SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (30471)5/27/2009 2:48:53 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
And They Said Bush Was Clueless

By Christopher Chantrill
American Thinker

The President mentioned the Rule of Law in a speech last week. At the National Archives about his policies on terrorism, he said:


<< From Europe to the Pacific, we've been the nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law. >>


But the previous week the administration blew off the Rule of Law in the Chrysler bankruptcy. It stiffed the senior secured creditors in favor of a junior creditor, a labor union. That's probably unconstitutional, because the US Constitution calls for "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States."
You can see why the founding fathers might think uniform bankruptcy laws were a good thing. It would provide protection for creditors, never the most popular people in society, against a politically favored special interest like a labor union.

If you are not going to favor secured creditors over a politically powerful interest, why bother having laws, or a Rule of Law at all? Just let the unpopular people go to the wall. Tell them to hire a politician next time.

There seem to be two ways of looking at the Rule of Law.
For liberals the Rule of Law is all about the protection of brave liberals fighting against racism and sexism. But if you read the history of law in the Anglo-Saxon world, you find out that law is mostly about deciding what to do when things go wrong in day-to-day living and commerce. For instance, there is the law of bailments. It's nothing special, but it covers the case of the restaurant valet that damages your car, and it has existed at least since Babylonian times.

Anyway, it seems that President Obama's devotion to the Rule of Law is only rhetorical. He is going to keep the Bush policies on terrorism, but will keep making speeches to entrance liberals like James Fallows at The Atlantic with "the quality of [his] thought."

The neutering of bankruptcy law in the Chrysler case is not rhetorical; it is real. And, to echo Talleyrand, it is worse than a crime, it is a blunder.
For consistent bankruptcy law is as important to a smashed-up corporation as a well-run trauma center to an accident victim.

Capitalism is a social technology in the same way that the a trauma center is social technology. You can let the technicians organize and run it, subject to law, or you can stick your political nose in and order the professionals around. Just to show who's boss, you can mix in a special deal for a powerful interest.

Time and time again in the last century, liberals have insisted that only political power can deliver the right kind of service from business. First we had to have a Federal Reserve System because you couldn't trust the Money Trust. That worked out well. The dollar is now worth 2.5 cents.

Then they decided that America's corporations had to have strong unions -- in 1935 right in the middle of a Great Depression. That worked out well. It plunged America into a second depression in 1937.

They decided that senior citizens had to have subsidized health care. So now health care for seniors is eating the budget alive, and that's before the $40 trillion that's promised but not funded.

They wanted everyone to have "affordable housing." Well, now they have their wish. Pity they had to blow up the banking system to get there.

And these are the people that called President Bush clueless!

There is another way. We could let capitalism get on with its job of delivering products and services that people are willing to pay for. Then we could start to figure out how to deliver health care that people could afford.

Against the clunking fist of the liberal administrative state we conservatives must call for a conservative sociable state. Social animals, humans are at our best when living in a world of reciprocal sociability; we are at our worst when issuing administrative orders to people that can't answer back.

Marriage advocate Maggie Gallagher recently showed how reciprocal sociability works. While watching a lesbian and an evangelical in a focus group discussing gay marriage, her associate was appalled at the way that the participants would compromise. They had no principles, he complained.


<< "No," I said. "They are trying to figure out a way in which everybody can be OK. It's really great to live in a country where people are like that." >>


It's the difference between liberal world and conservative world. In liberal world highly evolved elites get to decide on the issues and force everyone else to get with the program. In the conservative world of families, churches, and associations we are just trying to figure out a way in which everyone can be OK.

Yet conservatives insist that we believe in permanent principles that cannot be changed, and liberals insist that everything they do is based on empathy and compassion for other people. What is going on here?

Christopher Chantrill is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. See his roadtothemiddleclass.com and usgovernmentspending.com. His Road to the Middle Class is forthcoming.

americanthinker.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)5/28/2009 9:48:39 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Stiffing GM's Creditors Will Backfire

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Wednesday, May 27, 2009 4:20 PM PT

The Law: Sure as the sun rises, the U.S. government's manhandling of GM and Chrysler bondholders will ripple outward, striking not only companies and their creditors but the very basis for U.S. power and prosperity.


Historians pinpoint the beginnings of U.S. power at 1811, with the liquidation of the First Bank of the United States, founded by Alexander Hamilton. Amid the winds of the War of 1812, First Bank ignored political pressure and insisted that even British bondholders, from the nation the U.S. was preparing to fight, be paid in full. The debt was paid because that was the law.

This single act reverberated for years. Word got back to Europe that the word of this fledgling country was good, even with enemies. As a result, European capital to finance the great steamships, railroads and other engines of American growth flowed.

"The return of their funds became an important chapter in American finance because it showed that the government was willing to do business on an impartial basis, and that would influence future British investments for decades to come," wrote Charles R. Geisst in his 1979 "Wall Street: A History."

Scroll to 2009. What's good for General Motors is no longer what's good for America. GM and Chrysler faced restructuring in a last-ditch bid to avoid bankruptcy. But unlike 1811's British lenders, their bondholders have been treated like enemies.

In setting terms of the restructuring as a result of its $30 billion bailout, the U.S. government saw to it that the United Auto Workers got more than their share, shredding the claims of bondholders who normally have first priority.

Chrysler bondholders got 29 cents on the dollar and were pilloried as "vultures" by the very government sworn to uphold the law. And for their $27 billion investment, GM's 1,200 bondholders, many of them small stakeholders, got an equity stake of just 9%.

By contrast, the UAW, whose only claim is the $20 billion the automaker owes in gold-plated employee benefits, got 20%, with the government ending up with the rest.

"They cut into line," said Kenton Boettcher of California-based Main Street Bondholders, 90% of whose members rejected the restructuring offer Wednesday. "I lose completely. I can't even write it off as an investment loss. It was a predetermined, prestructured bankruptcy," he told IBD.

"If 'secured creditor' no longer has meaning, who's going to make an investment by buying a corporate bond?"
asked Richard Mourdock, Indiana state treasurer, who's suing Chrysler on behalf of Indiana's state pension holders.

Already fewer investors want to lend money to companies with exposure to unions or government bailouts. A new Garman Research study titled "Priority Lost" determined that corporate bonds already are losing value based on the bondholder slap-around.

"Creditors to major U.S. automakers are discovering that absolute priority may, or may not, apply to their holdings," the study said. If the slighting of bondholders is not an aberration, "this could mark a new period of uncertainty."

"This is much bigger than Chrysler," added Mourdock. "If the words 'secured creditor' have no meaning, investors are going to ask if the words 'good faith and credit' of the U.S. still have meaning.

"Americans depend on bonds purchased by people outside the U.S. right now. If the Chinese investors buying our debt see American bondholders treated this way, is it a long stretch to imagine foreign creditors won't be either?"

Word is spreading. "I think the punishment for mugging bondholders will be a reduced trust of foreigners in the U.S. legal system and an increase of the interest that foreigners will request for investing in U.S. instruments," said Ottavio Lavaggi, an Italian bondholder who sued deadbeat Argentina over its $100 billion sovereign bond default in 2001. "There is no free lunch, and robbing bondholders . . . will have consequences."

