Clarion Content

Don't know how many of you loyal readers have yet read our rant on the Clarion Content's politics page about Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell's ill-considered opposition to a proposal in the stimulus package to spend $600 million replacing old government fleet vehicles with newer more fuel efficient ones.

The Clarion Content is in favor of replacing old government fleet vehicles with newer more fuel efficient autos on two levels; first the idea of improved fuel efficiency of such a massive fleet of vehicles is very environmentally appealing, second the idea of spending this money on the auto industry to purchase new vehicles, especially fuel efficient ones, is exactly the kind of auto industry stimulus (over loans and handouts) the Clarion Content yearns for.

Finally the reasoning that made us so fired up at Senator McConnell and all the short-sighted thinkers who oppose this proposal is the inevitability angle. Inevitably and inarguably every vehicle the federal government owns and uses right now will eventually have to be replaced. You don't see them driving the President or even the lowliest one-star General around in '57 Chevys, do ya Senator? Ya know why genius-boy, because eventually they got so old and wore out they had to be replaced! You don't see the U.S. Army riding around in Willy Jeeps, do ya Senator? Inevitably the government must eventually replace and/or upgrade its vehicle fleet! What's your argument then, sir? That it is a disgusting perk to give to government employees in these times? Really? What are you driving? Or more likely what's your personal driver driving?<

President Obama should waste no time trying to forge a bi-paritsian compromise with these jokers. As he has said repeatedly, we have had eight years of huge tax cuts for the rich as the lever to stimulate the economy; it wrought a massive federal deficit, the moral hazard of firms like AIG, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, and the worst economic times the world has faced since the dark days before World War II.

Labels: ecology, Economy, energy policy, Politics