Since the November elections that saw Republicans pick up multiple seats at each and every level of government, many alleged Washington insiders and political columnists have been debating whether or not President Obama will realize that in order to help his re-election campaign in 2012, move to the center and compromise with Republicans in Congress.
As many have pointed out, following the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, President Clinton, at the advice of his former political advisor Dick Morris adapted a policy of “Triangulation” where the President adopted small conservative ideas and was successful in getting them passed into law. The idea behind this political strategy was to appeal to independent voters who hope that those in Washington can work together for the betterment of the country. Last weekend, the President announced an agreement with the Republican leadership on a package to maintain the current tax rates for all Americans, provide unemployment assistance for an additional year and cut the payroll tax for a year. The announcement caused many political commentators to state that this was the first step for President Obama to bring himself more toward the middle of American politics after nearly two years on the far left.
There has been a lot of discussion on why President Obama campaigned as a moderate Democrat but has ruled as a liberal. As has been reported, following a meeting with Republicans following his election, he told Representative Eric Cantor, now the number two Republican in the House of Representatives, that “I won” as the reason his policies were going to be implemented without any real Republican input. The announcement of the deal caused a lot of questions within Washington. Many liberals are incensed that he agreed to a deal that maintained the current tax rates for all Americans. They believe that “rich” Americans must pay more in taxes to finance the governments programs. Republicans believe that with an economy that is growing slower than necessary and with unemployment creeping closer to ten percent, that no one should see an increase in their taxes.
President Obama came before the press on Tuesday to try and explain the rationale for his decision to agree with the Republican Congressional leadership. During the press conference, instead of speaking about why it was important to maintain the tax rates at their current level, the President attacked both Republicans for “holding the middle class hostage” and the Democrats for holding to a too rigid policy belief. President Obama was unable to make a concise statement as to why the agreement was good for Americans. In fact, he was unable to explain almost anything related to the agreement. He looked like a spoiled kid that complained that all the other kids were being mean to him and so he took his baseball and left the game. All last week, the White House pushed out endorsements of the deal from anyone and everyone who might possibly endorse the deal. Does the fact that the major of Kokomo, IN supports the deal, make any major difference in getting the deal accepted during the lame duck session? Not really, all it does it make the President look irrelevant and small. When the press conference and endorsements garnered negative reaction from almost everyone, the President turned to the one politician who most Americans still admire (politically, not personally), Bill Clinton.
On Friday the two President’s met at the White House to discuss the agreement and then went to a press conference in the White House press briefing room. President Obama provide a few opening remarks and then provided President Clinton the opportunity to provide his impression of the agreement. President Clinton, without a teleprompter or notes, was able to easily and concisely describe the benefits of the agreement for all Americans. President Clinton continued to speak and it became apparent that President Obama needed to leave and didn’t want to be in the press briefing room any longer. He jumped in and stated that he had another appointment to attend (a holiday party) and that his wife would be upset if he didn’t arrive soon. President Clinton, without missing a beat, stated that he should go but he would continue to answer the press’ questions, which he did for another twenty minutes or so.
President Clinton showed to many Americans why he is still so respected – he knew the issue, was able to articulate it in a manner that Americans would understand, and he was able to do it without a teleprompter telling him exactly what to say. The differences between President Obama and President Clinton was no more apparent then the press conference. Americans saw why they like Clinton still today and why they don’t seem to trust or respect Obama in this one event. I would bet that most Democrats, after watching the press conference longed for the days of the Clinton Administration and wondered how the Obama Administration has gotten so far off track. What America saw was a former President who appeals to all, or at least most, Americans and the current President who is losing more and more Americans every day. I would imagine that Democratic political consultants and policy advisors to the current President will be using this event as an example of how not to handle a post election loss as well as a policy loss on a major issue facing the American public. The past week has made the President look small, ineffective. It has made his liberal supporters look worse, if that was possible. It was not a good week to be President Obama…
Sunday, December 12, 2010
The tax debate
This past week has seen a rather interesting discussion occur within Washington, DC. President Obama announced an agreement on maintaining the current tax rates while at the same time as an extension of unemployment benefits with Senate Republicans. This has led Democrats in the House of Representatives, led by Representative Peter DeFazio to state that the deal was unacceptable and therefore not likely to pass the House of Representatives during the current lame duck session. Representative DeFazio and others within the Democratic caucus are not the only ones who are not happy with the President’s agreement. Over the past few weeks, most Democratic lawmakers had used the term, “hostage takers” to describe the Republican position of maintaining all tax rates at their current levels rather than raising taxes on any American. Liberal blogers are up in arms with the agreement, vowing to delay and or defeat the agreement. So who is the “hostage taker” now? The Democrats have decided that they would rather raise taxes on every American that pays federal income taxes, rather than to allow a small portion of Americans to maintain their current tax levels. Do any of these folks remember what just happened in the election this past November? Republicans won on every level – picking up six Senate seats, sixty-three House seats, numerous Governor and state House seats. Do you think it was because all the Republican candidates were terrific candidates who were running against dimwitted Democratic lawmakers?
