FOX Forum

Archive for December 3rd, 2008

First Bad Loans, Now Green Cars?

By Jon Kraushar
Communications Consultant

Here we go again. The federal government wants to set industrial policy for automakers with several billion dollars in loans or bailout funds predicated on “green car” development. Isn’t this the same kind of mistake the government made when it set industrial policy requiring banks to make loans to customers who couldn’t afford to pay them back?

When will we learn that, even with plenty of good intentions the old expression “government cannot pick winners but losers can pick governments” still applies?

The Department of Energy has been given permission to administer $25 billion in low interest loans to car manufacturers ‘to retool factories to build more fuel efficient vehicles.” That’s devoting a lot of green to companies that have traditionally operated in the red.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that President-elect Obama’s proposed stimulus package (estimates for it are as high as $700 billion) could devote up to $100 billion for a “green jobs” component.

When will we learn that, even with plenty of “good intentions” the old expression “government cannot pick winners but losers can pick governments” still applies?

Keep Reading …

Throw a TARP on Hank Paulson — The Treasury Secretary Should Go, Now

So Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson gave a  major policy speech on Monday and the market plummeted.  ‘Nuff said.

I am not one of those who think that George W. Bush should resign the presidency early, to make way for Barack Obama. But I am in favor of the early—make that immediate—exit of Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson.  Alfred E. Neuman would do a better job.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (AP)

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (AP)

And so I am confident that Obama’s pick, Timothy Geithner, couldn’t be any worse.
We’ll soon finds out about Geithner & Co., but in the meantime, we are stuck with a proven failure.

Paulson brings to Washington a lethal combination of stubbornness and indecisiveness.

This headline in Tuesday’s New York Times sums it up: “Bailout Monitor Sees Lack of a Coherent Plan.”

According to the Times’ Diana B. Henriques:

“The head of a new Congressional panel set up to monitor the gigantic federal bailout says the government still does not seem to have a coherent strategy for easing the financial crisis, despite the billions it has already spent in that effort.

Elizabeth Warren, the chairwoman of the oversight panel, said in an interview Monday that the government instead seemed to be lurching from one tactic to the next without clarifying how each step fits into an overall plan. “You can’t just say, ‘Credit isn’t moving through the system,’ ” she said in her first public comments since being named to the panel. “You have to ask why.”

Wow.  That’s not much of an expression of confidence from someone who is supposed to be safeguarding the management of the program.

The December 1 issue of Business Week underscores the urgency of getting rid of Paulson, a man who brings to Washington a lethal combination of stubbornness and indecisiveness. That is, he has been stubborn in his determination to secure bailouts now measured in the trillions, but he has been indecisive, bordering on catatonic, when it comes to actually implementing the bailout.

Keep Reading …

What the Republican Win In Georgia Really Means

By Andrea Tantaros
Republican Political Commentator/Foxnews.com Contributor

After gobs of money, a barrage of advertising and even an appearance by rapper Ludacris, we finally have an outcome in the Georgia circus (aka: special election) and it’s good news for Republicans. Incumbent Saxby Chambliss defeated his opponent, Jim Martin by a large margin (58 percent to 42 percent). Sure, the massive amounts of cash the Republicans channeled south of the Mason-Dixon line helped, and the idea of a filibuster proof Senate was likely unsettling to Georgians, but the real story is that the Democratic Party is nothing without Obama.

He’s the star, he controls the lists, the money and the power. But when it comes to the Democratic brand, the party is in no better shape than the GOP.

The real story in Georgia is that the Democratic Party is nothing without Obama.

There is no Obama effect when he’s not on the ballot. Turnout pales in comparison. And he doesn’t seem to care. Obama didn’t stump for Martin in the Peach State just like Obama didn’t stump for his colleagues in the Presidential election. We heard rumblings throughout the year that there were tensions between the Obama campaign and Capitol Hill Democrats and Obama’s army-of-one mentality was likely the crux of that tension. No man is an island but apparently Obama believes that he is. Maybe he doesn’t need anyone else, but what will that do for the future of the Democratic Party?

