President Obama has demonstrated, as much as he would like to deny it, a strong anti-business sentiment.  He has acted in ways that remind one of a Castro or Chavez in that he is doing it in the name of the people against the greedy profiteers.

General Motors and Chrysler were bled dry by union contracts.  Management is culpable for agreeing to those contracts so they don’t get a pass in my view.  But government also piled on with CAFÉ mileage requirements that forced the auto companies to build cars at a loss (because of the union contracts) to meet this standard.  In the midst of the financial crisis the auto companies were running out of cash.  The Obama administration, rather than let them go into bankruptcy, muscles in and turns over major ownership stakes in GM and Chrysler to the unions who are loyal supporters of the Democrat Party, rather than pay bondholders who were entitled to be paid first.

The housing bubble was driven by government policies going back years.  The stated goals of the Clinton administration was to increase home ownership to as many people as possible.  When the bubble burst, the Obama administration forced TARP money on healthy banks who neither needed it nor wanted it.  The reason was to avoid showing who the real basket case banks were.  But these banks were forced by their government to take the money and then the Obama administration created a pay czar to make sure any company that took TARP money, voluntarily or not, could not pay their executives more than Team Obama said they could.

Lax regulation on the Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico permitted BP to take short cuts that led to disaster.  President Obama is put in an embarrassing position, so he cranks up the Public Relations machine to throw maximum ire upon BP.  He then tries to be a hero by shaking down BP for $20 billion.  BP has never said they would not pay.  BP waived the limit on damages that was set by, you guessed it, the government and has steadfastly said they would make things right.  But President Obama wanted to look like he was actually doing something and by taking $20 billion and putting it under his control it might look like he was.  I agree with many that President Obama did not cause the leak in the Gulf any more than Bush created Hurricane Katrina, but if, as Obama likes to say, the buck stops here, then he is responsible for the lax enforcement by his administration that could have prevented it.

To create jobs this administration created a $787 billion bailout package that did next to nothing to create real jobs.  It was pork to be paid to union members such as teachers, contractors, and not to grow the economy and create sustainable jobs.

If a business that is solidly behind the Obama agenda, like General Electric who owns the NBC and MSNBC cheerleaders, and wants to be a key player in the cap and trade exchanges, this President will treat them kindly.  But if you are an independent business trying to grow, you will be taxed to your eye sockets.

We pride ourselves on being a nation of laws not a nation of men, but since this President has taken office he has a view that he is above the law and can do whatever he feels he needs to do.  It was somewhat surreal to have Congressman Joe Barton, apologize to BP for the shakedown.  No one owes BP an apology but I understand Congressman Barton’s distaste for the administrations boorish behavior.  No one has the right to demand another’s property without due process of law, and that’s what happened.  Perhaps Tony Heywood should be fired for going along with it.

Let’s keep this in mind.  We need BP to continue to be a viable profitable company, so that every last claim can be paid.  If this administration succeeds in driving BP into the ground, guess who will be next in line to pick up the tab?  That’s right, gentle readers, you and me;  the American taxpayers.

It was like the movie Rocky the Democrats (Rocky) were getting pounded left and right over their heavy handed tactics.  They crammed through a health care bill that an overwhelming majority of the country opposed.  They moved on to financial reform and they still couldn’t get any traction.  Their poll numbers continued to drop and it was looking like a dismal election coming up in the fall. 

 And then, just like in the movie Rocky swings from his heels and connects knocking the champ to the canvas.  In this case it was the SEC charging Goldman Sachs with fraud.  Now they could fire a full fusillade of class warfare at the Republicans and either get Republicans to help pass the financial reform bill or be tarred as the party of the evil bankers and greedy Wall Street robber barons.  But unlike the movie, right after knocking the opponent down, when the referee sends Rocky back to a neutral corner he slips in his own sweat, flips on his back and knocks himself out.  By that I mean the news came out that employees of the SEC spent an inordinate amount of their time watching porn instead of the financial markets.  How do you expand the role of government on the heels of that disclosure?

 Trying to Make Up for Bernie Madoff?

When Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme was in full swing, Harry Markopolos brought the scam to the SEC practically tied in a bow.  The SEC did not respond.  Perhaps they were too busy…, well never mind.

With the Democrats trusty weapon, class warfare, holstered it’s time to delve more deeply into this financial reform legislation.

