Cheaper By The Dozen?

Nissan hopes to launch 2,500 dollar car in India in 2010

Nissan and Renault hope to start selling a car for about 2,500 dollars in India in around 2010 along with their local partner there, chief executive Carlos Ghosn said Wednesday.

“We have already practically decided all the attributes of the car,” Ghosn told reporters at the Tokyo Motor Show.“We have the full intention to do it — if it’s feasible. Hopefully this is going to be 2010 in India,” he said.

Ghosn, who heads both Japan’s Nissan Motor Co. and its French partner Renault, said he would visit Indian partner Bajaj Auto next week for talks on the car.

He said that it appeared possible to make a 2,500-dollar car for India, but the big question was whether it could be exported to other markets such as Europe, China, Brazil, Mexico or even the United States.

“But the first step is to make it for India and to make it competitive,” he added.

[Breitbart.com, 24 Oct 2007]

My only question here, and it’s one area in which I have some small amount of expertise, is, “What about quality?”

Outsourcing manufacturing, to be sure, lowers manufacturers’ imediate costs.  But it’s a proven fact that many Third World countries (e.g., China, India, Mexico, Pakistan, etc.) don’t give a rip about quality, and tend towards fatalism in practice, if not when things go wrong (of course, that’s a little late if you’re on the business end of the manufacturer’s or producer’s negligence).

Need proof?  Well, do you remember the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal [WARNING:  Link contains disturbing image and story]?  How about the lead-saturated Chinese toys that were recalled back in 19… oh, wait… that’s still happening!

Clinton a Crook? Say It Ain’t So!

One of the few things Hillary or Giuliani have said with which I can agree is “America can’t afford” Hill’s ideas.  My lovely bride, one of Clinton pollster Mark Penn’s infamously touted potential “24%” women, recently vented (candidly) on Hillary:

What is she thinking?!  He [Bill] is a lying, philandering SOB!  What difference does it make if he knows where to buy flowers or jewelry?!  Or, more believably, if one of his assistants knows where to buy them?  Who cares?! Who would vote for her?

I hate to use such anecdotal evidence, but it seems the Clinton campaign may not have its thumb on the pulse of female Americans.  (Vote for her just because she’s a woman? As if her politics has nothing to do with anything?)  But it kinda relates to character, which is the point of the following.

Now, nearly a decade after her husband sold US ballistic missile technology to Red China for campaign money, Hillary seems to be lobbying for (more) money from Chinese nationals:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been raising huge piles of money in Chinatown [in New York City], but some of it has come from donors who can’t be located or who were improperly repaid for their contributions, according to The Post and other reports.

The story then documents several instances of multiple large donations and reimbursed donors, or “straw donations” prohibited by law.

In addition, yesterday’s search by The Post also turned up several $1,000 donations from Chinatown that were made by cooks, dishwashers, a cashier and a college student. The Findings closely match a report yesterday by the Los Angeles Times that found a huge number of Chinatown donations from donors listing bogus addresses or in amounts unlikely, given the donor’s occupation.

The Times examined 150 donors, one-third of whose addresses could not be found. [Listed addresses turned out to be an STD clinic and a knock-off watch shop, for example]  As with the Post search, most of the donors are not registered to vote.

 

 

In April, for instance, the Clinton campaign raised $380,000 from a single fund-raiser in Chinatown, the Times said.  By comparison, Sen. John Kerry raised $24,000 in Chinatown during his entire campaign…

[New York Post, 20 October 2007]

Identity politicians raced to fill the gap with implications (stopping short of actual accusations) of race-baiting and xenophobia, along with a healthy dose of “mind yer own business!

In the wake of the Norman Hsu debacle, you’d think Billary would want to distance herself from any appearance of impropriety. Nope. She’s bulletproof (unlike Clinton whistleblowers):

“We do not ethnically profile donors,” growled [Clinton campaign communications director] Howard Wolfson.  “Asian-Americans in Chinatown and Flushing have the same right to contribute as every other American.”

Apparently, this “no profiling” policy includes screening for the required minimum residency status required of campaign contributors by law, as at least one donor interviewed in the LA Times story admitted to not being a legal resident.

But my concern here is this:  since all the pundits claim the natural, or at least obvious, choice for Dems is Hillary, do we really need another president who’s been bought and paid for by foreign interests?

Can Somebody Please Explain This Sentence?

“…they blame Mr. Bush and Republicans for [the Democrat-controlled] Congress’s low approval ratings, which they say will only help the Democrats expand their majority in 2008.” [New York Times, 27 October 2007]

So the Democrats are doing a crappy job as the majority in Congress, and this will help them get more Democrats elected next year?

Ok-a-a-a-y…  So if I don’t meet any departmental goals or benefit my business unit in any way this year, I’m a shoo-in for that promotion next year?  Great!  I’ll just stop making any effort now!

