Congressman Tim Bishop held an online town hall meeting to hear questions from constituents and give his answers. Perhaps he thought this a safer forum than a live town hall meeting. Last year’s meeting in Setauket did not go well and was soon viral on You Tube.

I will comment on three of the topics from that meeting: the payroll tax cut, regulations, and manufacturing jobs.

Payroll Tax Cut

Congressman Bishop came out heavily pitching the extension of the payroll tax cut, from the normal level of 6.2% to the current level of 4.2% and even to go lower to 3.1%, for at least another year. He made the startling claim, quoting some experts that if the payroll tax cut wasn’t retained it would cost 400,000 jobs. It must be from the loss of all that spending power generated from a 2% cut in the payroll tax. I am sure pizza parlors will be devastated, as the weekly savings to a typical family will be about the cost of a pizza pie. The other statistic was that if the payroll tax was cut further to 3.1%, 750,000 new jobs would be created. Interesting. Raise the tax by 2% and 400,000 jobs would be lost, cut it by an additional 1.1% and nearly twice as many jobs would be created. Like prior predictions of how government intervention would affect jobs, we are supposed to believe that employers will start hiring if the cost of hiring a new employee  is reduced by 3.1% for just one year, before going back up. Only those people who never worked in private industry, like Bishop, Schumer, Obama, would believe that.

Bishop insisted that these cuts would have no impact to the Social Security Trust Fund. Considering that there is nothing in the Social Security Trust Fund other than a bunch of IOUs from Uncle Sam’s other pocket, he may be correct on that front, but he said that the cut would be paid for cutting spending elsewhere. Not surprisingly, he didn’t say where exactly “elsewhere” was.

Throughout the call, Bishop’s press secretary was conducting a dopey poll. To paraphrase, “If you are in favor of the payroll tax cut that will put $1,500 in your pocket, press 1, if not, press 2.” Who wouldn’t press 1? What would the results be if he asked, “If you are in favor of borrowing $600 from China that your children and grandchildren will have to pay back, so that we can give you $1,500 today, press 1, if you think more borrowing and debt is a bad idea, press 2,” I think the poll would turn out quite differently.

Regulations

A caller who owned a small construction company asked about all the regulations and paperwork that businesses had to deal with. Bishop said that President Obama had things well under control forming a commission to “zero base” all regulations and hundreds and hundreds of regulations have been taken off the books. In the Wall Street Journal today there is an editorial titled, “Regulation for Dummies,” that paints a very different picture.

To answer the most basic question—has regulation increased?—we’ll focus on what the government defines as “economically significant” regulations. Those are rules that impose more than $100 million in annual costs on the economy, though there are hundreds if not thousands of new rules every year that fall well short of that.

According to an analysis of the Federal Register by George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, the Cabinet departments and agencies finalized 84 such regulations annually on average in President Obama’s first two years. The annual average under President Bush was 62 and under President Clinton 56

As the graph clearly shows the number of “economically significant” regulations under Obama has skyrocketed. This is what is causing the uncertainty that is hindering employment. How can this be curtailed? A bill just passed in the House of Representatives called the “Regulation from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS)”. This would require any of these economically significant regulations to be sent to Congress for approval before becoming being enacted. What the process is today is that Congress can vote against regulations, but that can be vetoed by the President. If the regulations are coming from the president, wouldn’t you expect him to veto it? This turns it around so that the Congress has to approve the regulations, if they don’t, there is nothing for the president to veto. The Democrats say this is a Congressional encroachment of the Executive.

“The REINS Act would undermine our ability to protect children from harmful toys, prevent asthma and lung ailments resulting from pollution, and ensure that our small businesses can compete fairly in the marketplace,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer added. “At the same time, it would force Congress to play a larger role in the regulatory process, leading to even more gridlock in Washington.”

Surely he forgot to mention killing bunnies in there somewhere. But let’s look at the process: Congress passes a law; departments in the Executive branch write regulations to carry out the law Congress passed. So why is it an outrage that Congress reviews economically significant regulations to see if the Executive is actually implementing what they passed? Tim Bishop voted against the REINS Act. This is another case of Democrats focusing on piddling regulations while saying “hands off” the really impactful ones.