In a letter to Senate majority leader Harry Reid and minority leader Mitch McConnell, luminaries including former SEC Chief Accountant Lynn Turner, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, hedge fund owner Jim Chanos, former Lehman Brothers Vice Chair Peter Solomon, former S&L investigator Bill Black, former Senate Banking Committee Chief Economist Rob Johnson, economists Dean Baker, Barry Eichengreen and others pointed out that Dodd’s proposed financial reform legislation wouldn’t have prevented the current crisis … and won’t prevent the next crisis.

So tell me again why we are doing this?  It’s all about more government control and more power in Washington, not about fixing any real problem.  Where are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in this bill?  They were at the very core of the financial meltdown.  In other words it’s all politics and it’s all straight out of the Saul Alinsky tome Rules for Radicals:

 Rule No. 13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

     “…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’

     “One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (pps.127-134)

The target in this case, is Wall Street and the Banks.  Demonize them.  When the “others”, meaning the Republicans, come out to challenge the ineffectiveness of the bill, then they can be attacked as being for the fat cats and against the little guys; class warfare at its ugliest.

 Follow the Money

But who is really in bed with the fat cats?  The Political Action Committees (PACs), employees, families of employees and other associates of Goldman Sachs gave almost $1 million in campaign contributions to Obama.  In this legislation, the concept of too big to fail remains untouched.  There will be a $50 billion fund created with money from the top banks to standby if needed for a bailout, but this also gives the impression that the largest banks are now safer because of this fund and therefore can get a lower interest rate on their borrowings compared to smaller banks.

 Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman said:

 “The Dodd bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. That’s something Wall Street desperately wants but doesn’t dare ask for. The bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority.”

 Why ask for it when the Obama administration will give it to you.  All you have to do is let them smack you around a bit to prime the class warfare pump, and you’re all set.

If you are backstopped by unlimited executive bailout, go ahead, take bigger and bigger risks.  The government will step in if you fail.  So here we have yet another fat cat (Wall Street/Big Banks) wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing (the little guy; Main Street). 

 If you want real financial reform, then in the name of capitalism, the big banks and Wall Street have to learn to play with their own money. If they hit a home run, good for them.  If they strikeout, they should lose their own money and if they don’t have enough to cover their losses, goodbye.   They should not be allowed to take huge risks and if they pay off, everybody there gets a new mansion in the Hamptons, but if they go bust, hand the bill to us.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we were told were private entities, not part of the government, but wink, wink, nudge, nudge, everyone knew the federal government was standing behind them and would not let them go bust.  So they too, got the kind of interest rates, half a point lower than their competitors, based on this implied backing not based on the strength of their balance sheet.

We have to fight this one too.  This is just more smoke and mirrors from the Obama administration.  Another power grab without any substantive benefit to the American people.

Our once proud automobile industry

The government institutes regulations such as CAFE that force the automobile companies to build many cars they can’t sell at a profit for each car they can.  The unions negotiate contracts that pay people who have been let go 90% of their salary and give retirees extremely generous packages.  The automobile companies stagger under this load to the brink of bankruptcy and what happens?  The CEO of GM gets booted out and the government and the unions end up owning the car companies.  In the case of Chrysler the UAW will end up owning 55% of the company if the government’s plan is approved.

Had the automobile companies gone into bankruptcy before the bailout, as this author advocated, the union contracts could have been voided and a new workable deal struck.  But the government said bankruptcy was bad. The government said we had to give the car companies billions of our tax dollars.  The government said, if you automobiles companies don’t accept our deal, you will be forced into bankruptcy.  Huh?

So tell us again, Mr. Obama, how this is not socialism.

The vaunted stimulus package is heading for a vote in the House. It’s time for Republicans to lay it on the line and by that I mean they should all vote against it. Sure, if they do the media will come at them, guns blazing:

• “It’s the same old partisan politics”
• “They’re listening to Rush Limbaugh”
• “They are not giving the new president a chance”
• “They are going against the historic moment by trying to deny our first African American president his right to govern”
• “They’re just a bunch of racists”

But here’s how it should play out.  If this bundle of Democratic handouts will really fix the economy, then let the Democrats carry the ball.  They have the President, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.  They do not need any Republican votes to carry it, and the Republicans should not filibuster it.  If it doesn’t provide the promised stimulus, it will be entirely their responsibility and they will have to face the voters with that record in 2010.