Does this seem crazy to anyone else? What this reaction seems to state, is that the liberals believe that everyone should see their taxes raised, rather than to see some stability in the tax code. Liberals believe that the original tax cuts, passed under former President Bush, unfairly were focused on the rich. What they seem to miss is that every single American who paid federal income taxes saw their taxes reduced under the Bush tax cuts. Democrats ran on the phrase, “tax cuts for the rich.” I guess their opinion was anyone with a job should be considered rich. Somehow, I know that most Americans disagree with this assessment.
In today’s economy, with the high unemployment rate and the uncertainty within the business community, not only on where the economy is going, but also with regard to the federal government’s involvement within the economy, many businesses are reluctant to add employees. Democrats now are also complaining that the business community has a large stockpile of cash sitting in their bank accounts and instead of adding employees or facilities. It just seems to me that unless liberal Democrats get exactly what they want, and only that, nothing is going to be good enough.
The mainstream media organizations keep talking now about the potential in-fighting within the Republican party and seems to ignore the huge disagreement within the Democratic party. Maybe they just see the fact that most moderate Democrats lost this past November and the only elected Democrats on the national level seem to represent either the inner cities, or either coasts. Whatever happens, if the lame duck Congress does not pass the agreement between President Obama and the Republicans in Congress, every single American will see an increase in their federal taxes starting January 1, 2011 and any belief that the US economy would improve over the course of the next few years would be eliminated. Yeah, Charles Krauthamer might be right in that this agreement is a second stimulus that will only help President Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012, but hopefully that means that the unemployment rate is closer to 7% as opposed to the current 9.8%.
Does this seem crazy to anyone else? What this reaction seems to state, is that the liberals believe that everyone should see their taxes raised, rather than to see some stability in the tax code. Liberals believe that the original tax cuts, passed under former President Bush, unfairly were focused on the rich. What they seem to miss is that every single American who paid federal income taxes saw their taxes reduced under the Bush tax cuts. Democrats ran on the phrase, “tax cuts for the rich.” I guess their opinion was anyone with a job should be considered rich. Somehow, I know that most Americans disagree with this assessment.
In today’s economy, with the high unemployment rate and the uncertainty within the business community, not only on where the economy is going, but also with regard to the federal government’s involvement within the economy, many businesses are reluctant to add employees. Democrats now are also complaining that the business community has a large stockpile of cash sitting in their bank accounts and instead of adding employees or facilities. It just seems to me that unless liberal Democrats get exactly what they want, and only that, nothing is going to be good enough.
The mainstream media organizations keep talking now about the potential in-fighting within the Republican party and seems to ignore the huge disagreement within the Democratic party. Maybe they just see the fact that most moderate Democrats lost this past November and the only elected Democrats on the national level seem to represent either the inner cities, or either coasts. Whatever happens, if the lame duck Congress does not pass the agreement between President Obama and the Republicans in Congress, every single American will see an increase in their federal taxes starting January 1, 2011 and any belief that the US economy would improve over the course of the next few years would be eliminated. Yeah, Charles Krauthamer might be right in that this agreement is a second stimulus that will only help President Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012, but hopefully that means that the unemployment rate is closer to 7% as opposed to the current 9.8%.