Manufacturing Jobs

Another caller asked the Congressman about manufacturing jobs. He patted himself on the back for helping to bail out the auto industry. He said if he and others hadn’t done that that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost. I addressed the implausibility of this in an earlier post. In that post I argued that if GM and Chrysler went bankrupt and even if they didn’t come out of it leaner and meaner, people still needed transportation. They would buy Fords, Toyotas, Nissans, Hondas, etc., that are currently built here in the U.S. Those car companies would need to increase their purchases from suppliers and those who formerly supplied GM and Chrysler would be well situated to supply the remaining car companies. The argument that we don’t manufacture here anymore is a myth. On a dollar volume basis, we still manufacture more than any country on earth. A few miles from where I am writing this, in Georgetown, Kentucky, is the largest Toyota factory outside of Japan. Due to a free trade agreement with South Korea that the Democrats blocked for years, that Toyota plant will begin exporting about 6,000 Camrys a year from Kentucky to South Korea.

One of the reasons we don’t build more here is our lousy tax code. Fix it. A reason there is not more manufacturing in Mr. Bishop’s district on Long Island is high electric rates. Factories run on power and power on Long Island is expensive. One of the reasons for that is that government approved the building of a $5 billion nuclear power plant on Long Island, and then when it was ready to throw the switch, they changed direction and said it couldn’t open. So Long Island rate payers had to find and buy electric from other sources and pay for the mothballed plant that produced nothing. Once again, the government helping us out.

But Tim Bishop has a solution. He wrote a bill to ban offshore call centers from federal contracts or loan guarantees for five-year. Nothing like micromanaging a corner of the economy while the rest of it burns. Why not look to the root cause? Tax structure, too much regulations, ObamaCare, out of control government spending. If Congress would fix those problems maybe companies wouldn’t look offshore to set up call centers.

The Budget

Tim Bishop also touched on the deficit and debt. He said we need to cut spending, but he never said what he would cut; he said we needed to control entitlement spending, but he didn’t say how he would do that; and he said we needed to add revenue, but he knew exactly how to do that, tax the rich. Here’s how I see it. The government got us into this mess by spending too much money, they should get us out of it by spending less money. Asking for any more tax revenue is just shirking their responsibility for which they are paid handsomely, and passing the problem on to us. Who couldn’t solve the problem with enough money?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by Dave Makes

Two news items yesterday, when put together, start to tell an interesting story. Warren Buffett invested $5 billion in Bank of America in a private sweetheart deal that will guarantee him a 6% return (that’s $300 million per year) and he is hosting a fund raiser for Barack Obama in New York where the tickets start at $10,000. What’s going on?

Barack Obama is the worst jobs president since Herbert Hoover (see previous post on this); the economy is flat lining; and yet Buffet thinks Obama is doing a great job. Think of some of Obama’s other supporters among the captains of industry: Jeffrey Immelt of GE and Howard Schultz of Starbucks.

Crony Capitalism

What is crony capitalism? Crony capitalism is where we have a capitalist economy but instead of truly free markets, some business leaders get cozy with government to tilt the playing field in their favor. Those on the left like to paint conservatives as the champions of big business and the wealthy, but if you look at the campaign contributions of many big business CEOs you will be surprised at who they support. Let’s look at two examples, Warren Buffett and Jeffrey Immelt.

Warren Buffet

In the financial meltdown triggered by the housing bubble bursting, the government stepped in to prevent large financial institutions from failing. This creates what is known as a moral hazard. A moral hazard is where the risks associated with a particular transaction are covered by someone else such as the government or insurance, so the investor is willing to take overly large gambles. Why? Generally, the bigger the risk, the bigger the payoff if you are right and if the downside is protected by government or other parties you have less to lose. Big upside, small downside, let’s play!