If the Republicans sign on, in the “spirit of bipartisanship”, and it succeeds, Obama and the Democrats will take all the credit, because they control Congress and the Presidency.  If it fails, they will say that Republicans also voted for it, so re-elect me because we tried and we will keep on trying.  It’s heads the Democrats win, tails the Republicans lose.  This is not a stimulus package, it a package to consolidate Democratic power.

This package rewards those groups that helped elect Obama and the Democrats.  There’s money for:

• Hollywood
• Education (read teachers unions)
• National Endowment for the Arts
• Bicycle paths
• Birth control

Does anyone know how these things will stimulate the economy?  The purpose of this plan is to reward those who helped elect the Democrats to make sure they stay on board for 2010.  Find more groups to give handouts to so they will also vote Democratic.  Once they have a lock on power, they can wait forever for the economy to finally correct itself.  If the Republicans question that, the Democrats can point to the Roosevelt administration and how long it took to end the Great Depression.

If, however, the Republicans stand firm then the Democrats will soon realize they are standing naked with this blatant goody bag for their supporters.  The do not want to have all the responsibility for this if it fails, and based on what’s in there it will.  So they will retreat to the drawing board and work with the Republicans to craft something that will actually work.

If this is the administration of hope and change, why do they have to reach back 85 years for ideas on how to deal with the economy?  Many of the things they are pushing are the very things that did not work then.  The way out of this morass is to cut taxes, increase the money supply, and shrink the government, maybe not immediately, but as soon as the economy starts moving.

The government decides that we have no choice but to bail out the automobile companies.  Before taking office Obama supported the bailout.  In my humble opinion, I believed the auto companies should have turned to the bankruptcy courts.  Now, President Obama is clearing the way for states such as California to significantly increase mileage standards for cars.

So let’s examine this.  The big three are forced to sell a lot of small cars at no profit or a loss for each profitable vehicle like a Cadillac they sell so that their fleet average fuel economy will meet CAFE standards.  The result of this government meddling is that the big three are unprofitable, so they have little or no money to invest in the next generation of cars.  Because they are on the brink of insolvency, the government steps in and bails them out with billions of taxpayer dollars.  Even with that, it may not be enough and the auto companies may require more.  So what does our government do now?  It opens the door for states to tighten the noose around the necks of the auto companies by increasing the mileage standards.

So now the auto firms will have to sell even more small cars at a minimum profit or loss for each profitable Cadillac they sell, in a down economy no less, practically guaranteeing that the auto companies will come back to the government asking for even more bailout money.

The inexperience display goes on in Washington.  How long can we stand it?

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan was unveiled today.  Well, a little short on details, but if there is anything true about Washington, it’s that the first thing you have to do is come up with a catchy name.  Once you craft a name that is as American as Motherhood and apple pie, the details are only a distraction.  You have to start with a name that members of Congress would be afraid to vote against.  “You mean, Congressman, that you are opposed to recovery?  And you’re against reinvestment?”  You can hear Katie Couric incredulously asking that question as the Congressman, undoubtedly Republican, struggles for an answer.

Mr. Obama said in his speech:

“It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe,” Mr. Obama said. “Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy — where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.”

Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy?  Okay, so the government is going to borrow and spend $1 trillion dollars, give or take a few billion, and that is going to solve the problem.  Borrow and Spend?  Isn’t that how we got here?

Between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, The Community Reinvestment Act, Janet Reno in the Clinton Administration threatening banks if they didn’t make enough subprime loans, we had the housing bubble.  Millions of people borrowing money they couldn’t pay back for the sub prime people, and millions of people borrowing against the equity in their homes so they could spend on the good life.  The bubble burst, housing prices collapsed, mortgages went under water, and a deep recession followed.

So Barack Obama proposes borrowing $1 trillion and, unless he has a very large piggy bank from where he’s getting it, spending it to get the economy moving again.  If a significant number of Americans can’t manage their debts now, how are they going to shoulder another $1 trillion?  Let’s not forget, it’s We The People, the government is us.  There is no rich Uncle Sam who made a killing in pork bellies, who is going to foot the bill.  It is us, our children, and our grandchildren.  What we have to do is live within our means.

