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?

Sure, it might be said that we’ve got to “do something” about this or that truly vexing economic problem. But what is our government’s track record when its “don’t just stand there, do something” good intentions are applied to our nation’s industrial policy?

The answer is that we get multi-billion dollar subsidies to industries that cater to pet political theories rather than defer to the alternative of economically sound practices. That’s how we got into the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Wall Street and banking mess when government mandated that loans be made to meet the “credit needs” of people who in fact couldn’t pay back those loans. When you mix politicians with lobbyists and you throw in “experts,” activists and bureaucrats, what sounds good, feels good and looks good doesn’t necessarily end up good.

Right now, there is a legitimate call to weigh the need for government oversight versus the need for the free market to function at its best. Let’s have that debate.

However, let’s not repeat the mistake of allowing our government to blend “good intentions” industrial policy with letting it pick “winners” and “losers” in business development. Government leaders see these efforts as “red meat” but what we’re really looking at is a combination of baloney and pork—and the enormous bill, as always, goes to taxpayers.

It’s one thing to encourage a market for green cars or bank loans for people who can’t pay them back. It’s another thing for government to manipulate markets, with billions of dollars in taxpayer money. There is a difference between expounding on the worthiness of industrial policy and impounding taxpayer money to do it.

Bad history has a way of repeating itself. I like the way George Will put it recently when he spoke of pessimists, who say that “history is not one damn thing after another, it is the same damn thing over and over.”

Communications consultant Jon Kraushar is at www.jonkraushar.net.

Share This

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)

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.

And so the productive economy suffers, even as the deficit and debt soars. Business Week’s Theo Francis sums it up:

When Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson first pitched the bailout in September, it sounded like a plumbing job. The “troubled assets” on lenders’ books were clogging the financial system, he said, and the government needed to buy up the bad debt to get credit flowing again. But in the six weeks since the $700 billion plan passed, Paulson hasn’t spent a dime on asset purchases, and on Nov. 12 he scrapped the idea altogether.

Now let’s go through this just a bit, keeping in mind that “Hank the Plumber” and his tools can help—or wreck—the U.S. economy. Back in September, Paulson persuaded Bush that the country was facing a fiscal emergency. On September 19, Bush outlined his response, declaring, “The actions I just outlined reflect the considered judgment of Secretary Paulson, Chairman Bernanke, and Chairman Cox.” Which is to say, there’s plenty of blame to go around—plenty of blame, too, for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Chris Cox. But the Treasury Secretary is the senior economic official in the federal government, and also the only one of those officials who is directly in the executive branch chain of command. So the bucks—billions and trillions of them—stop with Paulson.

Indeed, back in September, when Bush declared that America faced a “crisis,” the first item on the administration’s emergency agenda, was:

1. The Administration will work with Congress to pass legislation approving the federal government’s purchase of difficult–to-sell assets, such as troubled mortgages, from banks and other financial institutions. This is a decisive step that will address underlying problems in our financial system. It will help take pressure off the balance sheets of banks and other financial institutions, and it will allow them to resume lending and get our financial system moving again.

“Troubled mortgages”—that was the key to the plan. Legislation establishing the “troubled assets relief program” (TARP) was signed into law on October 3. On that day, by the way, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 10, 325.

And now let’s replay that Business Week report on Paulson’s actions since then: “In the six weeks since the $700 billion plan passed, Paulson hasn’t spent a dime on asset purchases, and on Nov. 12 he scrapped the idea altogether.” And now, of course, the Dow is in the mid-8000 range. TARP—the most naked of bailouts to busted-flush gamblers—was never a good idea, but Paulson & Co. twisted arms to get it enacted. Yet nearly two months after getting it passed, Paulson has never used TARP. Paulson has gone on to new ideas, and different kinds of bailouts. And along the way, he squandered not only his financial credibility but also the Bush administration’s.

But wait there’s more: The cover story of that same issue of Business Week is titled: “The Subprime Wolves Are Back: And They’re Feeding Off The Bailout.” Co-authors Chad Terhune and Robert Berner detail:

Thousands of subprime mortgage lenders and brokers—many of them the very sorts of firms that helped create the current financial crisis—are going strong. Their new strategy: taking advantage of a long-standing federal program designed to encourage homeownership by insuring mortgages for buyers of modest means.

