By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama asserted unprecedented government control over the auto industry Monday, bluntly rejecting turnaround plans by General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, demanding fresh concessions for long-term federal aid and raising the possibility of quick bankruptcy for either ailing auto giant.
Obama took the extraordinary step of announcing the government will back new car warranties issued by both GM and Chrysler, an attempt to reassure consumers their U.S.-made purchases will be protected even if the companies don't survive.
"I am absolutely committed to working with Congress and the auto companies to meet one goal: The United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars," Obama said in his first extended remarks on the industry since taking office nearly 10 weeks ago. And yet, he added, "our auto industry is not moving in the right direction fast enough to succeed."
Obama, flanked by several administration officials at the White House, announced a short-term infusion of cash for the firms, and said it could be the last for one or both.
Chrysler, judged by the administration as too small to survive, got 30 days' worth of funds to complete a partnership with Fiat SpA, the Italian manufacturer, or some other automaker.
GM got assurances of 60 days' worth of federal financing to try and revise its turnaround plan under new management with heavy government participation. That would involve concessions from its union workers and bondholders. The administration engineered the ouster of longtime CEO Rick Wagoner over the weekend, an indication of its deep involvement in an industry that once stood as a symbol of American capitalism.
Obama's announcement underscored the extent to which automakers have been added to the list of large corporations now operating under a level of government control that seemed unthinkable less than a year ago. Since last fall, the Bush and Obama administrations, often acting in concert with the Federal Reserve, have engineered the takeover of housing titans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, seized a large stake in several banks and installed a new CEO at bailed-out insurance giant American International Group.
The latest addition to the list, the once-proud auto industry, has struggled with foreign competition for more than a generation, then was further battered by the recession and credit crisis gripping the economy. Obama said 400,000 industry jobs have been lost in the past year alone, many in Michigan.
Fritz Henderson, newly named as CEO of General Motors, issued a statement saying the company would work "to make the fundamental and lasting changes necessary to reinvent GM for the long term." The company said it hopes to avoid bankruptcy, but added it will "take whatever steps are necessary to successfully restructure the company, which could include a court-supervised process."
Chrysler Chairman Bob Nardelli sought to assure customers, dealers, suppliers and employees that the automaker "will operate 'business as usual' over the next 30 days," while working closely with the government and Fiat to secure the support of stakeholders.
Sergio Marchionne, CEO of Fiat, issued a statement calling the Obama administration's involvement "tough but fair, and we believe we will arrive at a result that will establish a credible future for this crucial industrial sector and that assigns the right priority to the repayment of U.S. taxpayers' funds."
Fiat executives have talked to administration officials about a proposal to acquire a 35 percent stake in Chrysler in exchange for small car technology, transmissions and other items that Chrysler has valued at $8-$10 billion.
There was no immediate response from the United AutoWorkers Union, which will be pressured to make additional wage and benefit concessions under Obama's demand for a revised restructuring plan. One worker, Don Thompson, 56, of Chesterfield Township in Michigan, said automakers were being punished because of public anger over the banking bailout. "They're using us for the mistakes they've made in Washington," he said.
Other workers were critical of what they see as a double standard in how Washington has dealt with the auto industry versus financial institutions, with the ousted Wagoner treated differently than the CEOs of troubled banks. "They're using him as a fall guy," said Frank Rowser, financial secretary for UAW Local 909.
When Wagoner leaves the automaker, he will take a financial package worth an estimated $23 million.
Ford Motor Co., the third member of the Big Three, has not requested federal bailout funds.
Obama said bankruptcy would be a way for either GM or Chrysler to "quickly clear away old debts that are weighing them down so they can get back on their feet," and stressed that either firm would remain open.
"What I am not talking about is a process where a company is broken up, sold off and no longer exists. And what I am not talking about is having a company stuck in court for years, unable to get out," he said.