• Make the Bush tax cuts permanent.  That will remove the uncertainty that has been hanging over the economy ever since the presidential campaign, blaming Bush for tax cuts for the rich.  Face it, folks, tax cuts work best when they are given to people who actually pay taxes.
• Take the tax code and shred it and recycle it.  Let’s go to a flat tax that you can file your return on a post card.  It may put a lot of accountants out of work, but it costs Americans about $200 billion a year to prepare.  After five years that’s $1 trillion back in the economy.
• Cut the federal government down to size.  Start with the Department of Education.  Since 1980 Congress has appropriated $1.06 trillion to the Department of Education.  How’s that working out?  My father dropped out of high school in 1934, and I would put him up against many of today’s high school “graduates” in being able to put a sentence together properly.  So what has all this education spending gotten us?  I’ll wait………….  Still scratching your head, I’m not surprised.  I know it’s gotten us a lot of teachers.  When your goal is smaller classroom sizes, rather than results, the only result you get is bigger payrolls.  So not only has the Department of Education squandered $1 trillion, many school districts have seen their property taxes skyrocket.  Why?  Well, once you hire all those teachers you have to pay them and in many, if not most areas, that funding comes from property taxes.  So the Department of Education hits your left pocket for $1 trillion and your tax assessor hits your right pocket, and what do we have to show for it?  Many colleges now have to teach remedial classes to their incoming freshman to get them up to a level where they can handle freshman courses.
• Social Security and Medicare — These have to be tackled NOW.  This is the next ticking time bomb.  Social Security is a ponzi scheme that makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker.  Social Security’s inflation adjusted rate of return is about 1.23%.  Any effort by Bush to allow future retiree’s to divert a portion of their contributions into a fund that gets a better return, was shouted down by the Democrats and demonized as trying to starve granny.  Well, keep yukking it up, and call for another round of drinks, but the bill is coming due and when it does there will be no where to hide, and we better not be trying to digest Obama’s trillion dollar deficits at the same time.
• Couple saving Social Security with term limits.  If you are not a politician for life, you might have the guts to do some heavy lifting, but if you are always running for office and your goal is to offend as few people as possible and give out government goodies to as many people as possible, you are naturally disposed to make the government bigger and delay any tough decisions until after you’re.  So don’t fix Social Security, just make it solvent long enough for you to pick up your spoils and go home.
• Campaign Finance Reform — this folly gets rolled out around each election.  Here’s my modest solution.  If you hack back the size of government, there will be a lot less for lobbyists to lobby about.  If they have nothing to lobby about, they will have to go find something else to do. For those that are left, it will be a lot easier to see what they’re up to, since there won’t be that many of them.
• Go back to every government agency and look at the legislation that created them.  Has that original mission been accomplished?  If so, shut them down.  When I worked in telecommunications, one of the Federal Regulatory bodies was the Rural Electrification Administration.  This agency was created during the Great Depression to bring electricity to farms.  I wondered what that had to do with telephones.  Well, the problem of bringing electricity to farms was pretty much solved, so they needed to do something else, so why not telephones.  I am sure that cell phones will be next if they are not already working on that.  But what we should really do, what we should have done years ago, is throw a nice party, thank all the employers and managers for a job well done, send them on their way and put the buildings up for sale.  But that doesn’t happen in Washington, agencies created for one purpose just morph into something else.
• Following on the previous point is the Department of Agriculture.  It was raised to cabinet level in 1889.  In 1870, 70%-80% of the population worked on farms.  Today that percentage is 2%-3%.  So why do we still need a Department of Agriculture? Today it has an annual budget of $95 billion, so in the next ten years about $1 trillion will be spent in the Department of Agriculture.  The Federal beast grows without bounds.

There you have it, $3 trillion between tax filing, the Department of Education, and the Department of Agriculture.

The federal government must tighten its belt like everyone else and stop soaking up an increasing share of the economy.  Barack Obama and the federal government aren’t going to create jobs unless it is by making the beast bigger.  The majority of jobs are created in this country by small businesses.  What this economy needs is a degree of certainty.

If Obama really believes in fiscal discipline he should say the bailout window is closed.  It was opened to keep money flowing during a crisis, now all companies should get off the line, and go back to running their businesses.  As long as the window stays open there is uncertainty.  Can I get a bailout?  That company got a bailout, why not me?

What roils the markets is uncertainty.  If the market doesn’t know if the government is going to act or not act;  if the Bush tax cuts are going to continue or be rolled back;  if the auto companies are going to get bailed out or not;  is the government going to spend a trillion or not.  The U.S. economy and the American people can work this out.  The more government stays involved, the longer the uncertainty will remain, and the longer and deeper the recession will be.

As General Patton said, “Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.”

The battle lines are being drawn and the factions are jockeying for position.