Friday, August 14, 2009
"Un-American"
As the health care debate continues across the country, a lot has been made of the “mobs” that have disrupted certain town hall meetings. The “mobs” of ordinary citizens actually questioning their elected representatives about particular aspects of the different health care bills has become the story as opposed to the actual language in these draft bills. The Speaker of the House and the House Majority Leader earlier this week published an op-ed in the USA Today with the headline, “‘Un-American’ attacks can’t derail health care debate.” The op-ed goes on to state:
It is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue.
This same op-ed states that the ability to discuss with constituents is at “the heart of our democracy.” Yet I guess they only mean that if everyone agrees with their point of view. The Speaker and Majority Leader did not have a problem with “protest” discussions during the Bush Administration from the Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink folks. According to a link on the Drudge Report, “2006 Flashback: Pelosi Tells Protestors ‘I’m a Fan of Disruptors” So the story is that as long as you agree with the Speaker and her point of view, it is ok to protest the actions of the government. However, if you disagree with the Speaker’s point of view, you are “un-American” if you voice your opposition. Somehow, I don’t think that this is what our founding fathers had in mind when they established the first amendment, but then again I am someone who does not think that a government takeover of the health care system is the right thing to do, so I guess that makes me “un-American.”
It is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue.
This same op-ed states that the ability to discuss with constituents is at “the heart of our democracy.” Yet I guess they only mean that if everyone agrees with their point of view. The Speaker and Majority Leader did not have a problem with “protest” discussions during the Bush Administration from the Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink folks. According to a link on the Drudge Report, “2006 Flashback: Pelosi Tells Protestors ‘I’m a Fan of Disruptors” So the story is that as long as you agree with the Speaker and her point of view, it is ok to protest the actions of the government. However, if you disagree with the Speaker’s point of view, you are “un-American” if you voice your opposition. Somehow, I don’t think that this is what our founding fathers had in mind when they established the first amendment, but then again I am someone who does not think that a government takeover of the health care system is the right thing to do, so I guess that makes me “un-American.”
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Is this the change America voted for?
Washington, DC 2009
There have been a lot of changes in DC over the past few weeks and months. The new Obama administration has run into a lot of problems over the past few weeks. First, they announced their appointment of a new Treasury Secretary who failed to pay some $30,000 in self employment taxes. Even with this failure to pay, the Senate confirmed Secretary Geithner on January 26, 2009 with a 60-34 vote. Following the Treasury Secretary’s tax issues, the Health & Human Services nominee, former Senator Tom Daschle and White House chief performance officer, Nancy Killefer nominee withdrew their names from consideration on February 3, 2009 also over failure to pay taxes. These changes follow initial nominee to the Commerce Department, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson removed his name from consideration due to his being the subject of a grand jury investigation. Late this week it came out that Labor Secretary nominee Representative Hilda Solis also has some tax issues, her husband has failed to pay taxes and the State of California has a lien on the office property. These situations can not help President Obama lead the country.
This week also saw the creation of a so-called “stimulus bill” written behind closed doors by Speaker Pelosi and a few of her loyalists. The House bill was $825 billion and according to the Congressional Budget Office a majority of the money won’t be spent until 2011. The public outcry over money spent on std prevention and new grass for the national mall within an economic stimulus bill led the Senate to remove certain provisions. There was an agreement reached late Friday night between three Republican Senators to a package ranging from $780,000,000 to $820,000,000, which is a reduction from the proposed $940,000,000 that was where the Senate bill reached. Larry Summers, the White House’s Chairman of the National Economic Council stated the parameters of the economic stimulus – timely, targeted, and temporary. This bill doesn’t seem to be any of the three. It is an excessive spending bill that will create government jobs, not private sector jobs; was put together so quickly, behind closed doors, and outside the normal appropriations process in Congress that we don’t really know what is in the bill or if it will work. This is the largest spending bill in the history of the US and it is likely an enormous waste of all of our money… Somehow, I don’t think this was the Change that America voted for this past November.