Still, fears about the industry's future sent stocks plummeting, with the Dow Jones industrial average losing about 254 points. GM plunged 92 cents, or 25.4 percent, to $2.70. Chrysler is not publicly traded.
Obama's remarks were prompted by the expiration of a temporary bailout approved by the Bush administration last winter, with $17 billion in federal funds to help GM and Chrysler survive. Under its terms, the two automakers had until March 31 to submit restructuring plans as it searched for additional federal funds.
At the time, it appeared Bush had avoided an industry collapse on his watch yet had deferred the most difficult decisions for his predecessor.
By his comments, Obama bought himself a little more time, but made it clear it was fast running out. "Now is the time to confront our problems head-on and do what's necessary to solve them," he said.
The administration issued papers detailing the prospects for survival of both GM and Chrysler, credited them with making difficult choices, yet also stressing the difficulties that remain.
It said that while GM's new car of the future, the Volt, "holds promise, it will likely be too expensive to be commercially successful in the short run," the paper said. A GM Web site hails the car for its "revolutionary propulsion system that takes you beyond the power of the battery. It will use a lithium-ion battery with a gasoline-powered, range-extending engine that drives a generator to provide electric power when you drive beyond the 40-mile battery range."
The administration said that even with the changes it has made, GM's own plan is based on overly optimistic assumptions, and also assumes a negative cash flow of $14.5 billion over the next six years. It also says the GM plan does not do enough to solve the problem of "underperforming brands, nameplates, and an excess of dealers."
And yet, it says GM can potentially survive as a freestanding corporation, a judgment it does not make for Chrysler.
Government experts said the firm does not spend enough money on research and development. It also said the "inferior quality of its existing product portfolio and its heavy truck mix leave the company poorly positioned." Additionally, Chrysler is heavily dependent on North America, making it vulnerable to local economic conditions, Obama's advisers said.
They said the administration would consider investing another $6 billion in the firm if it can conclude an agreement with Fiat over the next 30 days that is satisfactory.
"If an agreement is not reached, the government will not invest any additional taxpayer funds in Chrysler," it said.
____
Associated Press Writers Jim Kuhnhenn and Ken Thomas in Washington and Ben Leubsdorf in Warren, Mich., contributed to this report.
Sphere: Related Content
Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Voters Divided As to Whether Obama Budget Will Help or Hurt Economy
Courtesy of Rasmussen Reports
Voters are evenly divided over whether President Obama’s proposed $3.6 trillion budget will help or hurt the economy.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 42% believe it will help the economy while 43% say it will hurt.
The data, combined with two earlier surveys tracking the topic, shows that opinion on both sides of the debate are fairly entrenched. The data also indicates that proposals for health care reform are likely to be the central front in the budgetary debate.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.
Forty-percent (40%) of voters have a favorable opinion of the president’s budget while 46% have a unfavorable view. Those numbers have barely budged from surveys conducted in the first week of March and in mid-March. In all three surveys, the number with an unfavorable opinion of the budget has been at 45% or 46%. The number offering a positive review of the budget was a few points higher in mid-March.
The number who say Obama’s budget will help the economy has stayed between 42% and 44% in each survey. The number who believe it will hurt has increased a bit over the course of the month.
If one of the president’s priorities had to be scaled back to reduce the deficit, 34% would cut back on health care reform, 29% would cut development of new sources of energy, and 20% would cut his plans for education. However, there is a huge partisan gap on this point. For Democrats, health care reform is the last place they’d cut back. For Republicans and those not affiliated with either major party, health care is the first place they’d cut.
These results are consistent with earlier data showing that Democrats consider health care the top budget priority while Republicans and unaffiliateds place a higher value on deficit reduction. It’s a huge challenge since 63% agree with the president’s assertion that “we must make it a priority to give every single American quality affordable health care.”
Three-out-of-four voters (77%) remain concerned that Obama’s plan will generate too much government spending.
Two-thirds (66%) fear that the president will have to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000 a year.
