Archive for December 6, 2008

Obama Denialism: the Electors Respond

Per Patrick at Yes to Democracy, one elector’s humble reply to a deluge of e-mails from Obama denialists, demanding that he refuse to certify Obama’s victory:

December 6, 2008

I have been asked by some concerned citizens as part of my Constitutional responsibility as a member of the College of Electors to review the evidence and make a determination regarding the natural born citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama II, or to join in a lawsuit against him in this matter. They have also forwarded a great deal of information to me which I have now reviewed.

After reading this information it is my opinion that none of it is conclusive in its own right. Most of it is speculation, rumor, or opinion rendered by “experts” or others whose qualifications and
motives are suspect. However, given the volume of information put forth, the question of Mr. Obama’s natural born citizenship was worth my understanding. Continue reading »

We’ve Got a Negotiation, Just Don’t Use the B-Word

Camels are also fuel efficient

This week the leadership of the Big Three headed back to D.C. in a car caravan (vs. the previous corporate-jet fiasco) and promised to take $1 salaries and forgo bonuses in 2009. The cloying symbolic gestures did make me throw up in my mouth, but the substance of Thursday’s Congressional hearings leads me to believe we are heading towards a special, government-administered bankruptcy for the auto industry, a plan I really like.

GM submitted a 37-page proposal for restructuring the company. Anyone looking for a mea culpa, where GM admits its decades-long unwillingness to focus on fuel-economy as a big part of the current problem, will be disappointed: GM says their current difficulties are due to the credit crisis. In fact, at least 10 percent of the proposal touts GM’s leadership in fuel-efficiency. The report discusses eliminating product lines (on the block: Hummer, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn) and working with dealers to close shop. It fails to mention differing local laws are going to make it extremely difficult to break dealer contracts, leading me to believe GM plans to magically convince dealership owners to close voluntarily. GM remains adamant that bankruptcy will indelibly mar the company’s reputation, rendering restructuring pointless. At the same time, the company proposes the establishment of a Federal Oversight Board during the recovery, which will include a huge debt-for-equity program … so GM’s plan is like government-administered bankruptcy, only different.

Oh, and the Big Three are now asking for $34 billion. Are we to assume coming to D.C. with a plan is worth $9 billion, considering the industry asked for $25 billion when they were plan-less two weeks ago?

Cynicism aside, the UAW announced on Wednesday it is willing to accept large money-saving concessions, including ending the “job bank” program and allowing GM to delay the initial $7 billion deposit into the new retiree health-insurance program, planned since 2007. These concessions are more meaningful than car caravans and $1-salary overtures and give me hope the union can reinvent itself as a flexible and quick-acting advocate for workers.

Whatever happens — nothing, a straight bailout, a structured bankruptcy (or whatever the industry can bear to call it) — retiree health care must be addressed. I think any restructuring effort should jettison the plan to move GM retirees to a new, independent program and instead make GM retirees the first participants in Obama’s health-care program. The $7 billion GM was to use to establish the new retiree plan can be used to help finance the move and act as a generator of political and social capital for the company.

Finally, some quick-and-dirty observations and links:

1. Republican opposition to bailouts is arguably less about free-market, creative-destruction ideals and more about dealing a fatal blow to organized labor.
2. Arguments that bankruptcy will hang stockholders out to dry and therefore should be avoided are ineffective because the stockholders have been “drying” for some time.
3. Existing corporate leadership (i.e., all those $1 earners) need to be fired, and since we likely will be calling “structured bankruptcy” something else, we might as well call “fired” something new, too … I suggest “on permanent sabbatical.”
4. As usual, Andrew Leonard has good summaries of what’s going on with the Big Three. Educate yourself here and here.