• The UAW is standing firm that they are not contributing anything more (but the taxpayers should)
• Rick Wagoner, CEO of GM, says they are not even planning for bankruptcy (but recently news has come out that the board is now considering it, if they can’t get the taxpayers to step up)
• Congress wants a plan from the automakers before showing the money (they want to make sure that the auto companies adopt a green agenda and build a lot more cars that they can’t sell at a profit, and palm it off on the taxpayers)
• Some pundits are claiming that 3 million jobs will be lost if we don’t bail them out (but fail to finish the thought and tell us who is going to build the cars that the market demands but GM, Ford, and Chrysler won’t be building if they completely shut down as some predict)

The louder the hue and cry against bankruptcy and the need to empty my wallet, the more confident I feel that bankruptcy is the right thing to do.  Without fundamental management change, union change, and structural change, no amount of taxpayer funding and bailout upon bailout, will enable the Big Three to crawl off their death bed and once again be giants of American Industry.  Bankruptcy is bitter medicine, but without wrenching change that bankruptcy protection can provide, with a trustee making hard decisions and getting concessions from all sides, this patient on life support will die.

A Sad but True Parody

I came across this excellent joke on Evolving Excellence that was making the rounds a few years ago, but seems sadly relevant today.  As I said it is a few years old, so don’t look too closely at the financials:

A Modern Parable.

A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (Ford Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people rowing.

Feeling a deeper study was in order; American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.

They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team’s management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.

They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the ‘Rowing Team Quality First Program,’ with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rowers. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses. The pension program was trimmed to ‘equal the competition’ and some of the resultant savings were channeled into morale boosting programs and teamwork posters.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid-off one rower, halted development of a new canoe, sold all the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses.

The next year, try as he might, the lone designated rower was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles,) so he was laid off for unacceptable performance, all canoe equipment was sold and the next year’s racing team was out-sourced to India.

Sadly, the End.

Here’s something else to think about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US , claiming they can’t make money paying American wages. TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US. The last quarter’s results:

TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.

Ford folks are still scratching their heads, and collecting bonuses…

IF THIS WEREN’T SO TRUE IT MIGHT BE FUNNY

It will be interesting to see when the auto executives go back to Washington, will they fly in three separate corporate jets? will they “jetpool”? will they fly first class?  will they fly coach? or will they drive one of their excellent products to ask for a bailout?  How much trunk space do you need to carry $25 billion?  Remember that’s 25,000 million.

A Modest Proposal

About every three years when the labor contracts between the unions and the auto companies come up for renewal, a target company, Ford, GM or Chrysler is typically chosen.  The purpose is to threaten a strike on that company while allowing UAW members to keep working at the other two (and still pay union dues), rather than striking against all three.

Here’s my proposal.  Since GM seems to be in the worst shape, they should go Chapter 11 right away.  Let Ford and Chrysler stand back and watch the result.  If it works and GM successfully restructures, you can bet Ford and Chrysler will be scrambling to go Chapter 11 to get their houses in order.  If it is a bust, then one of three things can happen.  One, they can learn what GM did wrong in the process and perhaps craft a better and maybe even “prepackaged” Chapter 11 filing.  Two, they can go back to Washington and try again, but at least they would have a stronger case for why bankruptcy is a bad idea.  Three, they can wake up and get all the parties together including management, unions, retirees, suppliers, banks, bondholders, local governments, Congress and make the changes voluntarily that would otherwise be made under a bankruptcy.

What do you think?

I got the phone call around 7:30AM.  It was my wife and her voice was shaking, choking back tears.  She said she was in an accident and that the truck was totaled. Totaled? I thought to myself, my God, what kind of accident could have totaled a 2 ½ ton, hulking Ford Excursion SUV?  Before I could ask the next question, the one I didn’t want to ask, she said, “The girls and I are alright, just some cuts and bruises.” I was able to start breathing again.  She began to apologize for the SUV and I gently cut her off.  “I don’t care about the truck, as long as you and the girls are okay.”  The girls were my two daughters.

I got the location of the accident, briefly told the lead guy in my shop the situation, light on the details which I didn’t have anyway, and jumped in my truck to find them.  As I approached the accident scene, I saw an ambulance, with siren blaring and lights flashing, going the opposite way.  I called my wife’s cell phone and when I got her I asked, “Did you just pass me in the ambulance?”  She said, “Yes, we’re headed to the hospital to be checked out.”  So I made a U-Turn to go meet them in the emergency room.