Warren Buffett invested in Goldman Sachs in the midst of the financial crisis in 2008, as a result of his $5 billion investment he reaped “$10 billion in interest, fees, and dividends,” according to Mark DeCambre at the New York Post. If you know that the government won’t let the bank fail, what is your downside risk? The upside turned out pretty sweet. Warren Buffett was an adviser to candidate Barack Obama and you can be sure the topic of how to handle the fiscal crisis was discussed. Buffett is now investing in Bank of America where his company, Berkshire Hathaway stands to make another killing. Would the government stand by and let Bank of America go under? What do you think?

Warren Buffett has also been making the rounds calling for more taxes on the rich. This writer and others have suggested that if Warren Buffett thinks the government deserves more of his money, go ahead and write the check, but he balks at that suggestion. Why? Depending on when you measure it, Warren Buffett is one of the three richest people in America. No matter how high to raise the tax rates, he will be able to afford it. Other entrepreneurs and small businesses may not be able to afford the higher taxes and thus find their companies financially squeezed. Buffett’s company Berkshire Hathaway has made a lot of money buying up good companies. Could his high tax advocacy be a way for the government to create some new investment opportunities for him?

Buffett has also invested in a Chinese company to build electric cars. Why didn’t he invest in GM to help sell the Chevy Volt? In the midst of this lousy economy President Obama announces new CAFE standards that would require car companies to build cars that would get over 52 miles per gallon by 2025. That will probably drive GM and Chrysler out of business with their heavily unionized companies already at a severe cost disadvantage of around $2,000 per car. What a great opportunity this would create for a company with an electric car! Slap a GM or Chrysler nameplate on it and voila, problem solved.

Jeffrey Immelt

For all the talk about higher taxes, General Electric paid no taxes in 2010. During the fiscal crisis GE got large sums of money from the government.

During the wild Congressional spending spree of the last couple of years, GE miraculously became the largest beneficiary of the government’s Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP) bank bailout. Although GE did not initially qualify for TARP, the company’s $18 million annual investment in battalions of Washington DC lobbyists convinced Administration regulators to push that “reset” button and extend TARP guarantees and subsidies to GE. Public records demonstrate GE Capital, the company’s massive financing arm, pocketed $120 Billion in loans from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation at interest rates of less than 1% and snatched 25% of the entire $340 billion in subsidies from “Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program” (TLGP) rescue fund. — Chriss W. Street

Immelt has also been appointed as the head of President Obama’s job council. At the same time Immelt is entering into an agreement with China to build airplanes to compete against Boeing. Meanwhile do you recall Boeing and the government being in the news lately? Well the National Labor Relations Board has told Boeing that it cannot open another factory that will hire 5,000 employes in South Carolina. In the midst of 9% unemployment, Obama said that the NLRB was an independent agency and his hands were tied. How convenient?

What’s that Smell?

While the engines of job creation, small businesses, are stuck wondering what will hit them next, the crony capitalists are cozying up to President Obama and getting fat while stymieing their competition. I don’t know if this is illegal or not, but how much different from insider trading, at least from appearances, is this? The heads of major corporations give advice to President Obama, go out and make spectacular deals, and the economy continues to languish while they get rich. They get rich not because they have a better idea, or are more nimble, but because taxpayers are absorbing much of the risks while they make the dough. Perhaps Congressman Issa can use his Government Oversight committee to ask a few key questions.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by wstera2

Obama has a jobs plan, or so we are told. He will unveil it after he returns from Martha’s Vineyard. I hope it is a little more detailed than his budget plan to cut $4 trillion that no one can find by meticulously searching the Oval Office. I don’t even know what is in the plan and I have a better one. Stay in Martha’s Vineyard, Mr. President. Set a goal to play eighteen on every PGA sanctioned golf course in the country. Don’t you have some friends and family in Hawaii that miss you?

If we can just keep you out of Washington, so we’re not grappling with your non-leadership, leadership, things may not get a whole lot better until November 2012, but at least they might not get worse. Anyway, isn’t that your new campaign theme, “Just Imagine How Bad It Could Have Been! Vote Obama”?

