Yeah, it turns out I was exactly right. Back in June, I wrote:

Yes, capitalism is harsh. But you know what’s even worse? The government interfering with markets that indirectly end up hurting the very people they claim to be helping.

Sadly, I hate gloating on this one. This is a real economic problem that has devastating effects on low income people. For many Americans, having a car isn’t a luxury. I realize that most liberals live in urban enclaves with public transportation systems, so this can be a difficult concept to grasp. Most Americans live in rural or suburban areas. Having a car is the only means of getting to and from work or the store. In my previous post, I shared my difficulties in finding a late model Honda compared to a similar car search I had in 2007. Paying $1,800 more for a car is painful, especially for those of us on budgets. Hot Air notes:

As predicted last year, the people most hurt by the price increases are those who can least afford them. The used-car market usually attracts people who need transportation on a budget, who cannot afford to buy new. By destroying a quarter’s worth of trade-ins in three weeks and permanently taking them off the market, the Obama administration has forced an artificial inflation by supply restriction. Moreover, they did so by subsidizing new-car sales that would have occurred anyway, eating up three billion dollars in taxpayer money.

In other words, the White House spent $3 billion to make used cars more expensive for working-class families. Nice work.

Great job, Obama Administration. Please, stop trying to fix the economy! The American people may actually survive this storm if you just sit on your thumbs in the White House and enjoy the perks. Perhaps Pelosi and Reid can take up Obama’s golf schedule?

This chart is a graphic representation of that quote.

Click here to download the full-size. It’s even scarier. (PDF)

This is an official update of the chart from last summer from Rep. Kevin Brady from Texas.

Keep in mind, this program hasn’t been implemented yet. What happens when Congress goes back to “fix” some of the issues? This chart is doomed to get worse. Far worse.

When I struggled to find a job after I graduated from college in 2004 because the economy was in a slump, I put it in the perspective of what my parents had experienced. The economy was growing, and people were hiring.

Going forward, I think the present economic situation may dwarf all previous stories and experience. Check out this graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Americans seeking employment for 27+ weeks.

If government spending was going to fuel economic recovery, we should be seeing it…now…at the very latest. Instead, government interference has prolonged this nightmare. Keep in mind, we don’t know if the housing market has hit bottom yet. Oh yeah, the biggest tax hike in history is about to hit in six months.

Read this if you want some more sobering news.

Update: Apparently, I’m not alone in seeing government as the problem not the solution. Per CNS, Rasmussen released a poll that found:

Less than a third, 29 percent, believe the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus package, improved the economy. Meanwhile, 43 percent believe it hurt the economy.

What’s more absurd? Americans believe that tax cuts create more jobs than government spending. Shocking!

In what Republican lawmakers would likely consider good news, 69 percent in the Rasmussen poll believe tax cuts are a better way to create jobs than more government spending.

Nope. They need volunteers…

According to Voices for National Service, there’s a proposal to create a new branch of the Corporation for National Community Service:

On June 30, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) introduced H.R. 5654, the Gulf Coast Restoration Act, which will create new “wage-earning jobs and national service positions to clean and restore the Gulf Coast waters, beaches, and habitats as well as rebuild local communities and economies.” In creating a Gulf Coast Community Conservation Corps (CCC), the bill recognizes the expertise of the Corporation for National and Community Service and the agency’s grantees in responding to past disasters – such as Hurricane Katrina and 2008′s severe flooding in Iowa.

The original co-sponsors of the Gulf Coast Restoration Act include Reps. Steve Israel (D-NY), Jim Himes (D-CT), Gerry Connolly (D-VA), Jim Langevin (D-RI), Betty Sutton (D-OH), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), John Lewis (D-GA), and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY). The Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition in the House has endorsed the bill as well.

Download the press release here.

Never let a crisis go to waste, and why waste this opportunity to expand the funding and power of the federal governments’ bastion of socialism–the Corporation for National and Community Service?

While the Gulf Coast does need help to clean up and restore, it can be done with…volunteers. They don’t need paid volunteers. They don’t need expensive government programs with layers and layers of bureaucracy. There are thousands upon thousands of environmental NGOs. Why aren’t these groups empowered to clean up the Gulf? Why do we have to spend additional money in creating another government program from an agency that has extensive corruption and ethics violations that are consistently overlooked? (Honestly, CNCS should be investigated as the next ACORN. It’s just as bad.)