There have been a lot of changes in DC over the past few weeks and months. The new Obama administration has run into a lot of problems over the past few weeks. First, they announced their appointment of a new Treasury Secretary who failed to pay some $30,000 in self employment taxes. Even with this failure to pay, the Senate confirmed Secretary Geithner on January 26, 2009 with a 60-34 vote. Following the Treasury Secretary’s tax issues, the Health & Human Services nominee, former Senator Tom Daschle and White House chief performance officer, Nancy Killefer nominee withdrew their names from consideration on February 3, 2009 also over failure to pay taxes. These changes follow initial nominee to the Commerce Department, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson removed his name from consideration due to his being the subject of a grand jury investigation. Late this week it came out that Labor Secretary nominee Representative Hilda Solis also has some tax issues, her husband has failed to pay taxes and the State of California has a lien on the office property. These situations can not help President Obama lead the country.
This week also saw the creation of a so-called “stimulus bill” written behind closed doors by Speaker Pelosi and a few of her loyalists. The House bill was $825 billion and according to the Congressional Budget Office a majority of the money won’t be spent until 2011. The public outcry over money spent on std prevention and new grass for the national mall within an economic stimulus bill led the Senate to remove certain provisions. There was an agreement reached late Friday night between three Republican Senators to a package ranging from $780,000,000 to $820,000,000, which is a reduction from the proposed $940,000,000 that was where the Senate bill reached. Larry Summers, the White House’s Chairman of the National Economic Council stated the parameters of the economic stimulus – timely, targeted, and temporary. This bill doesn’t seem to be any of the three. It is an excessive spending bill that will create government jobs, not private sector jobs; was put together so quickly, behind closed doors, and outside the normal appropriations process in Congress that we don’t really know what is in the bill or if it will work. This is the largest spending bill in the history of the US and it is likely an enormous waste of all of our money… Somehow, I don’t think this was the Change that America voted for this past November.
Friday, November 21, 2008
THANKS, BUT...
THANKS, BUT…
Detroit, Michigan has been the focus of Washington, DC this week with the Detroit Three (formerly referred to as the Big Three) auto company’s executives coming before Congress to plead their case for a financial bailout. All three chief executive officers as well as the head of the United Auto Workers union testified before both the House and the Senate relating to their request for a $25 billion bridge loan.
The reaction from both sides of the isle was harsh. The auto makers failure to adapt to a changing economy and their agreements with the UAW have led to a belief that the leadership of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler were asleep at the wheel for the past few years and the soon to be bankruptcy is a just reward.
All four leaders’ testimony was terrible. They were unable to explain what they would do with the money, how they came up with the dollar amount, how it would be split among the three companies, what changes to their business model they were in the process of implementing so that they would not be back before Congress in a year asking for more money. It wasn’t just Republicans demanding answers, but Democrats as well. In fact, certain Democrats asked the tougher questions. Senator Menendez of New Jersey and Representative Sherman of California both questioned the rationale for Congress providing a bridge loan to the companies. The failure of the executives to explain the need for the loan and what changes to their business model they were either implementing or about to implement basically determined their fate.
Two Republican Senators, Kit Bond from Missouri and George Voinovich from Ohio went to work on trying to come up with a compromise plan that would change some of the conditions to money already allocated to the automakers. Instead of using the $25 billion in Energy Department loans to focus on more fuel efficient automobiles, they proposed using that money in the short term for the bridge loan. Initially, Senate majority leader Harry Reid decided not to allow a vote on such a proposal. However, following the involvement of Michigan’s two Democratic senators, Levin and Stabenow, Senator Reid decided to allow a vote Thursday afternoon. Following a meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, this vote was cancelled. Speaker Pelosi demanded plans for the money to be submitted by early December before a vote could take place. The plans have to be submitted to business leaders, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts. Both of these men were involved in the credit crisis by their continued support of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two “leaders” refused to allow any changes to the actions of Fannie and Freddie and when both institutions failed miserably over the past six months, they claimed ignorance. Now these two are going to be responsible for overseeing the automakers restructuring plans. The American people are now reliant on these two to protect our tax dollars and make sure that any plans submitted by the automakers are credible and a one time deal. Somehow, I am not confident that they have the capacity to even understand basic financial statements…
The other big news relating to Detroit out of Washington this week was the removal of Representative John Dingell as Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Speaker Pelosi, unhappy with Dingell over the past several years for his “failure” to institute extreme environmental procedures that have caused the automakers so many problems, allowed fellow California liberal Representative Henry Waxman to challenge for the chairmanship. A secret vote took place (funny how Democrats support secret balloting when they have to make a decision but not for union considerations…) and Representative Waxman won by 15 votes. The longest serving Democrat in the House, is now no longer the Democratic leader of the Committee for which he has been the longest serving Democratic member since 1981. Since Representative Dingell has been removed in favor of another extreme environmentalist, one can only imagine how soon the automakers have higher café standards to deal with and individual state requirements.