Obama continued to champion his budget in a prime-time press conference Tuesday night, but senior Senate Democrats are questioning the level of spending in it, especially in light of reports that its 10-year deficit projections may be off by as much as $2.3 trillion.
Americans consistently believe that tax cuts are good for the economy and that increased government spending tends to hurt the economy.
In the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday, 35% of voters Strongly Approve of Obama's job performance while 30% Strongly Disapprove. Sphere: Related Content
Voters are evenly divided over whether President Obama’s proposed $3.6 trillion budget will help or hurt the economy.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 42% believe it will help the economy while 43% say it will hurt.
The data, combined with two earlier surveys tracking the topic, shows that opinion on both sides of the debate are fairly entrenched. The data also indicates that proposals for health care reform are likely to be the central front in the budgetary debate.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.
Forty-percent (40%) of voters have a favorable opinion of the president’s budget while 46% have a unfavorable view. Those numbers have barely budged from surveys conducted in the first week of March and in mid-March. In all three surveys, the number with an unfavorable opinion of the budget has been at 45% or 46%. The number offering a positive review of the budget was a few points higher in mid-March.
The number who say Obama’s budget will help the economy has stayed between 42% and 44% in each survey. The number who believe it will hurt has increased a bit over the course of the month.
If one of the president’s priorities had to be scaled back to reduce the deficit, 34% would cut back on health care reform, 29% would cut development of new sources of energy, and 20% would cut his plans for education. However, there is a huge partisan gap on this point. For Democrats, health care reform is the last place they’d cut back. For Republicans and those not affiliated with either major party, health care is the first place they’d cut.
These results are consistent with earlier data showing that Democrats consider health care the top budget priority while Republicans and unaffiliateds place a higher value on deficit reduction. It’s a huge challenge since 63% agree with the president’s assertion that “we must make it a priority to give every single American quality affordable health care.”
Three-out-of-four voters (77%) remain concerned that Obama’s plan will generate too much government spending.
Two-thirds (66%) fear that the president will have to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000 a year.
Obama continued to champion his budget in a prime-time press conference Tuesday night, but senior Senate Democrats are questioning the level of spending in it, especially in light of reports that its 10-year deficit projections may be off by as much as $2.3 trillion.
Americans consistently believe that tax cuts are good for the economy and that increased government spending tends to hurt the economy.
In the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday, 35% of voters Strongly Approve of Obama's job performance while 30% Strongly Disapprove. Sphere: Related Content
Monday, March 16, 2009
Cheney Says Obama Has Increased Risks
By A. G. SULZBERGER
New York Times
Published: March 15, 2009
Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that President Obama had made the country less safe, asserting that the new administration’s changes to detention and interrogation programs for terrorism suspects would hamper intelligence gathering.
Mr. Cheney said the moves suggested that terrorism was now being treated as a law enforcement problem.
“He is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack,” Mr. Cheney said of Mr. Obama in an interview on the CNN program “State of the Union.”
Since taking office, Mr. Obama has reversed many of the policies championed by Mr. Cheney in his eight years of serving under President George W. Bush. Mr. Obama has announced plans to close the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within the year, suspended military trials for terrorism suspects and prohibited the interrogation practice known as waterboarding.
But on Sunday, Mr. Cheney said those very policies had produced intelligence — still classified — that helped uncover specific plots.
“I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11,” Mr. Cheney said of Bush administration policies, echoing statements he made in an interview last month with the Web site Politico.com.
“I think that’s a great success story,” he said. “It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles.”
Mr. Cheney said the Bush administration decided after the 2001 attacks to make fighting terrorism a function of the military rather than law enforcement.
“Up until 9/11, it was treated as a law enforcement problem,” he said. “You go find the bad guy, put him on trial, put him in jail.
“Once you go into a wartime situation and it’s a strategic threat, then you use all of your assets to go after the enemy. You go after the state sponsors of terror, places where they’ve got sanctuary. You use your intelligence resources, your military resources, your financial resources — everything you can — in order to shut down that terrorist threat against you.