Keep Reading …

Bankruptcy Is a Bailout

By Richard Miller
Author, “In Words and Deeds: Battle Speeches in History”

Granted, no one likes pain. Everyone prefers to avoid it, including unions, auto parts suppliers, politicians, and auto manufacturers. So instead of confronting painful but necessary decisions in a bankruptcy proceeding, the aforementioned parties would prefer to sell a motion for progress under cover of a political bailout, which means less pain. Translation: fewer pensions cut, fewer salaries eliminated, fewer union jobs lost.

Sounds good, eh? Well, who wouldn’t opt to treat their cancer with a box of Cracker Jacks rather than chemotherapy? Tastes good, but unfortunately, it doesn’t work.

Of course, public perception in a major democracy requires theater–meme and trope laden fairy tales of greedy (or struggling) unions representing over-indulged (or just-above-the-poverty line) retirees and fat cat (or honest and
earnest) company managers who are either seeking bailouts on the taxpayers’
dime or just want to preserve a fine national resource. What the American leadership class learns quickly and excels at the most is theater.–In just two weeks, the Big Three CEOs have gone from flying private jets with big carbon footprints to working for a $1 a year and driving their own cars from Detroit to Washington.

In the meantime, a Chapter 11 filing for the companies they lead is presented as the business equivalent of Attila the Hun coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

Alas for the performers and their audiences, it’s not only a lie, it’s also beside the point. The automakers need to file for bankruptcy because that’s the only genuine bailout available. First, it will provide relief from creditors who are currently being overpaid or for whom there simply isn’t enough cash left to pay.

During the relief period that these creditors–yep, that includes auto workers, golden parachutees, retirees and the rest–cool their heels, the automakers under court and (perhaps) trustee supervision can start making real economic decisions—probably for the first time in two generations.
Eventually a plan will be filed and the car companies can emerge with debts they can actually service. And if they do their job right during reorganization, they’ll also emerge competitive.

Yes, it will be painful. Some creditors will be receive the traditional “zotz” on what they’re owed. Some blue and white collar workers will lose their jobs. Auto lines will be consolidated. Plants closed. And retirees will probably get less.

Despite the lies, bankruptcy isn’t pulling the plug–it’s offering new life. Not life on a respirator, but quality of life where the patient eventually has a chance to get out of bed and take a drive in his or her new, quality-built, fuel efficient (maybe even green) automobile at an affordable price.

But here’s question for my readers: if Detroit gets bailed in a way that doesn’t
really allow it to make the changes to become competitive with say, Toyota, how many of you are going to rush out and buy a Ford?

So I say, support the auto company bailouts… let ‘em file for Chapter 11.

Time for India to Join the Global War on Terror

By Tommy De Seno
Attorney/Writer

When it comes to the War on Terror, India has always thought locally, not globally.

Condoleezza Rice at a joint press conference in India on Dec. 3 (AP)

Condoleezza Rice at a joint press conference in India on Dec. 3 (AP)

In 1998 India asked the U.S. and Great Britain to stop bombing strategic targets in Iraq.

In 2002 when the United States was considering invading Iraq over weapons inspections and Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, India’s Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said that no country should “force it’s will on another.”

It’s time for India to choose sides.

After the American invasion of Iraq, India claimed there was no justification for it, while at the same time expressing belief that Iraq actually did have weapons of mass destruction.

Think about that last paragraph. While hindsight may be 20/20, foresight is blind and requires judgment. Any country (like India) that believed Hussein had WMDs but still didn’t want to invade showed horrid judgment about security around the world.

What’s puzzling about India’s ambivalent position on the U.S. fight against world terror is that India has many more terror attacks on its soil than we in the US have on ours.

Keep Reading …

Close
E-mail It