Detroit should give a big thank you to Speaker Pelosi, since she is the driving force behind all the strings attached to any Detroit bailout. The Detroit area and the state of Michigan voted Democratic overwhelmingly this past November and now they get to deal with those results – the last one in Detroit can turn off the lights…
Detroit, Michigan has been the focus of Washington, DC this week with the Detroit Three (formerly referred to as the Big Three) auto company’s executives coming before Congress to plead their case for a financial bailout. All three chief executive officers as well as the head of the United Auto Workers union testified before both the House and the Senate relating to their request for a $25 billion bridge loan.
The reaction from both sides of the isle was harsh. The auto makers failure to adapt to a changing economy and their agreements with the UAW have led to a belief that the leadership of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler were asleep at the wheel for the past few years and the soon to be bankruptcy is a just reward.
All four leaders’ testimony was terrible. They were unable to explain what they would do with the money, how they came up with the dollar amount, how it would be split among the three companies, what changes to their business model they were in the process of implementing so that they would not be back before Congress in a year asking for more money. It wasn’t just Republicans demanding answers, but Democrats as well. In fact, certain Democrats asked the tougher questions. Senator Menendez of New Jersey and Representative Sherman of California both questioned the rationale for Congress providing a bridge loan to the companies. The failure of the executives to explain the need for the loan and what changes to their business model they were either implementing or about to implement basically determined their fate.
Two Republican Senators, Kit Bond from Missouri and George Voinovich from Ohio went to work on trying to come up with a compromise plan that would change some of the conditions to money already allocated to the automakers. Instead of using the $25 billion in Energy Department loans to focus on more fuel efficient automobiles, they proposed using that money in the short term for the bridge loan. Initially, Senate majority leader Harry Reid decided not to allow a vote on such a proposal. However, following the involvement of Michigan’s two Democratic senators, Levin and Stabenow, Senator Reid decided to allow a vote Thursday afternoon. Following a meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, this vote was cancelled. Speaker Pelosi demanded plans for the money to be submitted by early December before a vote could take place. The plans have to be submitted to business leaders, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts. Both of these men were involved in the credit crisis by their continued support of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two “leaders” refused to allow any changes to the actions of Fannie and Freddie and when both institutions failed miserably over the past six months, they claimed ignorance. Now these two are going to be responsible for overseeing the automakers restructuring plans. The American people are now reliant on these two to protect our tax dollars and make sure that any plans submitted by the automakers are credible and a one time deal. Somehow, I am not confident that they have the capacity to even understand basic financial statements…
The other big news relating to Detroit out of Washington this week was the removal of Representative John Dingell as Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Speaker Pelosi, unhappy with Dingell over the past several years for his “failure” to institute extreme environmental procedures that have caused the automakers so many problems, allowed fellow California liberal Representative Henry Waxman to challenge for the chairmanship. A secret vote took place (funny how Democrats support secret balloting when they have to make a decision but not for union considerations…) and Representative Waxman won by 15 votes. The longest serving Democrat in the House, is now no longer the Democratic leader of the Committee for which he has been the longest serving Democratic member since 1981. Since Representative Dingell has been removed in favor of another extreme environmentalist, one can only imagine how soon the automakers have higher café standards to deal with and individual state requirements.
