The anonymous commenter stopped by again, here, a few days ago, but I've been too busy lately to post anything about it till now.
I actually don't work for Senator Kohl, although I gladly would work for either senator from my home state. I won't bother you with any more comments after this one, but I would like to say that there is no correct view - there are pros and cons to either party. There are democrats who genuinely care about the wellbeing [sic] of their constituents, and Senator Kohl is among them.
I won't post a screencap of the ISP info, because this time it wasn't from Senate.gov but from a private Internet provider in D.C.
My anonymous guest, you say there's no "correct view", there are "pros and cons to either party". Let's just keep talking about Cash for Clunkers for now, OK? We can get to the pros and cons of each party some other time, maybe.
I presented certain facts about Cash for Clunkers at the links in previous posts. Assuming those facts are true (and in this case, there's no argument from either side about the facts), we come to just one conclusion: This program was a very costly failure.
Senator Herb Kohl may very well care about the well-being of his constituents. But in this case, he was on the wrong side of the issue, and thus, inadvertently, harmed his constituents by spending their tax dollars in a counter-productive way.
A larger point: If Senator Kohl's concern for us leads him to believe that it's the government's job to guarantee our well-being, he will end up making more of those incorrect decisions. It's impossible for the government to guarantee our "well-being", however one might define that. However, in a misguided attempt to do so, they will pass more laws, increase the span of government control, and spend more of our tax dollars (sinking us ever deeper into a very dangerous level of debt), thus taking away more of our liberty and our individual and national economic stability.
That would definitely be an "incorrect" thing to do.