Speaker Pelosi and Pres. Obama may enjoy an unprecedented hegemony over Washington’s levers of power, but that did not stop them from working both sides of the auto issue. Back in May, Obama announced new fuel efficiency standards that will add about $1,300 to the cost of an average new car. Now, in July, Pelosi’s ‘Cash for Clunkers’ or C.A.R.S. plan offers up to $4,500 toward the purchase of cars that don’t meet the other law’s requirements.

Is the apparent conflict simply governmental incompetence? Maybe, but the one area where Washington is not incompetent is in parsing society to maximize a power grab. Pelosi knew that the $1,300 regulatory cost to improve efficiency would hit the middle class hardest, so the C.A.R.S. program targeted a sop to the middle class. Leaving well enough alone in the first place is not the Washington way.

How did Pelosi arrive at $4,500 is also a curiosity. A car loan lasts about five years, while the current $8,500 home subsidy applies to a thirty year mortgage. A $900 per year subsidy for a car versus a $283 per year subsidy for a home? Perhaps Pelosi realized that unions make cars more often than they do houses.

The impeccable skill of stealing while claiming to give is why they are called politicians, not geniuses. Geniuses would have realized that setting a$4,500 price floor on junk cars would easily create a run on the program. C.A.R.S. went through its authorized funding in less than a week. Meanwhile, every suitable dealership across the US has promoted C.A.R.S. as free money, even monetizing it like a California IOU.

Those dealerships picked a fickle business partner in Pelosi and Obama. Unlike a regular contract or promise, Washington is not obliged to follow through on C.A.R.S. past its $1 billion initial authorization. While the House has approved an additional $2 billion, there is no guarantee that the Senate will follow suit any time soon. Meanwhile, the businesses that marketed themselves based on C.A.R.S. are in limbo, along with people who are now waiting before buying a new car. Washington is better at symbolism and feel-good platitudes than results or accountability.

Of course $3 billion is just tip money to Washington, but the C.A.R.S. fiasco is illustrative. Why should Obama be trusted to reorder society based on his vision for expensive energy, socialized healthcare, and wealth redistribution when something as simple as C.A.R.S. failed after a week? Perhaps the various Bush era fiascos convinced voters that Bush was uniquely incompetent and that Obama was different. In fact, the same Bush era bureaucrats still are running most of Washington today. The same corrupt motives of power consolidation and special interest pandering rule Washington politics, and they will guarantee plenty of Obama era fiascos.

The C.A.R.S. fiasco should serve as a wakeup call to voters who are prepared to trust the Government with their health and prosperity. Under Bush, Obama, or whomever, the Government is an unreliable partner that is best avoided.