If so, this could be a turning point. In "A History of Credit and Power in the Western World," Scott B. MacDonald and Albert L. Gastmann warned of a direct correlation between credit and power. "The combination of new muscle in industrial manufacturing . . . and finance clearly elevated the military and economic power of the United States, pushing it to the apex of the global credit system," they wrote.

Is succoring the UAW worth throwing all that away?

ibdeditorials.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)5/28/2009 11:35:33 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
More unintended consequences from government interference in the auto industry

Betsy's Page

David Indiviglio writes about how the fact that government came down on the side of the unions in trying to wind up Chrysler and GM's bankruptcies might actually harm the unions that Obama's administration is trying to help. If the lesson is that bondholders will get the short end of the stick in such actions, then people won't want to invest in heavily unionized companies.


<<< Bond investors literally can't afford to lend to unionized companies because it's clear that current power in Washington will take the unions' side, despite past bankruptcy law precedents that favor senior creditors. That means Washington's actions in pushing for these bankruptcy verdicts to come out in favor of the unions will probably hurt unionized companies in the long run. As a result, it might be wise for Washington to reconsider the precedents it's setting for unionized companies undergoing bankruptcy. >>>


Of course, the administration's policies are all about the short run, whether it be massively increasing the deficit, playing to Nevadans who don't want nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, or appealing to moral vanity by announcing that Obama will close Guantanamo. Who cares about the long run - that will probably occur on some other president's watch.

betsyspage.blogspot.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)5/28/2009 12:35:01 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 35834
 
Targeting GOP Car Dealers?

Jonah Goldberg
The Corner

I am really, really, really, skeptical about this. But if it's true, the Obama presidency would be fatally wounded.


<<< There appears to be a side to the Chrysler bankruptcy that has the look of an ugly partisanship not seen in this town since Tricky Dick was in the White House composing his enemies list and checking it twice every night while watching the evening TV newscast.

Bloggers on the Right side of the Blogosphere are up in arms over data suggesting that President Barack Obama’s White House auto industry potentates are targeting for closure Chrysler dealers with records of contributing either to Republicans like Sen. John McCain or to other Democrats in the 2008 presidential primary.

Posts at RedState, Reliapundit, American Thinker, Gateway Pundit, Joey Smith and Doug Ross pointed initially at the remarkable number of closed Chrysler dealerships whose owners happen to have been contributors to Obama opponents, mainly Republicans.

But those observations were all couched with important qualifiers, particularly that all conclusions were necessarily preliminary, pending completion of a comprehensive analysis of the political contributions by all closed Chrysler dealership owners had been done and comparison of those with contributions by dealers who are not being closed.

That said, when multiple dealers who have been closed are found to have contributed millions to Republicans and mere hundreds to Obama, the serious number-crunching cannot be completed too soon. >>>

Update: Another reason for skepticism. From a reader:

<<< Remain skeptical.

Auto dealers are generally a pro-Republican bunch, so most of their giving is of course going to be to Republicans.

Also, minority-owned dealerships also took a hit in the closings, a group that I don’t think would appear on any Obama Enemies List. Check here: seattlemedium.com

Of the 789 Chrysler dealers who were notified that their contracts will not be renewed, 38 are minority owned…

At the end of April, there were 154 minority dealers in Chrysler’s 3,181 total U.S. dealer body network….

You’ll see that 4.8% of the auto dealerships closed were minority owned.

Total percentage of all Chrysler dealerships that are minority owned? 4.8% >>>

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)5/28/2009 1:42:25 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
GM Bondholders Are People Like You and Me

The government is punishing one group of workers to reward another.

By DENNIS BUCHHOLTZ
The Wall Street Journal

I am an American retiree. Like many small investors, I am relying on "safe" investments such as bonds backed by America's largest companies to fund my retirement. One of these companies is General Motors.

First, let's set the record straight about who owns GM's bonds. We are hardworking families, individual investors and retirees who purchased billions of these bonds in $25, $50 and $100 increments. Many bonds were bought directly and others are held in our pension funds, 401(k) plans and other retirement programs.

I purchased GM bonds in 2005 and own $91,000 worth. These bonds account for a very sizeable portion of my retirement income, and so it is absolutely devastating to watch GM's problems bring the once venerable company to the brink of failure. My standard of living is truly in jeopardy.

Despite the terrible position my fellow bondholders and I are in, we are being portrayed as the cause of GM's problems and inability to restructure.

Who is perpetrating this myth? The American government
, which is at once encouraging investment in U.S. companies and vilifying those who have already invested. Billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars have been used to stabilize companies to restore investor confidence. But how can investors be confident when they're at risk of ending up on the wrong end of the government's stick?

Even more disturbing: The government's proposed restructuring plans benefit one class of retirees at the expense of another. I understand that we each have equal claims in bankruptcy. However, under the current plan GM's union retirees will receive 39% of the restructured company and $10 billion in cash in exchange for $20 billion in claims. Bondholders, however, receive a mere 10% for $27 billion in claims in the form of stock (and no cash).

I am a retired dye-making trade worker and even worked in the auto industry during my career. I don't understand why the government is penalizing people like me just for having funded my retirement with GM bonds. Bondholders, especially small bondholders, are being ignored in negotiations and singled out to bear the greatest share of the cost of restructuring GM.

We are not an unreasonable group. We understand that to save GM everyone will need to endure economic pain. But we are very troubled by the government's decision to give UAW retirees -- equal members, with the bondholders, of the unsecured creditor class -- preferential treatment. The government cannot be permitted to rewrite bankruptcy rules on a whim to selectively benefit equal groups.

Small bondholders use the interest from GM bonds for everyday living expenses and cannot afford to see GM go bankrupt. And though we've been branded as an obstacle, small investors like me are in fact the solution. Our continued investment in U.S. companies and markets is critical to an economic recovery.

By treating investors fairly, GM could take the lead in making the market attractive once again.

Mr. Buchholtz is a retired trade worker from Warren, Mich.



Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A17

online.wsj.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)5/29/2009 2:31:33 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Political Bankruptcy

Uncle Sam to GM bondholders: Take it or lose it.

The Wall Street Journal

The Obama Administration made GM's bondholders an offer they couldn't refuse this week, and a group representing some of the largest institutional investors took the offer. The alternative, as GM made clear in an SEC filing, was for the Treasury to wipe them out in GM's now-inevitable bankruptcy. Under the terms of the Treasury's offer, GM bondholders will receive 10% of the company's stock in exchange for their $27 billion in bonds, plus warrants to buy an additional 15% stake in seven to 10 years.

That's an improvement on the government's earlier offer, but it's a far cry from what the Administration offered the United Automobile Workers for their $20 billion in claims.
Assuming the UAW ratifies a new labor agreement, which its locals were voting on Thursday, the union's retiree benefit trust will receive $10 billion in cash, $6.5 billion in preferred stock paying a 9% dividend, $2.5 billion in debt, 17.5% of the new company and warrants to buy another 2.5% in five years, albeit at a steep price. In exchange, the UAW will accept more flexibility in work rules, and retirees will have to give up prescription-drug coverage for their Viagra and Cialis. Seriously.