You read that correctly. Some of the same people who propelled us toward the housing market calamity are now seeking to profit by exploiting billions in federally insured mortgages. Washington, meanwhile, has vastly expanded the availability of such taxpayer-backed loans as part of the emergency campaign to rescue the country’s swooning economy.

The new loophole is through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which is technically a part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a low-profile outfit led by a low-profile Secretary, Steve Preston. HUD has been plagued by scandal for so long that it has little clout around the President’s Cabinet table. Especially on fiscal issues, it’s presumed that the “heavyweights,” such as the Treasury Secretary, will provide leadership and discipline.

But obviously, as the Business Week article details, Paulson, Preston, and all the rest are failing at their jobs. In the scathing words of the magazine, “FHA officials seem oblivious to what’s happening—or incapable of stopping it. They’re giving mortgage firms licenses to dole out 100%-insured loans despite lender records blotted by state sanctions, bankruptcy filings, civil lawsuits, and even criminal convictions.” The piece quotes Gary E. Lacefield, a former federal mortgage investigator who now runs a risk consultancy firm: “Within the next 12 to 18 months, there is going to be FHA-insurance Armageddon.” And that “Armageddon” could cost all of us, Lacefield predicts, another $100 billion.

Paulson would no doubt say that he is overwhelmed by other bailouts (such as the bailout for Citigroup, the corporate home to his onetime colleague at Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin) to worry about the FHA. Indeed, at a time when federal bailout guarantees—so far—are estimated to top  $8.5 trillion, Paulson probably figures it’s hardly worth getting worked up over another $100 billion or so in losses, especially if the losses come after he is scheduled to leave office in January.

But if that’s the case—and it obviously is the case—then for the sake of Americans as workers and taxpayers, it’s time for Paulson to go. Now. He’s done so much damage that we can’t afford to keep him, even for one more day.

Share This

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?

It reminds me of Governor George Pataki’s career in New York. The New York GOP was all about him because that’s how he and his handlers wanted it. Anyone who tried to step up and shine was crushed. I’m not saying Obama will destroy anyone who tries to steal his thunder (because his new Secretary of State is certainly going to try and will likely succeed) but my point is that the party was Pataki, and nothing more. When he left office, the party was vapid.

Martin lost for a couple of reasons but the most obvious one was that African-Americans didn’t show up at the polls for Martin as they did for Obama in November. Martin needed Obama’s help to get African-Americans to the polls but the president-elect was too busy for a quick jaunt to the Peach State. It would have been worth his time. A Martin win would have only benefited him. If Democrats had achieved a filibuster-proof senate he would have had a much easier time governing. This was a tactical mistake by Obama and he hasn’t even stepped into office. Their loss, our gain.

Get more Andrea, click here.

Share This

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.

Share This

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)

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.

Nuclear power India sits next to historic enemy and fellow nuclear power Pakistan. Their tensions focus primarily on Kashmir, currently controlled in 3 districts by India, Pakistan and China.

Terror attacks in India, mostly, seem to focus on the country’s regional problems with Pakistan.

Adding to that tension is that the India’s most recent terror attacks are believed to have been the work of a group called Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is thought, by some, to have historical connections to the Pakistani government.

To the contrary though, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned in India today not to discount the possibility that Al Qaeda may have been involved in the Mumbai terror attacks. She believes India, and all countries, should cooperate in a more thorough investigation of the terrorists’ identities.

If Rice’s Al Qaeda theory pans out, India’s terror problem is no longer local but global.

It’s time for India to choose sides and thoroughly commit themselves to American and British efforts to fight terrorism all over the world.

With the Chinese breathing hot fire down their neck as the Dragon grows stronger, India should want to make sure its Western ties don’t become frayed by ambivalence to the world terror problem and America’s attempt to stomp it out.

Get more Tommy, click here.