If we are going to spend federal money in the clean-up project, why don’t we pay private companies employing local people who are already trained in how to deal with this disaster? Creating a new government program is immensely expensive. Once legislation passes, it can take months until policies are drafted to implement them. Then there’s marketing, recruitment, hiring, transportation, administration, etc. If this is created, it could be six months to a year before the first oil-covered duck is washed by a GCCC volunteer.

The spin on this bill is that it will create jobs in the economically-devastated Gulf. Perhaps it will create “jobs” but can people actually live on those?

The entire point of Corporation for National Community Service is to fight poverty. Ignore the mission creep of putting the GCCC under the CNCS, but no program under the Corporation actually pays what liberals like to call a “living wage.” Unless you are in management and a full federal employee, you only earn a small stipend or 105% of the poverty level. They are happy to provide you with a $5,000 grant for college or to forgive student loans, but that money doesn’t pay the rent or put food on the table.

105% of the poverty level will definitely fill the gap of high-paying jobs on oil rigs or decent jobs that shrimpers or fisheries provide…

While this program will supposedly be funded by BP,* why not put the money into actual clean up? By creating a new government program, the Democrats sponsoring this legislation are creating an additional pork project that will eventually run out of money and force more Americans to be dependent on government. When the eventual monies run out from BP, they’ll whine and complain about this hurting the children and demand expanded government funding. This is a blatant attempt to create more federal jobs and destroy the private sector.

My biggest problem with liberals is the deep faith that no matter the problem, a government agency should be created to deal with it. It doesn’t matter if the original problem was created by an existing government program. They just create another pork project or add a layer of bureaucracy.

Keep in mind that the Corporation for National and Community Service already saw a massive, and I mean, massive increase in funding with the Obama Administration. Shouldn’t they have an existing reserve fund for disasters? Every time there’s an emergency, they go back to Congress for additional aid. They did it with Katrina and with the Midwest flooding a few years ago.

This would be like going to your boss for a raise every time you get sick, have a car accident or need to replace a kitchen appliance. The American people are broke. It’s time that this entitlement mentality from government programs end. We will never be fiscally sound as long legislation this ridiculous is even allowed to be considered.

*Why is Congress looking at BP as a bottomless cash cow? Their stock has already declined in value. Eventually, they’ll run out of money. What happens when the company goes under because President Obama and Congress are determined to teach them a lesson? Jobs will be lost and even more lives destroyed. Also remember that many retirement funds have stock in BP. While BP’s culture needs to change, and the company should take responsibility for their wrongdoing, a witch hunt will ultimately hurt American taxpayers.

It did nothing.

Let me clarify that. It did nothing in the new car market. Ed Morrissey didn’t cover the effect it had on the used car market.

He writes:

The data show that the government stimulus did increase sales — but that the following month, sales dropped in proportion to the spike.  The three-week incentive program simply moved sales from the future into the present, and did nothing to increase organic demand even in a relatively short run.  Sales had already begun to rebound in the spring, even with the Cash for Clunkers proposal moving through Congress.

What this chart doesn’t show is the poor timing of the program.  C4C hit as dealers would have been discounting vehicles anyway, in order to make room for the new models that arrive in September.  Instead of hitting the point where demand might flag, the C4C program overlaid an incentive-rich period in the sales cycle for auto dealers.  That killed demand when the new models did arrive, which likely forced dealers and manufacturers into pushing hard on incentives that may not have been needed otherwise.

He adds that the program did cost Americans because Congress borrowed and spent billions to promote it.

How did removing nearly 700,000 used cars from the national inventory affect price? Let’s think back to Econ 101 in college…

Manheim Consulting released a report on 2009 car sales. Per their executive summary (full report is $250):

The 15th edition of Manheim Consulting’s Used Car Market Report (UCMR) explores the economic and industry trends that specifically influenced the demand for and supply of used vehicles in 2009. It was an unprecedented year during which used vehicle prices soared as consignors had fewer vehicles to remarket. Meanwhile more franchised dealers turned to used vehicles to support their stores and independent dealers fine-tuned their inventory to emphasize faster turnover. Dealers often repeated that finding the exact models they needed took more effort than in the past.

Reason Magazine wrote:

Too bad used cars are becoming much more expensive. Demand for used cars is up, and supply is down. People traded in 3 million fewer cars last year than in the pre-recession years. And perhaps you recall those 677,842 functional cars we junked as part of the Cash for Clunkers plan? Yeah, those aren’t on the market either.