In other words, compared to other unsecured creditors, the unions were offered the equivalent of a Cadillac this week. Bondholders get a set of steak knives and the hope that a car maker owned 72.5% by the government will eventually be worth more than it is now, which is essentially zero.

Treasury argues that bondholders, by rights, should get nothing because the money that GM owes to the government, or will soon owe to the government, eats up whatever value is left in the car maker. So even that 10% stake, Treasury officials argue, is "a gift." By this reasoning, bondholders have no right to be unhappy just because the UAW is getting a bigger gift. In the words of one Treasury official, "Santa brought them both a present."

At least some bondholders, helped by the threat of a total wipeout if they hold out, have seen the logic of this. But Treasury's calculation is fundamentally political, not financial. Treasury officials argue that they have to treat the UAW more generously than bondholders, or the employees won't show up for work on Monday. But this is bluster; the UAW needs GM as much as GM needs workers. The Treasury's generosity toward the union is much more about political payback to Big Labor than it is a hard-nosed business decision. But this is what happens when government plays business mogul.

The truth is that GM's economic viability depends on making its cost structure competitive. And from what we've learned about the demands being made on the union in this regard, the UAW hasn't been asked to give up nearly enough. According to the UAW, the new agreement entails no loss in "base hourly pay, no reduction in . . . health care, and no reduction in pensions." It also restricts the ability of GM to import cars made abroad.

The UAW, in other words, remains unbowed, and it knows that GM's new owners want to keep Big Labor happy. After the likely bankruptcy filing in coming days, the Obama Administration will own America's largest car company. If the Administration runs GM according to the same political priorities it has displayed in negotiating its restructuring, do not expect the taxpayer financing to stop anytime soon.



Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A14

online.wsj.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)5/29/2009 4:33:46 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
What's good for General Motors

By Scott
Power Line

Once upon a time it could plausibly be said, as it was by Charles Wilson, what's good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa. A traditional bankruptcy would have been good for GM and maybe for the country, but GM certainly does not look to be good for the country in the Age of Obama.

As American taxpayers continue to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into GM, the government is expected to take 70 percent of GM equity in return. I find that almost unbelievable and difficult to understand. Will GM ever turn a profit again when it is restructured along politically acceptable lines? Or will it just become another ward of the state?

Valuing GM as an ongoing concern, what is 70 percent of the equity in GM worth? One looks in vain in stories such as this one by Michelle Maynard and David Sanger in the New York Times earlier this week for any thoughts on that question. Time's David von Drehle imputes the question regarding GM's profitability to "skeptics of the Administration's action" and addresses it this way:

<<< Is it feasible now for GM and Chrysler, which made money on pickups, SUVs and minivans, to small-car their way to prosperity? U.S. carmakers have not earned a dime selling automobiles in a decade. "There's no question it's a challenge," a task-force official allowed. "It's something the domestic car companies haven't done successfully in the past." Whether it will work in the future is "a fundamentally significant question." >>>

So it's a good question, worth digging into. Von Drehle contemplates the future of GM psot-bankruptcy and wonders if taxpayers will see a return on their "investment." Von Drehle writes:


<<< In other words, for all the number-crunching and all the brute financial haircuts involved in these bankruptcies, at heart they are animated by the audacity of hope.
The hope that Fiat's Sergio Marchionne can translate his turnaround mojo into a language Chrysler can understand. The hope that, having poured at least $1 billion into the innovative but commercially suspect Chevy Volt plug-in, GM can pivot into less costly hybrid and high-efficiency diesel technologies. (Perversely, the Administration might hope for $4-a-gallon gasoline to aid that quest.)

And these hopes float on the audacity of deficit spending. By the time taxpayers are done cleaning up the books of the two companies and refilling their tanks with enough cash to keep them going -- along with their finance arm, GMAC, and their key suppliers -- the public price tag will exceed $100 billion. Add billions more in subsidies for researching and developing green technology and still more billions in tax credits to motivate buyers to go green.
If someday GM and Chrysler become consistently profitable, the government loans will be repaid and both companies restored to total private control. The operative word being if. >>>

In other words, the answer to the question whether GM will ever become "consistently profitable" is no. How about occasionally profitable? I thnk the answer is no. How about profitable? I think the answer is no. If a reporter for Time can say it (almost), surely it's past time to point out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes rather than celebrating the Emperor's wife.

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)5/29/2009 7:35:40 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The 2012 Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition

by iowahawk

youtube.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)5/31/2009 1:21:02 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
"Caesar"

youtube.com

TheNRSC

While Nevada families are hurting and losing their jobs, Harry Reid throws a blowout Hollywood party for himself at Caesar's Palace.



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)6/1/2009 7:12:48 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Obama Motor Co.

The Wall Street Journal

Back in December, in an economy far, far away, then-CEO Rick Wagoner tossed out the scary cost to taxpayers of $100 billion if General Motors wasn't saved by the government. Well, GM was saved in December and again in March, and as early as today the feds will rescue it a third time in a prepackaged bankruptcy that is already costing at least $50 billion, and that's for starters. Welcome to Obama Motors, and what is likely to be a long, expensive and unhappy exercise in political car making.

Taxpayers have so far put up nearly $20 billion, which was supposed to be a loan at market rates but under Treasury's forced restructuring will mostly be converted into equity in the new GM. The feds are also putting up $30.1 billion in "debtor in possession" financing and will effectively nationalize the once-mighty auto maker by taking roughly 60% ownership. (That's not counting $12.5 billion to save GMAC, the company's financing arm.) The Canadian government will go along for the ride for 12% of the new GM, the UAW will get about 17.5%, and the hapless bond holders have to settle for 10%.

The Obama Treasury is portraying this as the best solution to the mess it inherited, leaving GM with much-reduced legacy costs for health care, a cleaned-up balance sheet, a humbler UAW that has forgone some performance pay, and a more efficient dealer network and product line. GM, we are told, will now be able to make a profit and some day even return money to taxpayers. If you close your eyes and imagine that GM's private managers would be able to make decisions based solely on business judgment, you can even start to believe.

But then you snap out of it.

Every decision the feds have made since December suggests that nonpolitical management will be impossible.
First they replaced Mr. Wagoner -- whom they are nonetheless still paying -- with the more pliable Fritz Henderson as CEO and Kent Kresa as Chairman. The latter are good at playing Washington but unproven in making popular cars. Then Treasury bludgeoned the bond holders in both Chrysler and GM to take pennies on the dollar, which will not make creditors eager to lend to the companies in the future.

There's also the labor agreement that the UAW approved last week, which goes some way toward reducing costs but probably not enough to make the new, smaller GM competitive. The new agreement simplifies some work rules and job descriptions but makes no reductions in hourly pay, pensions or health care for active workers. The agreement must also be renegotiated in two years by an Obama Administration running for re-election and weighing the need to keep Big Labor happy against the risks to taxpayer-shareholders. Who do you think wins that White House debate?