Share This

By Liz Peek
Financial Columnist

I’d like to propose one cost-cutting measure for the Big Three: Fire your public relations outfits. They are, to put it mildly, not getting the job done.

AP

After raising a ruckus by arriving in Washington two weeks ago via separate (and costly) private jets, now the auto execs are supposedly driving to D.C. – in hybrids! Really, how ridiculous.

More and more, this country’s government and business community is managing by soundbite.

According to MapQuest, it will take 8 hours and 57 minutes to drive from GM’s headquarters to the capitol, and only five minutes less for Mr. Mulally to drive from Dearborn. Is this a good use of their time?

More and more, this country’s government and business community is managing by soundbite. Reading over Ford’s plan, which was submitted on Tuesday morning to Congress, I am struck by all the politically correct proposals it contains, and by the equally notable absence of hard new decisions.

Ford’s management, clearly rattled by the surprisingly hostile reaction to the appeal made by all three auto companies in their first session with Congress, has seemingly attempted to come back with something to please everyone. Such as:

* They will accelerate the introduction of “high-quality, safe and fuel-efficient vehicles –- including a broader range of hybrid-electric vehicles and the introduction of advanced plug-in hybrids and full electric vehicles.” Suddenly Ford has become concerned about the environment, and the potential threat of rising oil prices.

That sounds great (though conceivably after the fact), but later on we learn that half the Ford, Mercury and Lincoln line by 2010 will qualify as “Advanced Technology Vehicles” under the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act, which means that Ford will be able to access government loans under that act. In fact, as the ratio of these cars increases, Ford will apparently be able to tap $5 billion in Department of Energy loans by 2011. Could this be why the company is so confident that they will be cash flow positive in 2011?

* CEO Mulally has agreed that if the company does have to borrow from “a potential government bridge loan” he will be willing to work for $1. As noted above, apparently the company has the ability to borrow heavily from the government already, all in the name of reducing our dependence on imported oil. So, this promise is unlikely to mean much.

* The company will sell its five corporate aircraft. Big deal.

* The company will improve the fuel efficiency of its fleet an average of 14% for 2009 models and 25% for 2012 models. I’m not sure if this includes the shift to hybrids and a market-driven swing towards smaller vehicles, but I can’t help thinking that this mileage improvement is happening all on its own. As oil prices soared last year and earlier this year, consumers parted with their beloved SUVs in record numbers. The shifting mix of car sales certainly hurts the auto companies, but does increase fuel efficiency. Highlighting the prospective gains as part of the plan is simply to curry favor with the environmental crowd. It’s wasted breath. That lobby would rather the execs walk to DC.

These are assuredly tough times for the auto companies. Staggering from the harm done by recent sky-high oil prices, the industry has also been hard-hit by the recession. Americans are sympathetic to the plight of the car companies, but recognize that the industry is unlikely to solve its main issue without going through the kind of reorganization that the airlines have endured.

The reality is that there is little in the Ford plan that is new, or that tackles the stubborn cost differential that has and that will continue to cripple not only Ford but GM and Chrysler as well. You simply cannot make cars with an embedded cost structure of $70 an hour and hope to compete with others paying $40 an hour. That is the simple truth, and until industry and Congress admit to that, no amount of bailout will prevent another collapse down the road.

Share This

By John Ziegler
Writer/Director/Producer, “Blocking the Path to 9/11″

It has been quite a strange couple of weeks since I decided to commission a Zogby poll of Obama voters. I chose to do this at great personal expense to determine whether interviews I did on Election Day (for a forthcoming documentary I am producing on the media coverage of the election) were indeed representative of the larger population.

In a nutshell, here’s what happened next: I suddenly become a favorite target of the Internet’s left-wing attack machine. Zogby was forced to defend the poll and two days later, his organization partially abandoned it. The video of Obama voters trying to answer the same questions that were asked by the Zogby poll has been viewed over 1.6 million times on YouTube. After Zogby balked, I managed to to commission a new poll that included both Obama and McCain voters as well as a couple of added twists.

