead of provoking a pissing match instead.  Guess they really are hostile to growth unless they can point to some overt action of theirs as being responsible for it, and equally hostile to any news organization that has the kajunpakt to pronounce their overt actions as the profligate boondoggles they really are.

But fear not, my friends; after all, there is a difference between independent journalists and analysts the Obamunists are trying to squash, and backhanding the slaves they already dominate:

Originally, the New York Times reported on President Barack Obama’s visit to Dover AFB and the arrival of fallen serviceman by explaining that the White House wanted Obama to be seen as concerned and aware of the sacrifices made in America’s war policies:

A small contingent of reporters and photographers accompanied Mr. Obama to Dover, where he arrived at 12:34 a.m. aboard Marine One. He returned to the South Lawn of the White House at 4:45 a.m.
<…>
The images and the sentiment of the president’s five-hour trip to Delaware were intended by the White House to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste.

Following that link now, the second paragraph quoted is nowhere to be seen.  The Jeff Zeleny report contains no editorial announcement of changes after its publication, and no indication of any retraction.  Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette and Nice Deb both noticed the change, however, and Greyhawk also noticed that the NYT didn’t quite redact that paragraph from everywhere on its servers.  The story now reads like this:

The trip was a symbolic one for Mr. Obama, given the gravity of his coming announcement of a new strategy for Afghanistan.

The image of the commander in chief standing on a darkened tarmac, offering a salute to one of the soldiers, highlighted the poignancy of a decision he is facing.

So, first question: Was this a genuine gesture of presidential commiseration from The One, or was it a cynical photo-op?  Center-right opinion is mixed.  To cite a few examples, Lynn Cheney thinks it's total horsecrap, and Ensign Ed and Howard Portnoy are highly skeptical, while Eeyore doesn't so much give B.O. the benefit of the doubt as doesn't see how a cynical photo op would help him right now.

FWIW, as a born, card-carrying cynic anyway, I lean toward HP's take.  I think the very possibility that he wants to convey the image of being "willing to accept the political consequences of further casualties to defend U.S. interests" is itself highly cynical, since his half-assed "McChrystal Lite" bet-hedging has a Vietnam ending that he calculates will obsolve him of any blame for a defeat scrawled all over it.

Regardless, it would certainly be consistent with the Li'l President's famous thin-skinnedness and equally infamous bunker mentality.  Now maybe the Grey Lady did a little self-penance here by disappearing that "offending" paragraph sans a formal retraction; but after the abortive war on Fox, and going after an auto industry publication, does anybody have any difficulty believing that the West Wing Warriors have a full-fledged staff of hundreds monitoring all print and broadcast publications, ready to pounce on the slightest blurb deemed "unacceptable" to Dear Leader?  Or that the Times would fold like a K-Mart deck chair?

I realize that these people think they're invincible and untouchable, but they're so carried away with this delusional godhood mentality that they don't realize how many enemies they're accumulating, how many friends they're alienating, and that one day they're going to wake up and find themselves all alone, with nothing and nobody to help them.

This, of course, is when Lucifer will be most dangerous of all.  But that's another post.