The Administration's concessions to the UAW also restrict the company's ability to import smaller, more fuel-efficient cars that it already makes overseas.
UAW President Ron Gettelfinger boasted on PBS's "NewsHour" last week that "we, quite frankly, put pressure on the White House, the [auto] task force, the corporation" to bar small-car imports from overseas. GM is also selling its Opel operation in Europe as part of this restructuring, and the Washington Post reports that one of Treasury's sale conditions is that Opel's new owners must stay out of the U.S., and even out of China, where GM's business is strong.

This is raw trade protectionism. It is also textbook cartel behavior and would be an antitrust violation if practiced by a business.
But the benefits for GM are illusory because the import limits mean the company will have to spend even more to retool its domestic plants to make the little green cars that President Obama and Congress are demanding. No one knows if Americans will buy such cars, even if GM can make them competitively in the U.S.

The Administration promises to wield a light ownership hand, but it's only a matter of time before Congress starts to micromanage GM's business judgments. Every decision to close a plant will be second-guessed, much like a military base-closing. And what about buying parts from foreign suppliers? Will those also be banned when Mr. Gettelfinger demands it, even if the costs are lower? GM's managers and directors will have one eye on enhancing shareholder value, but the other on pleasing their political minders in Washington.

The Obama Administration has been whispering to the press that it could start selling its stake within a year to 18 months, and that it hopes to be out of the business entirely in five years. But even assuming that the taxpayer investment stops at $50 billion, GM would have to be worth a cool $80 billion for taxpayers to break even on their 60% stake. By way of comparison, GM's market capitalization at its recent peak in 2000 was only $56 billion.

The larger corruption will be when government tries to vindicate its ownership by favoring GM over Ford and the other auto makers that aren't wards of the state. The TARP legislation contained one blatant example in the form of a $7,500 tax credit for consumers who buy GM's new electric car, the Chevy Volt. Expect more such favoritism, including huge new subsidies for green cars if consumers prove resistant to their charms.

Mr. Obama likes to say he's a pragmatist who only prefers a government solution when it will work. But in resurrecting an industrial auto policy that even the French long ago abandoned, the President has made himself GM's de facto CEO. Our guess is that he'll come to regret it as much as taxpayers will.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A11

online.wsj.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)6/1/2009 7:36:20 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
What I Learned as a Car Czar

History shows government and automobile manufacturing don't mix.

By ION MIHAI PACEPA
The Wall Street Journal

They say history repeats itself. If you are like me and have lived two lives, you have a good chance of seeing the re-enactment with your own eyes. The current takeover of General Motors by the U.S. government and United Auto Workers makes me think back to Romania's catastrophic mismanagement of the car factories it built jointly with the French companies Renault and Citroen. I was Romania's car czar.

When the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu decided in the mid-1960s that he wanted to have a car industry, he chose me to start the project rolling. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. I knew nothing about manufacturing cars, but neither did anyone else among Ceausescu's top men.
However, my father had spent most of his life running the service department of the General Motors affiliate in Bucharest.

My job at the time was as head of the Romanian industrial espionage program. Ceausescu tasked me to mediate the purchase of a minimum, basic license for a small car from a major Western manufacturer, and then to steal everything else needed to produce the car.

Three Western companies competed for the honor. Ceausescu decided on Renault, because it was owned by the French government (all Soviet bloc rulers distrusted private companies). We ended up with a license for an antiquated and about-to-be-discontinued Renault-12 car, because it was the cheapest. "Good enough for the idiots," Ceausescu decided, showing what he thought of the Romanian people. He baptized the car Dacia, to commemorate Romania's 2,000-year history going back to Dacia Felix, as the ancient Romans called that part of the world. In that government-run economy, symbolism was the most important consideration, especially when it came to things in short supply (such as food).

"Too luxurious for the idiots," Ceausescu decreed when he saw the first Dacia car made in Romania. Immediately, the radio, right side mirror and backseat heating were dropped. Other "unnecessary luxuries" were soon eliminated by the bureaucrats and their workers' union that were running the factory. The car that finally hit the market was a stripped-down version of the old, stripped-down Renault 12. "Perfect for the idiots," Ceausescu approved. Indeed, the Romanian people, who had never before had any car, came to cherish the Dacia.

For the Western market, however, the Dacia was a nightmare. To the best of my knowledge, no Dacia car was ever sold in the U.S.

Ceausescu, undaunted, was determined to see Romanian cars running around in every country in the world. He tasked me to buy another Western license, this time to produce a car tailored for export. Oltcit was the name of the new car -- an amalgam made from the words Oltenia, Ceausescu's native province, and the French car maker Citroen, which owned 49% of the shares. Oltcit was projected to produce between 90,000 and 150,000 compact cars designed by Citroen.

Ceausescu micromanaged Oltcit, but he didn't even know how to drive a car, much less run a car industry. To save the foreign currency he coveted, he decreed that the components for the Oltcit were to be manufactured at 166 existing Romanian factories. Coordinating 166 plants to have them deliver all the parts on time would be a monumental job even for an experienced car producer. It proved impossible for the Romanian bureaucracy, which pretended to work and was paid accordingly. The Oltcit factory could produce only 1% to 1.5% of its intended capacity owing to the lack of the parts that those 166 companies were supposed to furnish simultaneously. The Oltcit project lost billions.

Ceausescu was an extreme case, but automobile manufacturing and government were never a good mix in any socialist/communist country. In the late 1950s, when I headed Romania's foreign intelligence station in West Germany, I worked closely with the foreign branch of the East German Stasi. Its chief, Markus Wolf, rewarded me with a Trabant car -- the pride of East Germany -- when I left to return to Romania.

That ugly little car became famous in 1989 when thousands of East Germans used it to cross to the West. The Trabant originally derived from a well regarded West German car (the DKW) made by Audi, which today produces some of the most prestigious cars in the world. In the hands of the East German government, the unfortunate DKW became a farce of a car. The bureaucrats and the union that ran the Trabant factory made the car smaller and boxier, to give it a more proletarian look. To reduce production costs, they cut down on the size of the original, already small DKW engine, and they replaced the metal body with one made of plastic-covered cardboard. What rolled off the assembly line was a kind of horseless carriage that roared like a lawn mower and polluted the air worse than a whole city block full of big Western cars.

After German reunification, the plucky little "Trabi" that East Germans used to wait 10 years to buy became an embarrassment, and its production was stopped. Germany's junkyards are now piled high with Trabants, which cannot be recycled because burning their plastic-covered cardboard bodies would release poisonous dioxins. German scientists are now trying to develop a bacterium to devour the cardboard-and-plastic body.

Automobile manufacturing and government do not mix in capitalist countries either. In the spring of 1978 Ceausescu appointed me chief of his Presidential House, a new position supposed to be similar to that of the White House chief of staff. To go with it he gave me a big Jaguar car. That Jaguar, which at the time had been produced in a government-run British factory, was so bad that it spent more time in the garage being repaired than it did on the road.