President-elect Obama on Election Night (AP)

What was most remarkable about the left’s extreme reaction to the original Zogby poll was that it was utterly devoid of even the pretense of addressing the real issues that the nationwide telephone survey exposed. Instead of debating the implications of the results (in my view they clearly revealed a massive amount of media-induced ignorance on the part of the voting public), they chose to focus on the questioners rather than the actual answers from Obama voters — clearly, the responses they gave made them feel remarkably insecure. They also completely missed the original intent in asking these questions. It was not to make voters look stupid but rather to measure the impact of media bias on what they knew, or thought they knew.

Essentially, the left-wing blogosphere went all “Joe the Plumber” on me and John Zogby. I took the heat. He, apparently, could not.

Next, I issued a challenge on national TV to liberals to duplicate the Zogby results with McCain voters (and offered to pay for it myself if McCain voters didn’t outperform Obama voters on the “quiz”). Despite loads of belly-aching from the left that Zogby only polled Obama voters no legitimate takers took me up on my offer. So I decided to go ahead and do it myself. Zogby, seemingly intimidated by the firestorm of negative reaction, declined to take my money to do virtually the identical poll that his company was thrilled to do just a week before.

After discovering that other polling outlets were similarly frightened by the prospect of having the Obama-backers harass them, I was able to find a reputable one that was not. If ever there was proof of the adage “Be careful what you wish for…” the results of the ensuing survey are it. The Obama-backers are going to have to reignite their spin/assault machine of rationalization in a huge way.

The conclusions that can be drawn from this new poll are multiple and really rather staggering. In general, McCain voters were significantly more well-informed than their counterparts, and there is overwhelming evidence that the gaps in knowledge are directly related to the media sources they were exposed to.

Here are just some of the “highlights” of the Wilson Research Strategies poll of 1,000 voters whose demographic breakdown was an exact replica of the total voting population and whose results totally vindicate the controversial Zogby poll:

• 35 % of McCain voters got 10 or more of 13 multiple choice questions correct.
• 18% of Obama voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.
• McCain voters knew which party controls congress by a 63-27 margin.
  Obama voters got the “congressional control” question wrong by 43-41.
• Those that got “congressional control” correct voted 56-43 for McCain.
• Those that got “congressional control” wrong voted 65-35 for Obama.
• Those “exposed” to FOX News got “congressional control” correct 64-25 (+39)
• Those ‘exposed” to CNN got “Congressional control” correct 48-38 (+10)
• Those “exposed” to network news got “Congressional control” correct 48-39 (+9)
• Those “exposed” to print media got “Congressional control” correct 52-37 (+15)
• Those “exposed” to MSNBC got “Congressional control” correct 55-35 (+20)
• Those “exposed” to talk radio got “Congressional control” correct 61-29 (+32)
• Voters in the South had the best response rate on “Congressional control” (+22)
• Voters in the Northeast had the worst response rate on “Congressional control” (+9)
• Those “exposed” to FOX News voted 70-29 for McCain.
• Those “exposed” to CNN voted 63-37 for Obama.
• Those “exposed” to MSNBC voted 73-26 for Obama.
• Those “exposed” to network newscasts voted 62-37 for Obama.
• Those “exposed” to national newspapers voted 64-36 for Obama
• Those “exposed” to talk radio voted 61-38 for McCain.
• Those that could associate Bill Ayers’ name/story with Obama voted 52-48 for McCain.
• Those that knew Obama had made negative comments about “coal power plants” voted 76-24 for McCain.
• Those that knew Obama had his opponents knocked off the ballot in his first campaign voted 66-34 for McCain.

• McCain voters did poorly (only 42% correct) on the Keating question and, in general, the voters did universally worse on questions where the negative information was about their candidate.

• Women under 55 did worse than they might have by guessing on four of the thirteen questions yet 95% of them knew that Palin was the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter. — Even 95% of those in this demographic group who didn’t know “Congressional control” got this question correct.

• Those “exposed” to MSNBC scored 90% correct on the three Palin questions (including an incredible 98% on the pregnant teenage daughter question), while those not exposed to MSNBC averaged 84% correct on those three questions.