Like millions of Americans, I prefer to buy used cars. Readers may remember that my life was spared in a horrific accident with a tractor trailer that totaled my car back in January.  This forced me back into the used car market while I was between jobs this winter.

Given financial constraints and an abhorrence of borrowing money for a depreciating item, I balked at spending very much. I grew up listening to Larry Burkett on the radio, so I’m brainwashed to only buy used cars. I thought it would be tough, but not impossible. I wanted to replace my late model Accord with another one. In 2006, I purchased my now-totaled 1996 Accord for around $5,000 with 48,000 miles on it to replace my 1989 Accord that died with 205,000 miles. This followed a pattern of other low-mileage used cars that my parents always purchased.

There was nothing on the market. Absolutely nothing. Used cars were at a premium. Even adjusting for inflation since 2006, the few used cars for sale had higher miles and were around 30% higher than the market in 2006. I looked for four months in both Tennessee and the DC Metro area. I finally ended up buying my mom’s late-model Honda Accord when she decided to get a newer minivan.

The differences in the two searches were staggering. The volume of inventory was dramatically lower than in 2006. The market had responded to the most basic law of economics. When supply is low but demand continues, the price goes up. Cash for Clunkers killed the used car market.

This leads me to ask a question that Democrats always love to throw around: what about the poor people?

I’m middle class, and I struggled to find a car. What about low-income people who depend on clunkers? The Cash for Clunkers program directly pitted two key Democratic constituencies against each other: environmentalists and the impoverished. Individuals making only  minimum wage don’t have the luxury to care about polluting the environment. And before you attack me, please remember that I’ve worked extensively with social service organizations and spent two years as an AmeriCorps VISTA. These are fields that I know and understand.

Kiplinger reports that the market is unlikely to rebound until 2012. Hope you don’t have to look for a used car anytime soon!

Yes, capitalism is harsh. But you know what’s even worse? The government interfering with markets that indirectly end up hurting the very people they claim to be helping.

Researchers at the University of Queensland, who surveyed 13,000 women, said that the difference in pay remained the same even when other factors such as height, weight and education were removed.

They could not explain why blonde-haired women enjoy more financial success, but said no other hair colour produced similar results.

Do sociological factors determine the success of blondes?

Disclosure: I have blonde hair. Therefore, I apparently make $2,400 more than my non-blonde peers and will likely marry a wealthier man. (My mom should be breathing a sigh of relief over that one.) Naturally, I have dark blonde hair, but have had hair color all over the spectrum. I’ve had platinum hair (a mistake which drove me to only trust my hair stylist to color), brown hair and red hair. I was a faux redhead for two years.

Since at least the Middle Ages, blonde-haired women have been the standard of beauty. As such, I theorize that blondes have the upper-hand because we’ve been conditioned to view them (or I guess, us) at the top of the social strata. That explains why blondes would marry wealthier men. In economic terms, the man with the most resources would be able to take his pick of bride. Why not marry the woman who most closely resembles society’s ideals?

But do we make more? I don’t personally know since I’ve never compared salaries to women in similar jobs as me. Confidence is the major factor contributing to salary negotiation, and women are generally terrible at asking for higher pay. Since society views blondes as having the ideal beauty, are the flaxen-haired more confident than other women with the same socioeconomic factors excluding hair color?

I do believe that society has given us an easy out when we make mistakes. I’d love to see a survey question how many blondes have taken advantage of the dumb blonde stereotype.

Admittedly, I’ve used that crutch.  It’s an easy, easy excuse to make. When faced with a social or professional mistake, which course would you take? Making people laugh by shrugging it off as a “blonde moment” or face more serious consequences? It’s human nature to try and make a tense or bad situation funny, so perhaps blondes are more apt to perpetuate that stereotype to diffuse a situation or get out of trouble.

According to Hollywood, dumb blondes are also much more successful. From classic movies with Marilyn Monroe to The Girls Next Door, dumb or shallow blondes always end up winning. Also, because society has pushed the dumb blonde stereotype, are people more likely to expect less of blondes? Is it a catch-22? We’re held to lower standards because of the stereotype and when situations arise, we use it to get ourselves out of trouble?

As Jezebel notes, the statement from the International Blondes Association (which sounds just as silly as the proposed Blonde Defense Fund in the book version of Legally Blonde), this quote is rather absurd:

Olga Uskova, president of the International Blondes Association, told the Mail on Sunday: “Blondes have wealthier husbands because we are more fun and outgoing, and men are more attracted to us.