[Grab yer hankie and read further down in that article... it goes on sobbing all about how the Congress hasn't gotten a raise or cost-of-living increase this year (because they voted against it; apparently, $165,200 will do for now).  My favorite is the line bemoaning the long distances Representatives must travel to reach their home districts – because DC must've moved after the elections, and they'd no idea how far it was gonna be.  Idiots.]

HUTCHISON VOTES FOR AMNESTY

Soon-to-be-vacating Senator and Texas Gubernatorial hopeful Kay Bailey Hutchison yesterday voted FOR ILLEGAL ALIEN AMNESTY. The so-called “DREAM Act” would’ve amnestied, potentially, hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who claimed – there were no requirements to actually prove it – they had been in the US since before their 15^th birthday, among other things.

Let’s remember this in 2010; we Texans wouldn’t want to end up in the same fix we are now.

BTW, (rather conspicuously) Presidential contenders McCain (R) and Dodd (D), as well as, oddly, Chappaquiddick Ted (Mass Immigration Superstar, 1965-2007), did not vote.  This is proof, I think, that McCain left his moral courage in a cage in SE Asia. Kennedy, we all know, never had any.  Dodd’s lack-of-vote is just listed for any pro-borders people who were (for whatever reason) considering his candidacy.

I have to admit, I prefer Kuala Lumpur’s “leave now, on your own, and we won’t round you up and beat you” definition of amnesty to this Administration’s protests of “it’s not amnesty.”  [Let me be clear: this is not advocacy of any of Malaysia's other policies, violence against illegals here, or police brutality anywhere.]

Arbeit Macht Frei

[Disclaimer:  Godwin's Law does not apply here; in defense of the title of this post (emblazoned on the gates of the Auschwitz concentration camp; it translates, loosely, as "work will set you free"), this is not a direct comparison of anyone to Hitler or Nazi Germany.  It is, however, a warning against accepting doublethink (a.k.a. PC, or "cultural communism," thought and speech) and a powerful, aggressive government.] 

Now here’s the problem – well, one of a great many problems – I have with our government and the current Chief Executive (as opposed to the often-misused “Commander-in-Chief,” which, neocon “invade the world”-ers’ incessant drum-beating notwithstanding, only applies if one is currently a member of the US Armed Forces; this means it doesn’t obtain for nearly all Americans [even we who are proud veterans]), as a Constitutionalist and small-government fiscal libertarian.  What I’m talking about is, well, this:

[Graphic courtesy The Cato Institute, via McClatchydc.com]

George W. Bush… is the biggest spending President since Lyndon B. Johnson.  In fact, he’s arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ.

“He’s a big government guy,” said Stephen Slivinski, the director of budget studies at Cato Institute, a libertarian research group.

The numbers are clear, credible, and conclusive, added David Keating, the executive director of the Club for Growth, a budget-watchdog group.

“He’s a big spender.” Keating said.  “No question about it.”

Take almost any yardstick and Bush generally exceeds the spending of his predecessors.

[NOTE:  I really think that some of what is deemed "mandatory" isn't; and, in fact, we could probably eliminate 80% of Cabinet-level departments without anyone really noticing, and then get rid of all the federal handouts – taking care of those in need is better done by private groups and individuals, anyway.  Active-duty military members should be paid tax-free at all times, not just in war zones (But, of course, so should everyone else).  The Federal government should really be involved in only two things:  defending and enforcing our borders, and maintaining our roads and bridges – come to think of it, two things they really haven't been doing so well.]

According to Congressional (CBO) estimates, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars could cost as much as $2.4 trillion by 2017 – that’s about 10% of the entire budget requirements Bush estimated in his 10-year budget plan when he took office in 2001.  And that 5.3% annual growth translates to more than a 50% increase in the size of the budget over his two terms.  Other estimates show federal spending almost doubling in the same period.  This is good to know, considering the fact that the GOP 2004 platform is very clear that big government = bad. (Scroll down to around page 46 for the discussion of “fiscal discipline” – and get ready to laugh)  [I swear, this thing sometimes reads like a chapter from 1984:  War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.  But the DNC’s is no better.]

Now, a lot of people might scream that I’m a Bush-bashing liberal, or that I’m a “hate-America-first”-er; if that’s what you think, you’re wrong.  On the contrary, I’m a Constitutional conservative with the obligatory heavily libertarian leanings who voted once for Bush (2000), once against Kerry (2004 – obviously), who loves these United States, probably to a fault, but who is sickened to my soul by the emerging Global Neocon Hegemony.

But, for the purposes of this article, I’m simply a small-government conservative who thinks it’s unethical and probably immoral to go into debt for any reason.  And that goes double for a country.

So I can’t reconcile the GOP’s professed belief in small government with the fact that “Dubya” has grown the size of the federal government more than any President since FDR, and expanded the scope of executive powers more than any since Lincoln.