"Apart from some Russian factories in Gorky, Jaguars were the worst," Ford executive Bill Hayden stated when Ford bought the nationalized British car maker in 1988. How did the famous Jaguar, one of the most prestigious cars in the world, become a joke?

In 1945, the British voters, tired of four years of war, kicked out Winston Churchill and elected a leftist parliament led by Labour's Clement Attlee. Attlee nationalized the automobile, trucking and coal industries, as well as communication facilities, civil aviation, electricity and steel. Britain was already saddled by crushing war debts. Now it was sapped of economic vigor. The old empire quickly passed into history. It would take decades until Margaret Thatcher's privatization reforms restored Britain's place among the world's top-tier economies.

The United States is far more powerful than Great Britain was then, and no American Attlee should be capable of destroying its solid economic and political base. I hope that the U.S. administration, Congress and the American voters will take a closer look at history and prevent our automotive industry from following down the Dacia, Oltcit or Jaguar path.

Lt. Gen. Pacepa, the highest ranking Soviet bloc official granted political asylum in the U.S., is the author of the memoir "Red Horizons" (Regnery, 1987).


Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A12

online.wsj.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)6/2/2009 2:29:42 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Picking Winners Creates Losers

Jonah Goldberg
The Corner

Just one small point I think is getting lost in the mix. Government interventions are never neat and tidy. GM is going through painful downsizing at the behest of its new owner, GM. The goal is to make GM more competitive and keep it alive. We'll see how that goes. But even if it succeeds, it's not all win-win.

Ford is eschewing government aid, and so it isn't having it's sizable debts erased. If GM does manage to rebound, it will only be thanks to an unfair advantage, at least from Ford's perspective.
If GM comes back, the press will hail Obama's success, liberals will celebrate the genius of public-private partnerships and greet GM like the returning prodigal son. Meanwhile Ford, which has done things the hard but right way, will have to continue to pay its debts and lose market share it otherwise would have gotten fair and square. This isn't to say that Ford should get on the gravy train too (not having the feds look over its shoulders is an advantage of its own), but the costs of this bailout are more complex than simply the (enormous) tab taxpayers are directly picking up.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)6/2/2009 2:41:26 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
A Bankrupt Bankruptcy

Henry Payne
The Corner

Detroit, Mich. — Seven months ago, the United Auto Workers and its media and political allies howled at the prospect of a GM bankruptcy. What a difference a Democratic president makes.

After securing a bailout from the Bush administration to keep the company afloat, the UAW has used the last several months — and its considerable clout in the Democratic party — to shape bankruptcy to its liking.

Bankruptcy experts
, who overwhelmingly favored GM entering Chapter 11 last fall with government acting as a so-called debtor-in-possession (DIP) financier (to guarantee consumer warranties and supplier contracts), have watched with horror as the Obama administration has exercised ruthless, mob-like power to rip up bondholder contracts and construct a highly irregular bankruptcy process that favors Big Labor over investors.

But perhaps most ominous for GM’s future, the government itself now owns 60 percent of the company, setting up an inevitable conflict of interest between Washington’s political interests and a return of the automaker to profitability.

That conflict is already apparent as the Obama administration has:


* pushed new mpg laws (which will punish GM for what it does best: make light trucks).

* discouraged GM from importing small cars it already builds overseas to meet those mpg limits overseas so that such cars might be built by the UAW.

* encouraged GM to build plug-in electric cars like the Chevy Volt to satisfy Greens even as the White House’s own task force says the Volt will not make money anytime soon (if ever).


With the government using the bankruptcy process for political rather than competitive ends, interested parties like management and unions have less reason to fundamentally reform their past errors.

And without fundamental reform, GM is likely to be a ward of the state for a very long time.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)6/4/2009 4:16:48 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Obama's America: Too Fat to Fail

The age of the induced industrial coma.

By DANIEL HENNINGER
The Wall Street Journal

Studebaker, Nash-Kelvinator, Packard, Hudson, Stutz, Pierce-Arrow, Stanley, Checker and American Motors were once household names of the U.S. auto industry. Unlike General Motors in our time, they were not too big to fail. Despite mergers and rescue efforts by their owners, each was shut down. Their legacy lives on as classic cars, restored with erotic affection by collectors.

GM's end is different. In the spirit of the new age, General Motors, like Citigroup and AIG, will be kept alive in an industrial coma. One has to ask: Is this where the entire country is headed? Since January, it looks like it is.

     


After GM's bondholders last weekend refused to answer the bell for another round with Uncle Sam, the White House put out a statement: "As a result, the President has deemed GM's plan viable and will be making available about $30 billion of additional federal assistance to support GM's restructuring plan."

Read that sentence again, slowly. It holds what look like the keywords of the American future: the president, deems, viable, making available, federal assistance, support, restructuring plan.

Last week's column in this space, "Obama vs. the Beach Boys," drew some responses from readers who thought its tone too nostalgic for a lost era of fast but inefficient cars with low mileage and high maintenance. Recognize and embrace the future, they said, which includes high-tech bikes and high-tech cars.

"Just pick up a copy of magazines like Euro Tuner or Import Tuner," said Thomas Alves, "and you will see many ads and articles about adding turbochargers, reprogramming engine management computers and the like to four cylinder engines. . . . California and Washington will try to kill and regulate, but the constant desire for innovation is still strong in this country, and there are more of us than there are of them."

Mr. Alves is right that the instinct to innovate lives on in America. The question is whether the innovators going forward will have an economy and system that gives them room to breathe, or whether the government's rescue of Old GM is the new paradigm.

So far Mr. Obama has used his personally exciting presidency for initiatives that are spending public money on a scale not seen since ancient Egypt.
Besides Obama Motors ($60 billion to $100 billion), there is Obama-Care for health insurance ($1.2 trillion over 10 years), the stimulus ($800 billion), a global-warming offensive called cap and trade that hopes to siphon hundreds of billions of dollars from the economy, and a fiscal year 2010 budget of $3.59 trillion. Out of these mists of federal "investment" they promise five million "green collar jobs." Only public-sector lifers could believe, or assert, anything so fantastic.

Then there is the never-ending march of the financial-rescue armies -- TARP, TALF, PIPP, EESA. The Federal Reserve's balance sheet stands at some $2 trillion and growing. Last week Treasury floated the possibility of a single financial regulator for the entire banking system.

All this is the Obama government's idea of innovation. It is all public sector because all any of them know is public sector.

Without exception, the Obama people with responsibility for the private economy come from a lifetime in politics, public administration or academia.

Besides Mr. Obama himself, the list includes Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Peter Orszag, EPA's Lisa Jackson (16 years with EPA), Commerce's Gary Locke (zero private experience), or Transportation's Ray LaHood (14 years in the House). The bio for Agriculture's Tom Vilsack says he "has served in the public sector at nearly every level of government." How can the private sector -- especially the world of risk capital, sweat equity and start-ups -- be anything but an abstraction for this group?

