Scorched Earth.

In war, there are a lot of ways to play defense. You can fight right on the battle lines, like the fronts of World War I, where Germans were on one side of the line, Frenchmen on the other, and woe be to anyone who was in between them. You can stage a counter-attack, going straight to the enemy in an attempt to catch them off guard, as well as hoping to get your troops incensed and ready to fight to the death. You can set up an ambush, striking when the enemy least suspects it. You can take the route of the Continental Army (and the Viet Cong), and take up a policy of guerrilla warfare, striking from all angles, then quickly retreating. Or you can do Scorched Earth.

Scorched Earth is a very, very extreme way of fighting a war. It's been popularized by the Russians, as they utilized it to destroy Napoleon's Grand Armee, as well as stop Operation Barbarossa. Under Scorched Earth, when the defending army loses a battle, before they retreat, the destroy everything of value. Farmland, warehouses, all fall to the flames. When Napoleon's army marched through Russia, they were met only with slight resistance and the smell of smoke. Ordinarily, the invading forces would use the resources from their newly acquired land to 'refuel', allowing them to march forward at full strength. When the army, battered and bruised from the harsh Russian winter, reached the capital of Moscow, it was almost completely destroyed. This policy, of course, doesn't recognize the farm owners whose land--their entire life's work--was destroyed with no compensation.

Surely you will agree that this method of defense is extreme, if not completely ludicrous. Then why do we allow the Republicans to follow it? Their vehement opposition to the 'Cash for Clunkers' program is based on not solid facts and reasonable arguments, but only a deep desire to see Obama fail. This is partisan politics at its worst. The GOP doesn't agree with a program where the only thing lost is the opportunity cost from those consumers without a clunker to trade in, on the basis that it is a Democratic bill. Now, they're saying that it's "too successful", pointing to the fact that the money allocated to the program barely touched the ground before it flew into the hands of happy consumers. As if that wasn't ridiculous enough, now the Republicans (as well as their goons at FOX), are using the program's unforseen popularity to strike at Obama's call for health care reform. "If the government is so off about this, who can imagine the mess thay'll make out of healthcare?" I'll start getting worried as soon as a quick-talking sleazeball starts trying to sell me a 'used kidney'.

No, they real reason the Republicans are mad isn't because the program is a miscalculation by the government, it's because they want to see Obama crash and burn; if the nation fails, Obama fails. It is the fact that the program is working as planned that riles them up so much. The funny thing is, this is the type of government economic intervention that appeals to the conservative agenda the most, utilizing finiancial incentives instead of sweeping fiats. However, only Representative Candace Miller (R-MI) has commended it, saying it is "the best $1 billion of economic stimulus the government has ever spent." As for the rest, they have formed another attack on action, with Sen. John McCain threatening a filibuster when the bill to add another $2 billion to the program reaches the senate floor. Their desire to see Obama and the Democrats fall, however, is not their only reason for their opposition. The GOP is attempting to paint government programs as long, inefficient, and complicated, and it's hard to do that when you have a perfect example of why that is wrong.

The $3 billion that Republicans are crying over is nothing to the U.S. budget, but the $4,500 that goes to the American consumer is getting millions of people that would never have considered trading out their old gas guzzler into some fresh new wheels. Considering Bush's $700 billion dollar federal bailout plan practically flew through Congress, it's odd to see that the same Congressman that supported that massive effort of government spending with nary a filibuster attempt is now flying into a rage over Cash for Clunkers. The Wall Street Journal, when asked about the federal bailouts, said the goal was "not to control markets, but to revive them." Spending a sliver of that money on directly helping the American consumer, enviromentalism, as well as small businesses? "Crackpot economics."

Maybe it's not the spending, maybe it's the principle. The idea that governments should never be the ones to influence who the winners and losers are in the economic climate. A sound idea, but both parties have done exactly that. From the G.I. Bill, which allowed returning soldiers to get a good education as well as a home, jumpstarting the growth of the middle class, to subsidizing wool farmers in the 1800s so that they would be able to knit uniforms for soldiers in the Civil War, to adding $35 billion to troubled oil companies (as Republicans campaigned last year), government has always attempted to use control over the economy to shape society.

Cash for Clunkers isn't anything new, it's the smallest of transgressions against the purity of a free-market system. It's just simple stimulus, trying to breathe some life back into Detroit, save consumers $1,000 yearly on gas costs, and maybe help the Earth along the way.

-Tom

N.B. Last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned that Republicans and insurance companies will resort to "slash and burn" to kill healthcare.