John Ziegler is the writer/director/producer of “Blocking the Path to 9/11.” All of the results from both polls, as well as the Obama voter video can be seen at www.HowObamaGotElected.com

Share This

By Lis Wiehl
FOX News Legal Analyst/Former Prosecutor

I will admit to having an uneasy relationship with elevators…going down 18 flights in a few seconds just seems unnatural.  But we all have to rely on them everyday.  And we also have to rely on their proper maintenance.  Little Jacob Neuman lost his life doing just that.

Back in August, 5-year-old Jacob Neuman’s life came to a halt when the elevator he was on shut down.  He attempted to jump down to the hallway floor from the stalled elevator but instead fell backwards tumbling 120 feet down the elevator shaft of his Brooklyn apartment building. New details on Jacob’s accident have just surfaced in a 52-page report by inspectors with the city’s Department of Buildings revealing that the elevator’s technical problems were tied to faulty maintenance by the buildings landlord, the New York City Housing Authority.

The elevator power shutdown that led to the death appears to have been caused by the misalignment and wear and tear of electrical contacts in the motor room control panel, which experts say should have been part of the elevator’s day-to-day routine maintenance.  According to the Buildings Department records, prior to the accident, the elevator had failed 8 of 11 inspections. What’s the point of all these inspections if they let faulty equipment continue to operate? On top of the grief and tragedy, imagine finding out that it was something that could have been prevented with maintenance?

Who is to blame for such a horrible tragedy?

The Neuman family has filed a notice of claim, a legal precursor to filing a lawsuit, with the Housing Authority accusing the agency of operating an elevator in a dangerous state of disrepair and of negligence in failing to maintain the worn electrical contacts.

Elevator experts said that even though failures in the control panel occurred, the accident could have been avoided had the elevator been equipped with a safety device that is widely used around NYC and now mandatory on all new elevator installations.  The device is known as door or zone restrictors, which prevent people trapped inside stalled elevators from opening the cab doors to escape when the elevator is not level with a floor. Unfortunately, Jacob’s building was not equipped with this safety device.

As a result of this horrible incident, elevator safety has become a top priority for the Housing Authority, which maintains thousands of low-rent apartments throughout New York City. Agency officials have said that some of the money being used to improve elevator operations will go to the installation of completely new elevators in Jacob’s building—too bad it’s too little too late for Jacob’s family.

SOURCES:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/nyregion/02elevator.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=elevator%20safety&st=cse&scp=1

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/08/21/2008-08-21_little_jacobs_death.html

Share This

As seen on “Studio B with Shepard Smith” on December 2.

FRASER SEITEL, PUBLIC RELATIONS EXPERT:

They have two challenges. One, the performance has to be there. The plans have to be viable.
Secondly, public relations, in this case, is critical. They’ ve got to improve their public relations.

Where public relations starts, people don’t understand this, is with action and performance. They have got to perform. At the same time, it seems to me, they have got to emphasize the workers. That is number one. They have got to emphasize the cars, number two. The ceo’ s have got to go on shows like this. But to be more direct and be  transparent in terms of what they would like to do.

Driving across the country is dopey. I mean we’re dumb but we’re not that dumb. That is silly. What they ought to do is start being transparent. They need to say, “we’re all in this together and our workers are important. We want to explain this to the American people, so we’re going to increase the public exposure.”

Share This

By Alireza Jafarzadeh
Foreign Affairs Analyst

A week after the UN’s nuclear watchdog released an alarming report on the status of Iran’s nuclear program, Tehran declared that it now has more than 5,000 centrifuges operating and enriching uranium, and that it has launched another rocket into space.

Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization on 11/30 (AP)

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report is based on its most recent inspections in early November. It states that Tehran now has nearly 630 kilograms, or about 1,390 pounds, of low-enriched uranium (LEU). Several highly regarded nuclear experts have concluded that the amount is enough to build a nuclear bomb when converted into high-enriched uranium (HEU).

The survival of this unpopular regime depends on its being in a state of perpetual crisis. The Iranian theocracy is incapable of acting as a “normal” state or enacting the kind of behavioral changes the free world demands.

