No one thought reforming health care was going to be easy. But with a Democratic congress working with a Democratic president, and with the failed Clinton initiative serving as a template of how not to get it done, perhaps no one thought it was going to be quite this hard.

From CQ Politics today:

They ain’t kidding. YouTube’s full of these recent encounters. Here’s Democratic Senator Russ Carnahan getting the treatment at his town hall:

Here’s Texas Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D) surrounded by sign-wielding, chanting protesters at his meeting:

And here’s Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison (D) getting an earful, as well:

And a handful of angry folks disrupt a meeting held by House Majority Leader Steny Honer:

A “health care town hall” search will return videos to more encounters.

People are uploading their own video op-eds, as well. Here’s one called “Near-Riots at Townhall Meetings Are Fake.” (If you subscribe to this theory, see liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s report claiming the “”Recess Rallies” are not grass roots-inspired, but are in reality “Astroturfing.”)

Then there’s well-known Obama loather Dr. James David Manning’s “Are you willing to die for Obama’s healthcare?”

We’d suggest toning down the rhetoric just a titch, but is anyone listening?

Seen this one yet? Over at the free market-oriented Division of Labour blog, a section called From ABBA to Zeppelin “offers a variety of song lyrics that instructors of economics may find useful in teaching economics. Each post includes a selection from the song’s lyrics and a brief assignment for students.”

From the site:

Other musical economics lessons from the site:

• Cigarettes and Alcohol by Oasis (How does the government calculate the unemployment rate?)
• Rockin’ in the Free World by Neil Young (What factors besides GDP affect our well-being?)
• Money for Nothin’ by Dire Straits (Can you get anything for nothing? Make sure you discuss the opportunity costs.)

Cool syllabus. But bring your own iPod to class.

Before the Cash for Clunkers program got under way, many bloggers wrote about its  imminent failure. The title of a typical clunker-debunker post read something like  “Why ‘Cash For Clunkers’ Won’t Work” and went on to elucidate the failed logic of attempting to incentivize the lemon-driving population.

As it turned out, eager recipients of the $3500 or $4500 government subsidy—offered for trade-ins of low-gas mileage vehicles for a more fuel efficient ride—used up the original $1 billion appropriation within a few days. The House then overwhelmingly approved an additional $2 billion to replenish the kitty, and Senate majority leader Harry Reid says the Senate will do the same this week.

By most accounts, the program has been a success.  Yesterday, Ford reported its first sales increase since 2007, which it attributed in part to the clunker deals, and July sales for the entire industry rang up at an 11-month high. Furthermore, according to Morningstar,  almost half of the new cars bought were from U.S. automakers.

As usual, though, anything related to government spending is going to be spun according to pre-determined beliefs. The Wall Street Journal, true to form, called this further foray into governmental problem solving  “Crackpot Economics.” That editorial drew 194 comments online, most of which, to say the least, did not express undying gratitude for the latest in state largesse. And Another upholder of free enterprise weighed in, too:
Ron Paul doesn’t like Cash for Clunkers

Of course, the Keynesian crowd has taken to the keyboard as well. Over at the Huffington Post, one blogger writes about “Conservative Hating on Cash-for-Clunkers.” The PoliticalBuzz blog claims the program has “saved the auto industry.”

If you really want to get your clunk on, click on over to Twitter and keep hitting refresh on the #clunkers feed, or just do a search. There’s also plenty of opinion to go around on Facebook.  And the Flickr Clunkers Pool makes for interesting viewing. Browse it to an internal sound track: clunk, clunk, clunk…

The New York Time ran a story yesterday on John A. Allison IV, the former head of North Carolina banking success BB&T. Allison, now retired, is a vocal adherent of “objectivism,” the philosophical system developed by author Ayn Rand that embraced pure free-market capitalism. Another Rand acolyte is, famously, Alan Greenspan.

The laissez-faire set, which has had a great run since Ronald Reagan declared that “government is not the solution… government is the problem,” has taken a bit of a beating lately, what with the near collapse of the financial system and all. But the Times reports that in the first half of 2009, Penguin Books has shipped more than 300,000 copies of Rand’s 1957 opus on the joys of self-interest, Atlas Shrugged. That’s a 25 percent increase over all of 2008.

Obviously, with government bailouts and increased regulation the order of the day, a lot of free marketeers-in-exile must be getting really Rand-y, taking refuge in the book that excited many a CEO, or would-be CEO, at the beginning of his or her climb up the corporate ladder. But now that so many have discovered, or re-discovered, the book, what do they think of it?

Well, Atlas Shrugged has prompted over 1800 user reviews on Amazon.com, 60% of whom assigned the book 5 stars, the top rating. Only 11% rate the book 1 star, and 29% give it 2, 3, or 4 stars.

Over on Goodreads, more than 24,000 users have rated the book, averaging out to just under 4 stars out of 5.

A good representative of the laudatory posts on Amazon is titled “Very Timely in in this ‘Day of the Progressives”:

“I first read this book in the mid-70s. It was very inspiring, and literally changed my belief systems. Now in the era of the progressive   (Obamamania) it is just as germane and compelling. It tells a great story of what happens to society when the “Looters” take over. Those intellectuals who think man is just a greedy [...] and that the public good is far more important than the individual. The individual (as conceived in the U.S. Constitution) is the one who actually produces, while the bleeding hearts just loot from his achievements; because they are incapable of their own. It is a great read and makes you think hard about what is happening in the good ‘ol US of A.”

Of the pans, a post called “Philosophy if you do not think” opines:

This book may be the most simplistic take on humanity ever written and thus does appeal to the masses as “philosophy.” Utter garbage, but it is the tome that many doomsday right wingers are quoting so it is worth reading to understand their paranoia.

Not much agreement there, but why would there be?

And if you want to vote yes on the Randian view, become a fan on Facebook.