Detroit should give a big thank you to Speaker Pelosi, since she is the driving force behind all the strings attached to any Detroit bailout. The Detroit area and the state of Michigan voted Democratic overwhelmingly this past November and now they get to deal with those results – the last one in Detroit can turn off the lights…
Saturday, November 15, 2008
NOW WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT?
NOW WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT?
With the election of Senator Barack Obama to be our country’s 44th President, a lot of the DC establishment is now trying to figure out what’s next? Most of these folks have nothing better to do than to offer their advice on how good/bad things are in the country. They are typically former journalists, academics, or campaign staffers. They have never created a job, made a payroll, or done much more than pushing some paper around. With the end of the campaign, in order to stay on tv or to be quoted in stories in the Washington Post, they offer their suggestions as to who should make up the new White House staff or cabinet, or what industry the taxpayers should bail out next.
President-elect Obama’s first personnel announcement was that Representative Rahm Emanuel would be his chief of staff. This announcement was met with some questions from Republicans and leading conservatives. Both Minority leader John Boehner and conservative advocate Sean Hannity thought it was a bad signal to send if the Obama administration was serious about all the bi-partisan claims that they announced during the campaign. I think the pick of Emanuel is a great choice. Representative Emanuel spent a lot of time in the White House during the Clinton Administration. He understands the workings of the White House and understands the workings of the federal government. He also has extensive relationships and experience on Capital Hill. This knowledge should help the administration push its agenda and potentially get things done. While Emanuel is a democratic partisan, who did the Republicans think the Obama administration would pick? A Republican? Representative Emanuel was a supporter of welfare reform and free trade during his time in the Clinton Administration. Aren’t these priorities of the Republicans? He has shown an ability to get things done in Washington and isn’t afraid to go against some of the Democrats largest contributors.
As the Obama administration starts to announce their choices for certain staff positions within its administration, I think it would be wise of the Republicans in Congress and conservative pundits to study the policy positions they have but not to denounce the pick without any examination.
One big issue that is currently being debated here in Washington is the potential “bail out” of the Detroit Three. The former Big Three auto companies claim that they need federal support in order to stay out of bankruptcy. Already the Congress has approved $25 billion to help them convert to more fuel efficient cars. They are also asking for as much as $50 billion more to allow them to stay in business. The biggest problem facing the automakers is the incredibly high legacy costs associated with each car produced. Some estimates value these costs at as much as $1,500 per vehicle. These costs include health care and pension liabilities for the workforce. Many retired auto workers do not have to pay a co-pay on their prescriptions or doctor visits. Everyone else pays a small co-pay for these services. Would it be too much for the UAW to agree to have its members pay a small co-pay to reduce some of the health care costs of the Detroit Three?
The big issue surrounding the debate in Washington is if the taxpayers provide the funds to keep them out of bankruptcy, what changes in the business model will they implement so that they don’t run into these problems in a year or two? Most of the conditions being discussed on Capital Hill have to do with executive compensation and bonuses. Nothing about restructuring their contracts with the UAW, nothing about issued such as the job banks that allow workers to not work, but still take home their salaries. Without a complete restructuring of their business models, the Detroit Three are not likely to be successful. Foreign automakers are building cars throughout the US, particularly in the south. Whether it’s Toyota, Honda, or BMW, foreign automakers are building cars more suited to today’s economy. They have less overhead costs to pass onto the buyer of their products.
Folks in Detroit are worried about their futures, and they should be worried. For too long, Detroit’s automakers did not believe that foreign competition was actual competition. Once Toyota and Honda became legitimate alternatives, the Detroit Three decided on the strategy of blaming the American public for not buying their products, then making bigger cars that do not get very good gas mileage, and now begging Congress to bail them out. Not once have they looked at their business models and decided to take the hit now to eliminate some of the problems facing it.
Do we really want Congress to be making decisions as to the business models of the automakers? They have a hard enough time trying to pass a budget, how are they going to make the needed, hard decisions to try and make the auto companies more competitive? The Detroit Three need to look at themselves and decide what they should do to make themselves competitive. They are the only ones that can do this. They should know the business and their customer needs better than anyone else. They have to adjust their products to fulfill the needs of the American public. The taxpayers should not be responsible for the failure of the auto companies to make the tough but needed decisions.