“When you go back to the law enforcement mode, which I sense is what they’re doing, closing Guantánamo and so forth, that they are very much giving up that center of attention and focus that’s required, and that concept of military threat that is essential if you’re going to successfully defend the nation against further attacks.”
In what CNN promoted as his first televised interview since leaving office in January, Mr. Cheney touched on a number of other subjects, including the economy, his failure to persuade Mr. Bush to pardon his former aide I. Lewis Libby Jr. and the war in Iraq.
“We’ve accomplished nearly everything we set out to do,” he said about Iraq. “Now, I don’t hear much talk about that, but the fact is, the violence level is down 90 percent. The number of casualties and Iraqis and Americans is significantly diminished. There’s been elections, a constitution. They’re about to have another presidential election here in the near future.”
“We have succeeded in creating in the heart of the Middle East a democratically governed Iraq, and that is a big deal,” Mr. Cheney said. “And it is, in fact, what we set out to do.” Sphere: Related Content
New York Times
Published: March 15, 2009
Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that President Obama had made the country less safe, asserting that the new administration’s changes to detention and interrogation programs for terrorism suspects would hamper intelligence gathering.
Mr. Cheney said the moves suggested that terrorism was now being treated as a law enforcement problem.
“He is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack,” Mr. Cheney said of Mr. Obama in an interview on the CNN program “State of the Union.”
Since taking office, Mr. Obama has reversed many of the policies championed by Mr. Cheney in his eight years of serving under President George W. Bush. Mr. Obama has announced plans to close the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within the year, suspended military trials for terrorism suspects and prohibited the interrogation practice known as waterboarding.
But on Sunday, Mr. Cheney said those very policies had produced intelligence — still classified — that helped uncover specific plots.
“I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11,” Mr. Cheney said of Bush administration policies, echoing statements he made in an interview last month with the Web site Politico.com.
“I think that’s a great success story,” he said. “It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles.”
Mr. Cheney said the Bush administration decided after the 2001 attacks to make fighting terrorism a function of the military rather than law enforcement.
“Up until 9/11, it was treated as a law enforcement problem,” he said. “You go find the bad guy, put him on trial, put him in jail.
“Once you go into a wartime situation and it’s a strategic threat, then you use all of your assets to go after the enemy. You go after the state sponsors of terror, places where they’ve got sanctuary. You use your intelligence resources, your military resources, your financial resources — everything you can — in order to shut down that terrorist threat against you.
“When you go back to the law enforcement mode, which I sense is what they’re doing, closing Guantánamo and so forth, that they are very much giving up that center of attention and focus that’s required, and that concept of military threat that is essential if you’re going to successfully defend the nation against further attacks.”
In what CNN promoted as his first televised interview since leaving office in January, Mr. Cheney touched on a number of other subjects, including the economy, his failure to persuade Mr. Bush to pardon his former aide I. Lewis Libby Jr. and the war in Iraq.
“We’ve accomplished nearly everything we set out to do,” he said about Iraq. “Now, I don’t hear much talk about that, but the fact is, the violence level is down 90 percent. The number of casualties and Iraqis and Americans is significantly diminished. There’s been elections, a constitution. They’re about to have another presidential election here in the near future.”
“We have succeeded in creating in the heart of the Middle East a democratically governed Iraq, and that is a big deal,” Mr. Cheney said. “And it is, in fact, what we set out to do.” Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, March 12, 2009
National Anthem History video
I understand this is a must see video on the history of our National Anthem.
Sphere: Related Content
Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
March 2009 - Obama debt report
From National Debtbusters, the National Debt has increased by $323,781,545,093.18 since President Obama took office on January 20, 2009. This represents an average daily increase of $6,745,448,856.11 since he swore the oath of office.
Sphere: Related Content
Excuse me? “Deficit we inherited?”