The Accident

What had happened was that my wife was crossing an intersection when another car blew through the red light.  According to one witness it looked like he was going 60 mph, according to another it looked like he was going 100 mph.  They said the nearly 19′ long, 2 ½ ton vehicle with a massive V-10 engine that my wife was driving was lifted up in the air, turned 180 degrees and landed on its side.  My wife had to kick out the windshield to crawl out and guide our daughters out behind her to safety.  Thankfully it didn’t catch fire.

Why the other driver was driving the way he was we never found out.  He was pronounced dead at the scene. He was driving a Kia, a small Korean import, and before impact, I’m sure he was getting great gas mileage.  He went from leaving a small carbon footprint to leaving no footprints at all.

My wife was exonerated from any responsibility for the accident.  She and my daughters were completely innocent.  Had Ford been required only to build highly fuel efficient econoboxes, half my family would have been killed that morning.  In fact, the driver who was behind my wife said that if she had not been there, he was sure he would be dead, as it would have been him that was hit by the speeding car in her place.

Freedom to Choose

They are alive because I have the liberty, so far, to buy any vehicle that I choose and can afford.  The choices are many and I have made many choices through my life.  That is primarily because the government has not yet taken away that liberty and demanded what types of vehicles can be built and by whom.

My first car was a Toyota Celica, which I purchased just after graduating from college.  It was well made, well equipped, and although a little expensive at $4,700 brand new, I thought it was worth it.  That car served me well for 105,000 miles. When it was time for a replacement I bought a Plymouth Sapporo and I really liked it. Unfortunately, someone liked it as much and it was stolen when it had just 9,000 miles on it. It was a Chrysler Corporation car, but under the hood it was Japanese.  Still living in the Bronx, I decided to buy something functional but not too attractive.  I remember my friend’s rationale for buying a Subaru while living in the city.  None of the parts fit in a gypsy cab. My next vehicle was a Toyota Corolla.

Cars for a Growing Family

When my wife and I married in 1986 she brought to the marriage her Ford Mustang.  My Corolla was starting to get tired and my wife was pregnant, so it was time to get a new vehicle.  I bought a Ford Probe, with front wheel drive and turbocharged.  It was hard to decide if it was American or Japanese.  It was sold by Ford, built in the United States by Mazda which is a Japanese company, but Ford owned 25% of Mazda at the time.  It made for interesting conversation, but not worth losing any sleep over.

After our second child, the Probe and the Mustang were getting a little cramped.  So we said goodbye to the Mustang and hello to a Volvo 740 Turbo Wagon.  This was my wife’s dream car, owing somewhat to her Swedish heritage.

Things were going well for us and it was time to replace the Probe.  I leased a BMW M Roadster and had more fun behind the wheel of a car than I can remember before or since.  We both thoroughly enjoyed tooling down the road with the top down, turning heads as we went.  Life was good.

My wife and I had two more children and as they grew, the jump seat in the back of the Volvo was less than optimal.  In the winter the heat never seemed to reach back there and in the summer the kids in the back felt like a couple of tomato plants in a hothouse.  So it was time for our next vehicle, which for the first time I bought completely on the Internet.  It was a Ford Expedition.  I had seating for eight and room for some cargo as well, and heat and air conditioning all the way to the back.  The kids could each sit comfortably without bumping into each other and to reach out and smack someone next to them took some effort.  That vehicle served us well for a couple of years and then as they grew, our needs grew and when it was time for the next move, we got the Excursion, bigger, they didn’t come.

Meanwhile things became a little more challenging for us.  When the BMW’s lease was up, back it went.  I took over the Volvo for a while until I started a new construction related business and then I took over my father-in-law’s Chevy pick-up truck which he left for my son when he passed away.  After a year when the business got more established I put the Chevy aside for my son and the company bought a Ford F-350 Super Duty, dual wheel pickup truck with a diesel engine, which I still drive.

The Nest Starts to Empty

Then came the accident.  As soon as we got the insurance money for our totaled vehicle we immediately went out and bought another Excursion, with safety the foremost reason.  Ford wasn’t making them anymore so we bought a used one.  I wanted my family protected.

When my son moved out freeing up a seat on the “bus” and my wife started selling real estate and gas prices started to climb, we reevaluated the Excursion.  The Volvo was gone, and at twelve mpg and my wife driving a lot more, it didn’t make sense.  With five of us at home, at worst we could all fit into the pickup truck with its crew cab.  So she bought a Volkswagon EOS.  The savings on gas would make up for any differences in payments on it.  She now had her own convertible and was very happy.