Many of Mr. Obama's supporters surely thought this young, dynamic generation of public leaders would elevate the hip, cutting edge of the U.S. economy -- nanotechnology, genomics, robotics, even health and medicine technology. Instead, we've gotten the Old Economy on dialysis. General Motors has been commanded to restart aging UAW factories to output product on behalf of the administration's hybrid-car obsession. Where's the New Economy in any of this?

Or ObamaCare. How will a build-out of Medicare (b. 1965) to cover everyone and costing $1.2 trillion over 10 years not kill innovation in medical and health technology by siphoning away growth capital and its potential financial rewards?

All of this seems so out of sync with the persona and promise Barack Obama conveyed in the campaign. A lot of his Web-based supporters probably thought Mr. Obama was going to be about promoting young guns with new ideas seeking risk capital for the next big thing. Instead, it looks as if the Obama years will be about managing soft landings for mature industries and old unions in the American autumn.

Congress is talking about a "bad behavior" tax on beer and soda pop to reduce obesity and fund mega-Medicare. How about a bad-behavior tax on government? Slim as the president looks, Uncle Sam is looking like quite the fat boy.

Write to henninger@wsj.com

Listen to Daniel Henninger's podcast.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

online.wsj.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)6/4/2009 4:49:36 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
An Expensive Status Quo Ante

Jonah Goldberg
The Corner

You know that feeling when you bring your car to the mechanic and he tells you that you have to pay a boatload of cash to get the hoosiwhatsis fixed and even more to get the framfra and queenestray aligned? It's just enough money that you wonder whether it'd be cheaper in the long run just to buy a new car, but you go ahead and drain your wallet but then feel like you have nothing to show for it?

That's sort of how I feel about the GM bailout. We're ponying up $50 billion, but the total costs might be closer to $100 billion in the long run. And all we get is the same car company we always had.

So, I'm wondering: How much would it cost to just build a car company from scratch? I'm sure the start-up costs would be high. But the new company wouldn't have to bow and scrape to the UAW and could probably just buy GM's best plants at fire-sale prices.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)6/4/2009 6:02:46 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Re: Obama Saves

Iain Murray
The Corner

Salvation for Chrysler will have to wait, as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has halted the bankruptcy to hear the appeal of Indiana's state pension fund, alleging their rights have been trampled on. My colleague John Berlau summarizes:

<<< Kudos to the judges on the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for putting a stay on the Obama administration’s nationalization scheme for the bankruptcy sale of Chrysler LLC. Kudos also to Indiana state Treasurer Richard Mourdock for standing up for the middle-income teachers and police officers in the state pension funds and making sure that contracts affecting their retirement savings are respected.

When President Obama announced the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, who coincidentally is an appeals court judge on the Second Circuit, he praised judicial qualities that are directly relevant to the courts overseeing the bankruptcies of Chrysler and General Motors. The president said that the qualities he most respected in judges were, “a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand,” as well as “an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.”

As such, President Obama and his auto task force should respect the role of the bankruptcy courts and recognize that their role is not to rubber stamp the administration’s plan to take over Chrysler and GM, but to apply bankruptcy precedents and faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand, with an understanding of how contracts work in the real world and of the “ordinary people” who own the car companies’ debt securities as individual investors or through their IRAs and 401(k)s.

The bankruptcy judges also need to look beyond the individual circumstances of Chrysler and GM to weigh how the treatment of creditor contracts in these cases will affect American credit markets in the future. If courts cave to politicians’ whims and give secured creditors and bondholders less than they would receive under traditional bankruptcy precedents, our credit markets will suffer further damage as lenders and investors will be less willing to put their capital at risk in companies whose contracts could be abrogated at politicians’ demand.

Bankruptcy is a not an executive but a judicial function, and judges in the car companies’ cases should take as much time as they need to weigh the competing interests and ensure an equitable outcome. The measure of success should not be how fast Chrysler and GM emerge from this bankruptcy, but the degree to which contracts are honored in an impartial process. >>>

As the Indiana state treasurer says, this is about more than Chrysler.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)6/11/2009 2:26:18 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Obama: I Have No Interest in Running GM!

    

Chuck Asay from Creators Syndicate

creators.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)6/11/2009 3:40:51 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Conservative Case For Cars

L. Brent Bozell from Creators Syndicate

The Obama administration's arguably unconstitutional and potentially illegal makeover/takeover of General Motors and Chrysler hit a legal road block on June 8, when Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a stay preventing Team Obama's plan to sell Chrysler to the Italian automaker Fiat. This speed bump was a great opportunity for the media to pay attention to objections to the White House's reckless executive-branch manipulation of the auto business.

Or not.

President Bush and his team were regularly savaged by the media elite if they so much as sniffed a hint of evasion over the rule of law and the bounds of constitutional authority in fighting terrorism. So why is President Obama's unprecedented intervention in the auto industry, including a TARP-fund bailout expressly ruled out by Congress, all but ignored?

Even with the Supreme Court order, the nightly news shows of CBS and NBC gave the decision just a few seconds of air time, the equivalent of a stifled yawn, and never went anywhere near describing the strange bankruptcy proceedings the Obama administration has cooked up to manipulate the industry to its liking.

Only ABC acknowledged the Chrysler deal was "encouraged and engineered" by the Obama folks, and noticed that lawyers for the pension funds of "Indiana police, teachers and taxpayers" were stopping the sale. But even ABC suggested that these state government employees were the bad guys, like vultures hoping that they'd make more money by taking Chrysler apart.

When Enron flat-lined in 2002, these same networks laid the blame all over the Bush administration while breaking out the violins for the people whose retirement funds were ruined. With the car companies and Obama, the song sheet is reversed. No one will go to the home of a retired Indiana cop and wonder why President Obama wants to deny him money for food and pills to sell off Chrysler to a bunch of Italians.

Then there's the GM deal. Here are some of the anti-Obama arguments from plaintiff lawyers and conservatives that are going ignored on the nightly news.

1. Nationalization.
Obama proposes the government will own 60 percent of General Motors. Not only will the taxpayer be on the hook for tens of billions in capital keeping GM afloat, but the taxpayer will be doing this after Congress ruled out such an action. Conservatives insisted during the fall campaign that Obama would govern as a "socialist." The media reacted with disgust.

How does this massive intervention not underline the S-word in heavy red ink?


2. Politicization.
Once the Obama administration is running GM, shouldn't a skeptical journalist wonder if common business sense is going to lose to a political agenda? Who is GM going to satisfy — the consumer or Obama? Already, Obama is pledging more GM cars will be made in America, and they'll make more fuel-efficient cars. They're handing large chunks of ownership to the United Auto Workers, which is surely a sleazy payoff for UAW campaign contributions.

Do we really want an auto company run like other government-run transportation concerns like Amtrak? Every decision — from closing dealerships or plants, to selecting suppliers or which vehicles to build, to collective bargaining with the UAW — will have to pass the Washington tests of political and environmental correctness.