Washington, Mar 3 - President Obama and Congressional Democrats have repeatedly claimed they “inherited” the massive deficits plaguing our budgets. Yet a look back at the year in taxpayer-funded bailouts, stimulus, and backstops shows just how unconcerned they are by skyrocketing deficits.So, please, spare us the false outrage.
Deficit Spending
Democrat Opposition? Not Quite
Feb. 13, 2008 – The first “stimulus” bill, H.R. 5140, became law, putting checks in the mail.
215 House Democrats (93%) voted to add $124.4 billion to the deficit (CBO). Senator Obama did not show up to vote.
July 30, 2008 – H.R. 3221 became law, allowing the government to insure $300 billion in mortgage loans. 227 House Democrats (96%) voted to add $24.9 billion to the deficit (CBO). Senator Obama expressed support but did not show up to vote.
Oct. 3, 2008 – H.R. 1424 became law, authorizing $700 billion for TARP. 172 House Democrats (73%) and Senator Obama voted to bailout Wall Street with $700 billion (CBO).
Dec. 10, 2008 – The House passed H.R. 7321 to bail out automakers. When it did not pass the Senate, the Treasury provided a bailout with very similar terms. 205 House Democrats (87%) voted to spend $16.168 billion (CBO) with President-elect Obama’s full support.
Feb. 17, 2009 – The non-stimulus bill, H.R. 1, became law, spending $787 billion on long-time Democrat priorities and pseudo tax relief for non-taxpayers. 246 House Democrats (96%) voted to add $787 billion to the deficit (CBO) with President Obama’s full support.
Feb. 25, 2009 – H.R. 1105 passed the House of Representatives, spending $410 billion on a pork-laden omnibus bill that gave big increases to existing government programs. 229 House Democrats (91%) voted to spend $410 billion with President Obama’s full support. Sphere: Related Content
Deficit Spending
Democrat Opposition? Not Quite
Feb. 13, 2008 – The first “stimulus” bill, H.R. 5140, became law, putting checks in the mail.
215 House Democrats (93%) voted to add $124.4 billion to the deficit (CBO). Senator Obama did not show up to vote.
July 30, 2008 – H.R. 3221 became law, allowing the government to insure $300 billion in mortgage loans. 227 House Democrats (96%) voted to add $24.9 billion to the deficit (CBO). Senator Obama expressed support but did not show up to vote.
Oct. 3, 2008 – H.R. 1424 became law, authorizing $700 billion for TARP. 172 House Democrats (73%) and Senator Obama voted to bailout Wall Street with $700 billion (CBO).
Dec. 10, 2008 – The House passed H.R. 7321 to bail out automakers. When it did not pass the Senate, the Treasury provided a bailout with very similar terms. 205 House Democrats (87%) voted to spend $16.168 billion (CBO) with President-elect Obama’s full support.
Feb. 17, 2009 – The non-stimulus bill, H.R. 1, became law, spending $787 billion on long-time Democrat priorities and pseudo tax relief for non-taxpayers. 246 House Democrats (96%) voted to add $787 billion to the deficit (CBO) with President Obama’s full support.
Feb. 25, 2009 – H.R. 1105 passed the House of Representatives, spending $410 billion on a pork-laden omnibus bill that gave big increases to existing government programs. 229 House Democrats (91%) voted to spend $410 billion with President Obama’s full support. Sphere: Related Content
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Obama team's Limbaugh fixation
Bill O'Reilly
FoxNews
Man, I got out just in time. Last week, I gave up doing the Radio Factor after seven years because I needed to get some sleep. Working 65 hours a week is fine when you're 30, but as Clint Eastwood once opined: A man must know his limitations.
My radio program competed against Rush Limbaugh's show in some markets, and now, in an amazing bit of political gamesmanship, the Obama administration has elevated Limbaugh to Alp-like heights. By publicly attacking the broadcaster, the Obama crew has not only galvanized his loyal audience, but also sent curiosity seekers into his domain. What a ratings bonanza for Limbaugh! Who would want to compete against that?