About six months later, my older daughter got her license and wanted a car.  She didn’t have much money for purchasing it or for gas so she needed something economical.  Her choice, a Volkswagon Jetta.

Individual Liberty or Government Diktat

What’s the point of this stroll down vehicular memory lane?  To demonstrate that with liberty we have a great many choices.  We also have different needs at different times in our lives.  Through a free market I was able to select from a number of vehicles from different manufacturers, from different countries, to find what fit our needs.  Those companies decided what to build to suit the market.  The cars that I eventually chose, though not done conscientiously at the time, were from each of those manufacturer’s strengths, not their weaknesses.  I did not choose an economical car, when I needed one, from one of the Big Three.  We did however, choose some of their sporty models (Mustang, Probe) and their trucks (Excursion, Expedition, F-350, Silverado).

The market should tell them what cars to build and build at a profit.  Government should not require them to build six or eight cars that they have to sell at a loss for each vehicle they can sell at a profit, to meet some government mandate such as CAFE standards. As the market causes fuel prices to rise, the market will react with increased demand for more fuel efficient cars.  We should be able to choose when that works best for us.  If we have a distance to commute, we will more inclined to factor fuel efficiency into the equation.  However, if we want to travel in luxury two miles to our favorite restaurant, who cares if the car that gets us there only gets 8 mpg?  Many families have more than one car for that very reason.  Who is some government bureaucrat to tell us what we can choose among?

This Thanksgiving I can sit down with my family, and be thankful that I had that choice, and I can hug each one of them and pray it stays that way.

It’s not over yet folks, although your voice is being heard.  The big sticking point seems to be whether the bailout money should be taken out of our left pocket ($700 billion TARP bailout package) or our right pocket ($25 billion fund to provide re-tooling for green production).  The only people talking about going Chapter 11 are people on the right such as Mitt Romney, who actually knows something about it having watched his father, George Romney, try to save American Motors, as CEO.

Politics Trumps Problem Solving

Barney Frank has weighed in to make sure the class warfare card is played.  He compared the bailout of AIG with the bailout of the auto companies as White Collar (AIG) vs. Blue Collar (GM). A blog by dbeale points this out very well.  This begs the question:  where does it all end?  Where do you draw the line?  If you bail out AIG, you have to bail out GM because they have blue collar workers.  If you bail out GM you have to bail out (fill in the company name) because they have (fill in special interest group).

But if you read the post carefully you can see the true political objectives of the Democrats and their supporters:

1. Give the auto companies a bailout
2. Fire most of senior management for mismanagement
3. Threaten bankruptcy but don’t do it
4. If the auto companies don’t reinvent themselves (which they can’t do without bankruptcy), nationalize them.  Don’t call it nationalization, call it a “quasi government takeover”
5. Make sure the focus is on building high mileage cars, and whatever else the green program demands.  Anyone who gets in the way of that goal should be fired. To quote dbeale, “every one involved in undermining gas efficiency standards must go.”
6. Appoint a automobile czar (don’t call it nationalization) to oversee the companies to make sure that the management isn’t paid too much, that union contracts are reinforced, the “right” kind of cars are built.
7. Bailout with more government money every 3 years, because the root cause the problem is never addressed.

A Workable Solution

The root of the problem is that the auto companies as they are today, are not competitive.  Here is my proposal

1. Eliminate the CAFE standards.  The CAFE standards were introduced 1975 in response to the energy crisis.  At least that was the stated objective.  The real objective was to curtail the importation of foreign cars, particularly Japanese cars, which could already meet the standards.  If you wanted to buy a car that got good gas mileage, you could.  This was a attempt by government to force U.S. car companies to make cars of similar economy.  However, their cost structure would not allow them to compete with the imports at the low end of the market.  G.M., Ford, and Chrysler don’t seem to have a problem making a profit on the luxury end of the market, on SUVs, and light trucks.  But if, for example the standard is 27 MPG, and your Cadillac only got 20 MPG.  You would have to sell eight compact cars that get 28 MPG for each Cadillac to comply with the standard.  However, it is estimated that GM is at a cost disadvantage of $2000 per vehicle.  At the luxury end there is enough margin to cover that.  At the low end there isn’t.  So, GM as a direct result of government policy has to sell eight cars at a loss to allow them to sell one car at a profit.  Why not let them sell as many cars at a profit as they can, sell no cars at a loss and let the market decide?  If need a high mileage car to save on gas for your long commute, buy a foreign car.
2. File bankruptcy.  Reorganize and get rid of those things that are killing you.  That’s what the bankruptcy laws are for.  Yes, shareholders may get wiped out, union contracts will have to be renegotiated, commitments to continue paying revenue bonds for plants that are no longer needed can be renegotiated or voided, pension commitments revisited, etc.
3. Slim down, come out of bankruptcy, and get competitive again.  The Big three made about 17 million vehicles in 2007.  Does any rational person believe that if the Big Three go into bankruptcy that the people and companies that bought that many vehicles will no longer need cars?  If they still need cars, someone has to build them.  That can either be the foreign makes, the slimmed down Lean Three, or new companies that are formed to take advantage of this huge demand for 17 million vehicles that no one, or not enough are stepping up to the plate to meet it.  People will be re-hired, sub-contractors will have new subcontracts, and the auto industry can actually thrive and not just limp along from bailout to bailout.