“We also do better in the workplace because when we make a mistake we can say, ‘Oh, sorry about that, it’s because I’m blonde’ and get away with it.”

How do you know blondes are more outgoing and fun? Can that realistically be measured? Again, that’s just a perception promoted by Hollywood and apparently members of the International Blonde Association.

Having experimented with my hair color so much, I do think that society has special exemptions for blondes. I noticed a distinct difference in the way people treated me when I had red hair. I find that I’m viewed as less threatening as a blonde (of course a woman espousing conservative views is always viewed as threatening).  As a confident woman with a strong personality and outspoken views, I’m accepted far easier as a blonde than I was as a redhead. Of course, my experiences are anecdotal and can usually be explained by other factors.

Am I happier  and more outgoing? There are many more factors that go into happiness than hair color. I don’t think that changing my hair color had any bearing on it. I feel more like myself as a blonde than when I had red hair. It is far easier to maintain your natural hair color than a fake one, especially in DC where a cut and color top $150 every six weeks.

What about men? Are blonde men viewed differently? Why does this standard only apply to women? While thinking about this post, the only example that I could remember was some backlash from the James Bond franchise when they announced Daniel Craig was the new Bond.  Since he deviated from the Bond tradition of dark-haired men, his hair color was the lede.

What do you think? Are blonde women happier and more successful? What would cause the results of this study? Is this an example of research dollars being wasted or a sign that it comes down to genetics to determine success and happiness?

No staffer should be openly rude to constituents.  Even after the videographer tells him that the video is going up on YouTube, the staffer replies, “A lot of people put stuff on Youtube and put stuff out of context and try to make people look bad.”

No one is making this guy look bad. He’s doing it too himself.

But who is this guy? He needs to lose his job faster than Corker can say “financial reform.”

The post originated on Big Government and was picked up by a few other blogs. Aside from attribution from “Memphis talk radio,” there aren’t many details. The same goes for the account on YouTube. This video and a longer cut are the only ones posted under the account “Reaganite92,” which was created yesterday.

Since the video does not identify the staffer, it took a little bit of investigation to find him.

I believe that the staffer in the video is Nick Kistenmacher, field director for Memphis. Mr. Kistenmacher was hired in 2008 and was an adjunct professor at the University of Memphis and a former staffer for Rep. Marsha Blackburn. Photo comparison after the jump.

Screenshot from BigGovernment.com

Photo from American Waterways Operators Newsletter in May 2008

Ribbon cutting ceremony at Southwest Tennessee Community College

Compared to the two other male staffers in Tennessee offices, photos of Mr. Kistenmacher were difficult to find. However, compare the photos with the still of the YouTube video. In all of the photos, he was identified as Nick Kistenmacher representative of U.S. Senator Bob Corker: a ribbon cutting ceremony at Southwest Tennessee Community College, in a newsletter from the American Waterways Operators, and a fuzzy one at Lauderdale Elementary School in Halls, Tenn.

How did I make this deduction?

Corker’s office lists a staff directory. Since Memphis talk radio originated the story and the office setting does not look like the Dirksen Office Building where Corker has his DC office, I started there. There are also only three male staffers in his Tennessee field offices–Knoxville, Nashville and Memphis. His Knoxville field director is David Leaverton, who played football for the Volunteers while I was a student there. Definitely not him. Corker’s Nashville field director is Paul E. Goode. Google searches reveal that Mr. Goode is also a county commissioner in Sumner County. All of this information was confirmed by Legistorm, which tracks the salaries of congressional staffers.

I’ve complained before that Corker staffers are rude, and I think this video proves it. As a constituent of Corker, I strongly believe this guy needs to go.

Staffers have tough jobs and make little money. However, they should treat all constituents fairly and politely. It’s the first rule of customer service, and frankly the reason why they have jobs.

If you’re upset like me, call Senator Corker’s office and complain. His DC office is 202-224-3344. Chattanooga is 423-756-2757. Nashville is 615-279-8125. Knoxville is 865-637-4180 and Memphis is 901-683-1910. If you prefer to email Corker, click here.

Not sure who this group is, but the video is simultaneously very cool and quite scary.

Makes you upset, doesn’t it?

The videos with the most views will advance to the finals, and “voting” ends tomorrow. The winner will receive a $50,000 award.

I watched a handful of videos today. All of them are inspiring. They range from small businesses to entrepreneurs, aspiring philanthropists and artisans. The videos are a glimpses into the American dream.

It’s difficult to decide on just one. I was directed to the video below which features three small businesses in my neighborhood.