Take North Carolina for example. Boeing opens a factory there to build its 787 Dreamliner. It hired 5,000 workers and they are ready to go. Then along comes our helpful friends in Washington from the National Labor Relations Board. They say, “Oh, no, this is retaliation. Boeing asked the unionized workers in Washington state for a moratorium on strikes and the union reasonably said they wanted Boeing to promise to never manufacture anywhere but Washington state and Boeing refused. How DARE they?!” So not only did Boeing add 3,000 jobs in Washington state, somehow opening up another factory in South Carolina, a Right to Work state, is retaliation. In an economy crawling along with unemployment stuck at north of 9% Washington is killing 5,000 jobs. When our intrepid leader, President Obama was asked about this he boldly proclaimed that the NLRB was an independent agency and his hands were tied. The President of the United States meekly says he is powerless against a panel of five bureaucrats.

If you asked some of those pesky evil Tea Party freshmen over in the House of Representatives who haven’t spent their entire lives in government service, they would probably say, give us a shot at it. First, we will drain their budget to $1; second tell Boeing to go ahead and make the NLRB’s day; and then sit back and see what action the NLRB will take with $1 in the petty cash drawer. Next step would be to legislate the Department of Labor out of existence, and the NLRB along with it. There are plenty of agencies in the individual states to take up any slack.

Other Award Winning Jobs Moves by the President

As we watch oil rig after oil rig sail out of the Gulf of Mexico to friendlier climes, the Obama administration’s mismanagement of the BP oil spill fiasco adds to the misery. Thousands of jobs were lost or put on hold. Trouble in the Middle East, disruption of oil production in Libya, we should increase domestic oil production but roadblocks to that keep getting thrown in the way. No, green energy is the answer as we watch another heavily subsidized solar energy company file for bankruptcy sending more workers to the unemployment line.

The American people are still waiting for GM stock to his $53 per share so we can break even on this wonderful investment. So how does Washington help? Let’s start by punching a bigger hole in the deficit by subsidizing the Chevy Volt to the tune of $7,500 per car in tax credits. Oh, that’s bad. No, that’s good. Chevy can’t sell them, so there won’t be much in the way of tax credit damage to the budget! Instead, the Obama administration comes out with new CAFE standards to require car companies to produce cars that get 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. If that doesn’t drive a stake through the heart of GM and Chrysler and saddle the American people with more debt, nothing will. With a $2,000 per car disadvantage over their foreign rivals GM and Chrysler are not going to be able to make small, light cars capable of this standard competitively. Well at least we’ll put those workers on unemployment slowly over the next 14 years.

How much more punishment can this economy take until we put President Obama on permanent retirement? So, please, Mr. President, I would rather you work on your golf handicap than give our economy more handicaps than it can handle.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

As I check the current price of GM stock this morning, $31 per share, and I contemplate how in the world it is going to reach the $53 per share price Americans need to fully recover their “investment” in the automaker, a recent news story lays it on the line. It’s not going to happen. The Obama administration has announced that it is demanding that auto companies double the mileage that their fleets get, to 56.2 miles per gallon, by 2025.

Once again we have the statists thinking that they are the smarter version of soviet planners who can demand that the wind blows, the sun shines, and the seas fall, and can just order that private industry do something and it will be done. As I point out in my book Liberty’s Lifeline, U.S. auto companies have about a $2,000 per car disadvantage relative to their foreign competitors due to health care benefits. So unless people think environmental green is superior to the green in their wallets, they are not going to pay a premium for high mileage cars. After all, the point of a high mileage car is to save on  the rising cost of gasoline, but if you never get the savings because the of the high price of the car, why do it. The clear example of this is the Chevy Volt.

The Chevy Volt is a $40,000 electric car, that is General Motors pride and joy. To encourage people to pay the ridiculous sticker price, the government offers a $7,500 subsidy, that is, you pay for the privilege of your neighbor driving his green car. The good news is that March sales were more than January and February combined. The bad news is that March sales were a total of 608 cars. For the first quarter the number of Volts sold totaled 1,210, compared to 50,000 for the Chevy Cruze.

GM makes money when it sells a Cadillac. Ford makes money selling F-150 pickup trucks. But the government has to get involved and tell these companies that they must sell cars in a sufficient mix that their Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) meets the government mandate, which will rise to the aforementioned 56.2 miles per gallon.