Richard L. Garwin, a top nuclear physicist who helped invent the hydrogen bomb, told The New York Times, “They clearly have enough material for a bomb.” Garwin’s assessment was shared by Siegfried S. Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory, who told The Times that the size of Tehran’s LEU stockpile “underscored that they are marching down the path to developing the nuclear weapons option.” Thomas B. Cochran of the Natural Resources Defense Council referred to the size of Iran’s stockpile as a “virtual milestone,” maintaining that it was enough for an advanced implosion-type bomb.

Other experts say the ayatollahs’ regime still needs more LEU, but they quickly add that it only takes a few months to produce the required amount.

The latest report is all the more alarming because the IAEA’s assessment was based on Iran having around 3,800 centrifuges in operation, not the nearly 5,000 declared on November 26. The report underscores that Tehran is in breach of four UN Security Council resolutions and is defying the international demand that it halt nuclear enrichment and relevant activities.

The head of Tehran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, told reporters that “suspension of nuclear enrichment is not in our vocabulary.” His pronouncement is very much in line with previous statements by the regime’s entire leadership, from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei down to the regime’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Speaker of Parliament, Ali Larijani. In fact as Aghazadeh was making the announcement about the 5,000 centrifuges, Khamenei was telling another audience that his terrorist regime has now achieved “regional hegemony.”

The November 19 IAEA report states that “There remain a number of outstanding issues regarding the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.” It adds that “Iran has not offered any cooperation with the Agency since that report and has not yet provided the requested information, or access to the requested documentation, locations or individuals.” Equally worrying, the report admits that the IAEA has not been able “to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.”

A comparison of the IAEA’s two most recent reports show that Iran’s nuclear program, controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and intimately supervised by Khamenei, has overcome many technical problems. The ayatollahs’ plan is obvious: produce enough LEU, under the nose of the IAEA and under the pretext of a benign program, and then inject it back into the centrifuge cascades to produce HEU, a weapons-usable material.

The report also reflects the utter failure of the diplomatic track set in motion early this year, which was designed to entice the ayatollahs into compliance in exchange for a package of very substantial economic, political, and technological incentives. The failed initiative merely bestowed on the ayatollahs the much needed time to resolve the technical issues, and install more and better centrifuges.

Under siege from political turmoil ravaging the apex of their regime and mounting popular discontent over endemic political, economic, and social crises, the ayatollahs will surely press on with their nuclear weapons program to break out of the impasse. The survival of this unpopular regime depends on its being in a state of perpetual crisis. The Iranian theocracy is incapable of acting as a “normal” state or enacting the kind of behavioral changes the free world demands. The ayatollahs know, even if the West does not, that they cannot thrive by acting “normal.” Tehran’s strategic interests - advancing a nuclear weapons program, establishing a client state in Iraq and ruling through terror and suppression - are fundamentally at odds with international and regional order.

The drastic fall in oil prices is wrecking havoc with the ayatollahs’ economy, already in shambles after nearly thirty years of corruption, mismanagement and sponsorship of terrorism. The good news is, this makes them more susceptible than ever to sanctions. The existing UN sanctions and those imposed by the United States and European Union are taking their toll. A new round would significantly increase the pressure on Tehran. But sanctions alone are not enough; they should be augmented by a policy which sides with the Iranian people and their resistance for democratic change.

If the mullahs are not stopped, the free world will soon find itself looking at a nuclear-armed state-sponsor of terror bent on using Iraq as a springboard for its aggressive regional agenda. A growing number of policy makers, including members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, believe that sanctions should be coupled with political pressure. Washington should reach out to Iran’s main democratic opposition, whose blacklisting has only emboldened the real terrorists ruling Iran.

Alireza Jafarzadeh is the author of “The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis” (Palgrave: February 2008).

Jafarzadeh has revealed Iran’s terrorist network in Iraq and its terror training camps since 2003. He first disclosed the existence of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility and the Arak heavy water facility in August 2002.

Until August 2003, Jafarzadeh acted for a dozen years as the chief congressional liaison and media spokesman for the U.S. representative office of Iran’s parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

Share This