3. Usurpation.
The Obama Administration acted in complete disregard of the rule of law. The bailout was accomplished without congressional approval, and the money used was appropriated for failing banks, not carmakers. They trampled right over where the Constitution places limits on the president's ability to spend public money, stating "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

When Dennis Hastert was the Republican speaker, he was so jealous of congressional prerogatives that he expressed outrage in 2006 at the FBI searching the office of corrupt Congressman William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, D-La., who was caught with $90,000 in FBI money in his freezer at home. Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks the powers of Congress are whatever Barack Obama decides they are. "If and when the Administration thinks that there should be legislation [on the auto companies], then we will take that up," Pelosi said in May. "We have not heard, I have not personally heard from the executive branch that they need any legislative remedies."

This massive Obama end-around of Congress and the Constitution should at the very least be a matter of controversy and debate. Instead, the national media are ignoring or downplaying the complaints of Obama opponents, as if any whiff of controversy over Obama's increasingly ruthless management of the economy would wreck a recovery. Barack Obama thinks he is America's car czar, and the media are not a check or a balance. They are merely the czar's enthusiastic servants.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

creators.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)7/10/2009 11:23:52 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Not So Fast With Those Electric Cars

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Alternative Energy: A government report says reliance on electric cars will do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and may merely shift our dependence on foreign sources from one set of dictators to another.


It's a beautiful theory — highways full of electric cars emitting no greenhouse gases or pollutants after being plugged into an outlet in our garages overnight. The problem, according to a new Government Accountability Office report, is that the effort may only shift the problem somewhere else.

"If you are using coal-fired power plants, and half the country's electricity comes from coal-powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?" asks Mark Gaffigan, co-author of the GAO report. The report itself notes: "Reductions in CO2 emissions depend on generating electricity used to charge the vehicles from lower-emission sources of energy."

        

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, right, inspects the new Chrysler-built Peapod electric car with Peapod CEO Peter Arnell.

The GAO report says a plug-in compact car, if recharged at an outlet drawing its power from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4% to 5%. If the feeling of saving the environment from driving an electric car causes people to drive more, that small amount of savings vanishes entirely.

It's much the same effect we saw when the Corporate Fuel Economy Standards were passed in the '70s. Aside from forcing us into less-safe downsized vehicles that increased highway fatalities, the promise of more miles per gallon caused people to drive more miles. The promised energy independence never materialized as we imported more foreign oil than ever before.

Okay, so how about a zero-emission source of electricity — nuclear power? The administration has done little to promote it beyond lip service. The administration recently killed the safest place on the planet to store what is erroneously called nuclear waste — at the nuclear repository that was being built at Yucca Mountain, Nev.

This "waste" is in the form of spent fuel rods the French and others have safely stored and reprocessed. These rods still contain most of their original energy and reprocessing them makes nuclear power renewable as well as pollution-free. The French get 80% of their electricity from nukes, and nobody in Paris glows in the dark.

They will have a place to plug in their electric cars, but right now we don't. The government is promoting solar and wind, which is fine if the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Both have their own environmental drawbacks.

Both require huge amounts of land. Wind turbines tend to slice and dice birds, including endangered species. Solar panels of the size that might be competitive require huge amounts of water to clean. Water is a rare commodity in the areas the sun shines most — the arid land of the West and Southwest.

There are the hazards of the cars themselves. We don't yet fully comprehend the hazards to drivers, passengers and first responders after, say, a collision between an electric clown car and an 18-wheeler. Then there's a whole new problem of disposing of a new generation of batteries using lithium.

As for the lithium, Bolivia, under the thumb of its leftist leader Evo Morales, has about half the world's proven reserves. "The United States has supplies of lithium, but if demand for lithium exceeded domestic supplies," warns the GAO, "the U.S. could substitute reliance on one foreign source (oil) for another (lithium)."

Then there are environmental consequences. Just as coal and oil must be extracted from the earth, so must lithium. "Extracting lithium from locations where it is abundant, such as South America, could pose environmental challenges that would damage the ecosystem in this area."

While advertised as "zero emission," electric cars have their own set of issues. As physicist Amory Lovins once put it, "Zero-emission vehicles are actually 'elsewhere-emission' vehicles."

ibdeditorials.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)12/3/2009 2:45:36 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Government Motors

IBD Editorials
Posted 07:11 PM ET

Commerce: Amid creepy assurances that the firing of GM's CEO Fritz Henderson was just business, evidence is piling high it wasn't. It was politics, and another reason why government must get out of the private sector.

The surprise "resignation" of General Motors Chief Executive Henderson Tuesday, coming on the back of silky assurances three weeks ago that he had the support of the board, and just hours before he was to keynote a trade show in Los Angeles, had all the earmarks of one of those government operations World War II GI's used to joke about for incompetence and absurdity: Close enough for government work. Catch-22. Snafu.

Not only did the GM board make a U-turn in its choice to lead the company on short notice, it didn't even try to spin its ham-fisted move, blandly calling it a desire to find a new "change agent."

Leaving the company headless, the board didn't think of having anyone else lined up to take the reins. In the great rush for "change," its chairman said without irony that GM would take a year to find a new CEO. Sounds like government work to us.

It points to an overbearing government presence in a distressed industry that's only making matters worse. Government can be arbitrary, driven by politics and addicted to power. This move against Henderson is like one Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez would make — and will have similar results.

It also echoes the barbaric treatment of Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis, who was denied a salary after a year's work and is now quitting without a replacement, and the near-resignation of Robert Benmosche at AIG, all because both firms have been subject to government takeover and meddling.

Henderson, 51, had been handpicked for the job by the board just eight months ago after it arbitrarily fired then-CEO Rick Wagoner.

Henderson was a GM lifer who "didn't fit in" with the GM board's political appointees. Unlike them, he knew the car business.

He pared the product line, stabilized GM's market share at 20% and turned a profit on some units. But he couldn't transform the company with a political board looking over his shoulder, cutting his salary to $950,000 and second-guessing his every move. Surprise.

The White House knows this and tried to conceal its hand. "This decision was made by the board of directors alone. The administration was not involved in the decision," a Treasury Department spokesman said. That's rich, given that the government owns 60% of GM after sinking $52 billion in bailout cash into the company. You can bet it owns the board.

So after all of those irrational moves, the hunt is on for a first-rate new CEO. Good luck getting one.

investors.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)2/24/2010 10:26:25 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Auto Prophet doubts Toyota defect is in electronic throttle control

By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
02/24/10 11:26 AM EST

Lost in much of the media coverage of the Toyota safety recall controversy is objective technical analysis by credible automotive engineers. Until now, anyway, thanks to The Auto Prophet.

The Auto Prophet is a respected blogger who describes himself as "an engineer working in product development for an American automotive company. I am a member of the SAE."

I've relied on The Auto Prophet for years as a credible source for technical analyses on a variety of issues. As two separate congressional panels hear testimony this week from such notables as Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood and Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda, the grand son of the company founder, The Auto Prophet has weighed in with a technical assessment of electronic throttle control technology.

He notes that "ETC systems engineers know that complex systems are designed, tested, and validated over many years before being released into production, and are tested for every conceivable failure. ETC systems must be qualified under a range of temperatures and wide band electromagnetic interference testing.