The key to this working is to get government out of the mix.  We are facing a plethora of problems and most of them can be traced to government intervention in the market place.  The financial crisis is a direct result of government programs such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, the strong arm tactics of the Clinton Justice Department and HUD to demand more sub-prime lending, and the resistance of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for more oversight.

The tragedy is that we have problems created by the government and we think that more government is going to fix them.  Keep up the fight.  Let your representatives and senators know, NO BAILOUT

It’s hard to read the news about the auto industry and not clench your fists at the outrage.  GM and to a lesser extent, Ford and Chrysler, are asking the American taxpayer to bail them out, but what is their position?

• The unions say they are not going to negotiate anything to help the situation
• The CEO of GM says that they are not filing for Chapter 11 and not preparing to file, despite that they may run out of cash by the end of December.  Not even as a contingency, Mr. Wagoner?
• Wagoner refused to consider resigning, even if it would help them get aid
• GM’s board is supportive of Wagoner

This company negotiated an agreement with its union that pays them almost full pay if they are laid off.  Let me get this straight.  You lay people off, as painful as that may be, to cut costs.  GM negotiates an agreement that keeps the costs, but sends the people away.  From their perspective, it’s free labor, they pay for it either way so put them to work!  But no, I’m sure there are union restrictions about what you can put them to work doing.

Remember the Dot.com Bubble?

In 2000 we saw the Dot.com bubble.  What was the fallout?  Millions were lost on Wall Street.  Companies by the bushel basket went out of business.  Thousands were thrown out of work.  How much did taxpayers cough up to bail them out?  Nothing.  The market dealt with it.  The strong companies re-grouped, the weak fell by the wayside.  John Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems, changed his own salary to $1 per year until he righted his ship.  Today Cisco has $26 billion in the bank and Chambers is still at the helm.  Nice work, John.  It wasn’t done with arrogance and going hat in hand to Washington looking for a hand out.

Deja Vu

In the 1970s and 1980s in the UK, British Leyland, maker of the Triumph, MG, Rover, Jaguar, Austin and five others, was in need of a bailout to keep going.  The British government complied eventually pumping in $16.5 billion in taxpayer money to the company.  It limped along for another few years and then went out of business.  It sold its Jaguar and Land Rover brands to Ford, which then poured $10 billion into Jaguar.  It recently sold both brands to Tata of India, getting back about half of what it paid for the brands.

Did the British economy go under?  Is the British military without tanks?  Let’s not forget that the Jeep was made by American Motors.  Where is American Motors today?  A company named AM General makes the military Hummer.  Guess what the “AM” stands for?  GM, Ford and Chrysler combined made about 17 million vehicles in 2007.  Does anyone think this demand will vanish if GM, Ford and Chrysler vanish?  Of course not.  Either GM, Ford, and Chrysler will re-make themselves, new companies will emerge, or U.S. based foreign companies will grow to take up the slack.  The jobs will move around.  The demand is there, the supply will emerge to satisfy it.

The Way Out

The way out of this mess is to go Chapter 11, reorganize, renegotiate onerous labor contracts, sell off properties no longer needed but tied up in commitments to bonds that were sold to attract a factory, etc.  The government should do their part and dump the CAFE standards.  Americans will still want high mileage cars and companies will build them.  It may not be GM, Ford and Chrysler who build them, but if they trim down, maybe they will.  But they do make a profit on their premium models and light trucks.  Let them.

But keep your hand out of my wallet.