With the election of Senator Barack Obama to be our country’s 44th President, a lot of the DC establishment is now trying to figure out what’s next? Most of these folks have nothing better to do than to offer their advice on how good/bad things are in the country. They are typically former journalists, academics, or campaign staffers. They have never created a job, made a payroll, or done much more than pushing some paper around. With the end of the campaign, in order to stay on tv or to be quoted in stories in the Washington Post, they offer their suggestions as to who should make up the new White House staff or cabinet, or what industry the taxpayers should bail out next.
President-elect Obama’s first personnel announcement was that Representative Rahm Emanuel would be his chief of staff. This announcement was met with some questions from Republicans and leading conservatives. Both Minority leader John Boehner and conservative advocate Sean Hannity thought it was a bad signal to send if the Obama administration was serious about all the bi-partisan claims that they announced during the campaign. I think the pick of Emanuel is a great choice. Representative Emanuel spent a lot of time in the White House during the Clinton Administration. He understands the workings of the White House and understands the workings of the federal government. He also has extensive relationships and experience on Capital Hill. This knowledge should help the administration push its agenda and potentially get things done. While Emanuel is a democratic partisan, who did the Republicans think the Obama administration would pick? A Republican? Representative Emanuel was a supporter of welfare reform and free trade during his time in the Clinton Administration. Aren’t these priorities of the Republicans? He has shown an ability to get things done in Washington and isn’t afraid to go against some of the Democrats largest contributors.
As the Obama administration starts to announce their choices for certain staff positions within its administration, I think it would be wise of the Republicans in Congress and conservative pundits to study the policy positions they have but not to denounce the pick without any examination.
One big issue that is currently being debated here in Washington is the potential “bail out” of the Detroit Three. The former Big Three auto companies claim that they need federal support in order to stay out of bankruptcy. Already the Congress has approved $25 billion to help them convert to more fuel efficient cars. They are also asking for as much as $50 billion more to allow them to stay in business. The biggest problem facing the automakers is the incredibly high legacy costs associated with each car produced. Some estimates value these costs at as much as $1,500 per vehicle. These costs include health care and pension liabilities for the workforce. Many retired auto workers do not have to pay a co-pay on their prescriptions or doctor visits. Everyone else pays a small co-pay for these services. Would it be too much for the UAW to agree to have its members pay a small co-pay to reduce some of the health care costs of the Detroit Three?
The big issue surrounding the debate in Washington is if the taxpayers provide the funds to keep them out of bankruptcy, what changes in the business model will they implement so that they don’t run into these problems in a year or two? Most of the conditions being discussed on Capital Hill have to do with executive compensation and bonuses. Nothing about restructuring their contracts with the UAW, nothing about issued such as the job banks that allow workers to not work, but still take home their salaries. Without a complete restructuring of their business models, the Detroit Three are not likely to be successful. Foreign automakers are building cars throughout the US, particularly in the south. Whether it’s Toyota, Honda, or BMW, foreign automakers are building cars more suited to today’s economy. They have less overhead costs to pass onto the buyer of their products.
Folks in Detroit are worried about their futures, and they should be worried. For too long, Detroit’s automakers did not believe that foreign competition was actual competition. Once Toyota and Honda became legitimate alternatives, the Detroit Three decided on the strategy of blaming the American public for not buying their products, then making bigger cars that do not get very good gas mileage, and now begging Congress to bail them out. Not once have they looked at their business models and decided to take the hit now to eliminate some of the problems facing it.
Do we really want Congress to be making decisions as to the business models of the automakers? They have a hard enough time trying to pass a budget, how are they going to make the needed, hard decisions to try and make the auto companies more competitive? The Detroit Three need to look at themselves and decide what they should do to make themselves competitive. They are the only ones that can do this. They should know the business and their customer needs better than anyone else. They have to adjust their products to fulfill the needs of the American public. The taxpayers should not be responsible for the failure of the auto companies to make the tough but needed decisions.
Monday, November 3, 2008
PLEASE VOTE!