The market consists of demand for a variety of vehicles. Some companies can produce small, light, high mileage vehicles. Others can produce stronger, heavier trucks and luxury cars. Who is Washington to say what each can build? Let the market decide. If gasoline prices continue to rise, the car company that can continue to build high mileage cars will do well. GM and Chrylser are caught between the unions and a hard place. Their higher labor costs put them at a serious disadvantage in the low end, high mileage market and then Washington says that they have to sell more cars in that space to hit the CAFE averages. It is a recipe for disaster. But don’t worry, you have their back. You wallet is just a stroke of the pen away from this administration doling out more money to their friends and sticking you with the bill.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

There’s good news and bad news coming out of the Tim Bishop campaign.  The good news is that he has a new ad out so we don’t have to keep watching the same ad he has been running incessantly for the past five weeks.  The bad news it’s about the one subject that Tim Bishop wants to talk about, outsourcing.  It’s the same old stuff, wrapped in a new package.  Why can’t Tim Bishop talk about his record?  Is he embarrassed by it or afraid of it.

Okay, if outsourcing is the subject, let’s talk outsourcing.  In Mr. Bishop’s ads he accuses his opponent, businessman Randy Altschuler, of outsouring jobs.  While it is true Mr. Altschuler created a company that created jobs overseas that provided business services to U.S. companies, he never closes the sale by actually linking jobs lost here as a direct result of the jobs created overseas.  He just leaves it to the viewer to draw the conclusion.  Very clever.  From some of the blogs and newspaper comments I have read there are a number of people who have jumped to that conclusion.  Liberty’s Lifeline looked into it and reported on the flaws in making that connection.

But what about Tim Bishop and jobs that he is responsible for outsourcing?  Tim Bishop voted for the bailout of GM and Chrysler.  At the time Liberty’s Lifeline advocated letting the companies file for bankruptcy on their own and not bail them out with taxpayer money.  But the bailout went forward.  Shortly thereafter GM announced that it was increasing the percentage of cars that it was building overseas.  The Detroit News said this:

“GM’s plan to import more vehicles from low-wage countries raises questions about whether it should beef up its foreign operations as it is relying on federal money to stay afloat.”

Douglas “Wrong Way” Corrigan was an aviator in the 1930s.  In 1938 he mistakenly flew from New York to Ireland when he was supposed to fly from New York to California, because he claims he misread his compass.  It later turned out that he really intended to fly to Ireland but couldn’t get permission.

What’s Hillary’s excuse?  As the Obama Administration has called the removal of Honduran President Manuel Zalaya a coup d’etat, more attention is being focused on what the law in Honduras really says.  The Congressional Research Service looked into it and had this to say:

“The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings.”

—Congressional Research Service, August 2009

So why is Hillary Clinton now attacking the Honduran Supreme Court by pulling the visas of all fifteen members of the court?  The U.S. sided with Hugo Chavez and Costa Rica to reach a “negotiated” settlement that would put Zalaya back in the presidency.  Honduras said, sorry, that would violate our constitution.  He broke the law, we dealt with it according to our constitution, and that’s that.

Mary Anastasia O’Grady writes in the Wall Street Journal:

The upshot is that the U.S. is trying to force Honduras to violate its own constitution and is also using its international political heft to try to interfere with the country’s independent judiciary.

Hondurans are worried about what this pressure is doing to their country. Mr. Zelaya’s violent supporters are emboldened by the U.S. position. They deface some homes and shops with graffiti and throw stones and home-made bombs into others, and whenever the police try to stop them, they howl about their “human rights.”

When will the apology tour end and we start standing up for liberty and democracy?  Is it more important that Hillary have an accomplishment she can brag about than following  the rule of law?  This administration has so much, so backwards it is hard to keep track of it.  They focus all their time and energy doing things they are not constitutionally authorized to do (health care, taking over car companies and banks, funding ACORN), and ignoring their fundamental constitutional duties of foreign policy and national defense.  Let’s hope some pressure can be brought to bear on the Obama Administration to back off before Chavez puts a puppet in place.