According to the Web site Politico, Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville polled Limbaugh's popularity and found it lacking among voters younger than age 40. The Web site contends they convinced White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to go after Limbaugh and define him as the behind-the-scenes leader of the Republican Party. The strategy was to paint the GOP as a leaderless outfit fearful of a high-profile radio guy. Emanuel dropped the propaganda bomb on a morning TV show last Sunday.
In conjunction, Obama's former campaign manager David Plouffe wrote a sarcastic op-ed in the Washington Post claiming the Republican Party is "paralyzed with fear of crossing (Limbaugh)."
Presto, the liberal mainstream media pounced on the new leader of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, mocking him for playing second fiddle to Limbaugh. Steele did not like that and told CNN the broadcaster is an entertainer who often pops off. Limbaugh did not like that and lambasted Steele. Under pressure, the RNC chief apologized.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are "lol" as they say on the Net.
But there may be an unintended consequence in this for the White House. By empowering Limbaugh, who already commands an enormous audience, the Obama administration is supplying weaponry to the enemy. Sure, the Democratic home team is yukking this stuff up, but most Americans are steaming mad about the economy and in no mood for shallow political games. If the president cannot get Wall Street to believe in him, demonizing Limbaugh will begin to look like a diversionary tactic, which it might well be.
It is certainly true that the Republican Party is currently taking some lumps, especially among the pro-Obama media. But in politics things can turn fast. If the GOP can develop some strong leadership and a populist vision, it will compete in the 2010 election.
We are living in dangerous times and the folks know it. Fighting with a radio talk-show host may be entertaining, but it is certainly not presidential. Sphere: Related Content
FoxNews
Man, I got out just in time. Last week, I gave up doing the Radio Factor after seven years because I needed to get some sleep. Working 65 hours a week is fine when you're 30, but as Clint Eastwood once opined: A man must know his limitations.
My radio program competed against Rush Limbaugh's show in some markets, and now, in an amazing bit of political gamesmanship, the Obama administration has elevated Limbaugh to Alp-like heights. By publicly attacking the broadcaster, the Obama crew has not only galvanized his loyal audience, but also sent curiosity seekers into his domain. What a ratings bonanza for Limbaugh! Who would want to compete against that?
According to the Web site Politico, Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville polled Limbaugh's popularity and found it lacking among voters younger than age 40. The Web site contends they convinced White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to go after Limbaugh and define him as the behind-the-scenes leader of the Republican Party. The strategy was to paint the GOP as a leaderless outfit fearful of a high-profile radio guy. Emanuel dropped the propaganda bomb on a morning TV show last Sunday.
In conjunction, Obama's former campaign manager David Plouffe wrote a sarcastic op-ed in the Washington Post claiming the Republican Party is "paralyzed with fear of crossing (Limbaugh)."
Presto, the liberal mainstream media pounced on the new leader of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, mocking him for playing second fiddle to Limbaugh. Steele did not like that and told CNN the broadcaster is an entertainer who often pops off. Limbaugh did not like that and lambasted Steele. Under pressure, the RNC chief apologized.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are "lol" as they say on the Net.
But there may be an unintended consequence in this for the White House. By empowering Limbaugh, who already commands an enormous audience, the Obama administration is supplying weaponry to the enemy. Sure, the Democratic home team is yukking this stuff up, but most Americans are steaming mad about the economy and in no mood for shallow political games. If the president cannot get Wall Street to believe in him, demonizing Limbaugh will begin to look like a diversionary tactic, which it might well be.
It is certainly true that the Republican Party is currently taking some lumps, especially among the pro-Obama media. But in politics things can turn fast. If the GOP can develop some strong leadership and a populist vision, it will compete in the 2010 election.
We are living in dangerous times and the folks know it. Fighting with a radio talk-show host may be entertaining, but it is certainly not presidential. Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