The polls open in just a few hours and soon we will have a new President-elect. So many things have contributed to this being an interesting race, but one that could go down as the biggest mistake in history. All we have heard about in the past few weeks is that this election is over and Senator Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States. This may in fact happen, in fact it is likely to happen. However, it is not guaranteed to happen.
Tomorrow evening is going to be pretty interesting in seeing how the different networks call each state. Are they basing their calls strictly on exit polls? Are they making calls before all the polls in the state have closed? Let’s hope that the media does not act as they have in previous elections. Following the 2004 election, the networks examined how the exit polls had over-estimated Senator Kerry’s support by about 5.5%. If this years exit poll sample is as wrong as in 2004, do you think that might make a difference in a state such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, or North Carolina? All of these states have been labeled toss ups at one point in the campaign. If exit polls give Senator Obama wins of 3-5 points in some of these states, and the networks call the race his, what happens if they are again off by 5.5% and Senator McCain in fact wins those states?
A lot of talk has also focused on the fact that the toss-up states are mostly states that President Bush won in 2004. Of course they are. President Bush won more states than needed and if Senator Obama is going to win, he has to win some “red” states. Senator McCain does not need to win all of the Bush, “red” states in order to be elected President. McCain can lose some Bush states, such as New Hampshire or Colorado, Iowa, or New Mexico and still be elected. He can’t afford to lose too many of these states, but he can lose one or two of them.
I feel that the race is going to be a lot closer than the pundits predict. I am not sure if Senator McCain is going to be able to over come all the negative coverage that he has had to deal with from the national media and more importantly all the money that Senator Obama has spent on his campaign for President. The one thing that I am sure about as a result of this election is that public financing of Presidential campaigns is over. Any candidate that takes public money will be so far behind and have such limited resources that it will put their campaigns too far behind before they even start. This is a good thing. Let viable candidates raise their own money and spend it in anyway they choose. If they determine that the state of Ohio is the only toss up state in an election and they want to spend $100 million on ads, personnel, mail, and phones in Ohio, so be it. Let them do whatever they want to do.
If you don’t vote tomorrow, you have no right to complain if your candidate does not win or if the President and the new Congress act on positions you don’t agree with. If you don’t vote, you only have to blame yourself.
Tomorrow evening is going to be pretty interesting in seeing how the different networks call each state. Are they basing their calls strictly on exit polls? Are they making calls before all the polls in the state have closed? Let’s hope that the media does not act as they have in previous elections. Following the 2004 election, the networks examined how the exit polls had over-estimated Senator Kerry’s support by about 5.5%. If this years exit poll sample is as wrong as in 2004, do you think that might make a difference in a state such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, or North Carolina? All of these states have been labeled toss ups at one point in the campaign. If exit polls give Senator Obama wins of 3-5 points in some of these states, and the networks call the race his, what happens if they are again off by 5.5% and Senator McCain in fact wins those states?
A lot of talk has also focused on the fact that the toss-up states are mostly states that President Bush won in 2004. Of course they are. President Bush won more states than needed and if Senator Obama is going to win, he has to win some “red” states. Senator McCain does not need to win all of the Bush, “red” states in order to be elected President. McCain can lose some Bush states, such as New Hampshire or Colorado, Iowa, or New Mexico and still be elected. He can’t afford to lose too many of these states, but he can lose one or two of them.
I feel that the race is going to be a lot closer than the pundits predict. I am not sure if Senator McCain is going to be able to over come all the negative coverage that he has had to deal with from the national media and more importantly all the money that Senator Obama has spent on his campaign for President. The one thing that I am sure about as a result of this election is that public financing of Presidential campaigns is over. Any candidate that takes public money will be so far behind and have such limited resources that it will put their campaigns too far behind before they even start. This is a good thing. Let viable candidates raise their own money and spend it in anyway they choose. If they determine that the state of Ohio is the only toss up state in an election and they want to spend $100 million on ads, personnel, mail, and phones in Ohio, so be it. Let them do whatever they want to do.
If you don’t vote tomorrow, you have no right to complain if your candidate does not win or if the President and the new Congress act on positions you don’t agree with. If you don’t vote, you only have to blame yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)