"Failure modes, such as cut wires, broken sensors, damaged actuators, etc. are all tested using a process called FMEA (failure mode effects analysis). FMEA was designed by NASA as a way to think through a system's reliabilty to pin down possible ways it could break; then tests are designed to validate the system under those conditions."

Given all that, is it still possible that Toyota's problems stem from a flaw in its ETC? The Auto Prophet says its possible, but unlikely. To read the rest of his assessment, which is written for non-techies, go here.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)2/24/2010 10:35:24 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
      None of these committee Democrats has recused themselves 
from the hearing going on as this is written.

UAW's invisible hand behind the Toyota hearing going on right now

By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
02/24/10 12:06 PM EST

There are 25 Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 12 of whom have received campaign contributions of as much as $10,000 towards their 2010 re-election campaigns from the United Auto Workers union, which is a co-owner of General Motors, Toyota's main rival for U.S. sales.

Among the dozen recipients of UAW money are: Representatives Elijah Cummings of Maryland ($1,000), John F. Tierney of Massachusetts ($1,000), William Clay, Jr. of Missouri ($1,000), Gerry Connolly of Virginia ($3,000), Michael Quigley of Illinois ($10,000), Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island ($1,000), Danny Davis of Illinois ($1,000), Chris Van Hollen of Maryland ($1,000), Paul Hodes of New Hampshire ($2,500), Chris Murphy of Connecticut ($5,000), Peter Welch of Vermont ($1,000), and Judy Chu of California ($500).

None of these committee Democrats has recused themselves from the hearing going on as this is written. You can view the hearing on the committee's web site.

Democrats have been telling us for decades that special interest money corrupts politics, and that is why we must have the federal government regulating campaign finance through the Federal Election Commission. I guess money corrupts politics, unless its Democratic recipients of the money from special interests like the UAW.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)2/24/2010 11:57:48 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Interfering in GM? Who, Us?

By: Henry Payne
Planet Gore

Detroit -- The White House is responding sharply to Mitt Romney’s new book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, in which the 2008 presidential candidate claims that “government is calling the shots on every major decision at GM, including which plants to expand and which to close."

White House spokesman Matt Lehrich told the Detroit News: “While the president will continue to monitor the taxpayers' investment in these companies, he has enough on his plate to have no interest in running them. Decisions and management are handled by the company alone."



A short list of the ways in which Washington isn’t running GM:

-- The Obama administration forced GM into Chapter 11 last March and rejected its first restructuring plan as inadequate.



-- The Obama administration fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner.



--The Obama administration appointed new GM board chairman, Ed Whitacre.



-- The Obama administration forced GM to reverse a decision to build its new small car in Asia. To satisfy UAW demands, the car will be built in Orion Township, north of Detroit.



-- Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) strong-armed GM into keeping open a facility slated for closure in his district.



-- Congress has balked at GM’s dealer streamlining plans, passing a law requiring dealer arbitration.

-- And just today, the Obama administration GM announced that it would discontinue the gas-hungry Hummer.

planetgore.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (30471)2/26/2010 3:20:59 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
***** It looks like my concerns were unfounded. Good! *****

    [I]t is no disrespect to the memory of those killed, and 
the sorrow of those left behind, to simply admit that even
the highest technology produced by the world’s finest
companies can be fallible and fatal, and that the
intelligent response is not rage and retribution but sober
remediation and recognition of the very high price we pay -
- willingly pay -- for modernity with all its wondrous,
dangerous bounty.

Toyota and the Price of Modernity

By: Charles Krauthammer
National Review Online

Amazingly, the congressional hearings on Toyota were relatively civilized.
Apart from some inevitable theatrical hectoring, the questioning was generally respectful, the emotions controlled. This was all the more remarkable given the drama of some of the testimony, such as that offered by a tearful Rhonda Smith, who recounted how, in her runaway Lexus, she had called her husband because “I wanted to hear his voice one more time.”

Such wrenching and compelling stories might impel you to want to string up the first Toyota executive you find. But the issue here is larger and highly complex.

Industrial society produces an astonishing array of mass-produced products -- cars, drugs, medical devices -- that are at once wondrous and potentially lethal.

The wondrousness sometimes eludes us.
Even the lowliest wage earner has an automobile that conveys him with more luxury, more freedom, and more comfort than any traveling king ever experienced in all the centuries before the 20th. And modern medicines -- why, vaccines alone -- have prevented more suffering, more debility, and more death than anything ever conceived by man.

But these wonders can be lethal.
And sorting out the endless complaints about these products is maddeningly difficult -- though sort you must, otherwise every complaint would require shutting down the factories, and we’d have no industrial society at all.

The question is: How do you distinguish the idiosyncratic failure from the systemic
-- for example, the single lemon that came off the auto assembly line versus an intrinsic problem inherent in that model’s engineering? How do you separate one patient’s physiology producing a drug side effect versus an intrinsic problem with a drug that makes it unacceptably dangerous?

Consider the oddity of those drug commercials on television.
Fifteen seconds of the purported therapeutic effort, followed by about 45 seconds of a rapidly muttered list of horrific possible side effects. When the ad is over, I can’t remember a thing about what the pill is supposed to do, except perhaps cause nausea, liver damage, projectile vomiting, a nasty rash, a four-hour erection, and sudden death. Sudden death is my favorite because there is something comical about it being a side effect. What exactly is the main effect in that case? Relief from abdominal bloating?


And how many sudden deaths does it take until we say: “Enough,” and pull the drug off the market?

It’s not an easy calculation.
Six years ago, Vioxx, a powerful anti-inflammatory, was withdrawn by the manufacturer because it was found to increase the risk of heart attack and stroke from 0.75 percent per year to 1.5 percent. The company was pilloried for not having owned up to this earlier, but some rheumatologists were furious that the drug was forced off the market at all. They had patients with crippling arthritis who had achieved a functioning life with Vioxx, for which they were quite willing to risk a long-shot cardiac complication. The public furor denied them the choice.

And don’t imagine that we do not coldly calculate the price of a human life. In 1974, the speed limit was lowered to 55 mph to conserve oil. That also led to a dramatic drop in traffic fatalities -- approximately 3,000 lives every year. This didn’t stop us, after the oil crisis, from raising the speed limit back to 65 and beyond -- knowing that thousands of Americans would die as a result.

The calculation was never explicit, but it was nevertheless real. We were quite prepared to trade away a finite number of human lives for speed, and for the efficiency and convenience that come with it.

This is not to let Toyota off the hook simply because all products carry risk.
Toyota executives have already admitted that they had underplayed the reports of sticking accelerators. They seem finally to have made a very serious, almost frantic, effort to correct what can be corrected -- the floor mat and sticky accelerator problem -- while continuing to investigate the more elusive possibility (never proved, perhaps never provable) of some additional electronic glitch.

But it is no disrespect to the memory of those killed, and the sorrow of those left behind, to simply admit that even the highest technology produced by the world’s finest companies can be fallible and fatal, and that the intelligent response is not rage and retribution but sober remediation and recognition of the very high price we pay -- willingly pay -- for modernity with all its wondrous, dangerous bounty.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2010, The Washington Post Writers Group.


article.nationalreview.com