Just when you thought this administration had gone about as far as it could go in turning America into the old Soviet Union another subtle clue is revealed.  When you craft legislation that is over a thousand pages long and you try to slam it through before anyone can read it, all kinds of creepy things come crawling out when you turn the lights on.  This is from the White House’s blog:

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

Turn in your neighbor?  Does this not sound like Cuban block watchers in Castro’s worker’s paradise?  Is your name in their database?  If you apply for a government job, do you think you might run into a “problem”?  Will the IRS come knocking on your door to audit you?  If this doesn’t send chills up your spine, you are made of sterner stuff than me.

What’s really Fishy?

To be fair, everything this administration has said about health care, or is it health insurance, seems fishy?  So should all Americans be writing to the White House to complain?  Be careful, I am sure they are taking the names on both sides of the e-mail.  This Administration wants the First Amendment only to apply to the titan of the teleprompter.  But if you criticize the state, you are Astroturf, an unruly mob, crazed right-wing plants.  When do they send the goons in to break up the crowd and beat a few participants to send them a lesson.

Be Careful Before You Take a Bite Out of that Apple

The administration is touting the Cash for Clunkers program as a great success.  But as the auto dealers file for the rebates they are faced with this {emphasis added}:

“This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the U.S. Government. Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, Dot, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.”

This was widely reported by Glenn Beck and immediately the statists came forth to attack him as a right wing fanatic.  I also saw some insipid posts saying, “well how are they going to be able to do that?  I’ll smack anyone who tries to touch my laptop; that web site is only for the dealers, not for consumers, etc., etc.”  To that I say, read it for yourself and decide.  Perhaps, as some suggest, it was some overly aggressive government lawyer who was trying to protect…  Protect what?  Rebates?

The pattern is shocking and the pattern is clear.  If the government gives you TARP money, the government sets your salary.  If the government bails out and then takes over the car companies, the government will decide what kind of cars it will build and if it loses money for years (Amtrak, the Postal Service), the government can decide to keep them afloat to achieve their agenda.  Keeping all those UAW members on the government teat, will keep their votes in the Democratic column.  Now if you want a rebate, the government owns your computer.  Let’s see, is there any disparaging information about the Obama administration on there?  No rebates for your dealership and we’ll fire off an e-mail to flag@whitehouse.gov to boot.  And what about that reference to foreign agencies?

Barack Obama is a disciple of Saul Alinsky and he knows a thing or two organizing and defeating his opponents, not by logic or reason, but by attack and disinformation.  That is how dictators grab power.  Will we be able to do as our Founding Fathers did and stop the spread of this tyranny?  The recent town hall meetings with our legislators give me reason to hope that Americans are paying close attention and do not like what they see.

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.

He looked nervous.  He curled up the corners of his two hole cards, aces.  He eased them back down on the table and scanned the other players.  Nancy Pelosi had a stack of chips totaling $25 billion and he wanted all of them.  No, he needed all of them.  Desperately.  The other three, all Japanese, sat expressionless behind their dark glasses.  At every hand all they said was “Call”.   No raise.  No drama.  Very cool.  Very dangerous.

He looks again at the four cards on the table.  Nothing to help him there.  He needs another ace. He needs the ace he calls the Volt. Pelosi turns to him. “So, what’s your plan?”  He swallows hard, trying hard not to show it and says, “All in,” and pushes his remaining chips into the center of the table.  The dealer burns another card and then peels off the “river.” And we’ll be right back for the final outcome of tonight’s game.

GM on the Precipice

That must be how Rick Wagoner feels.  It seems he’s betting everything on the Chevy Volt. If he draws that ace, he’s a hero.  If not, he’s history.  So what are his chances?

If that’s all he’s got, they’re pretty long odds.  The Volt is not due to hit the showroom floor until 2010, and at a whopping $40,000 per copy.  Not a bad price for a Cadillac, but for an untested electric car with a 40 mile range?  That’s a tough sell.  Even at that, the $40,000 might not be profitable, just break even.  But, there will be a tax credit of $7,500 to help take the sting out of it.

Without Bankruptcy

Without a major revamping of their cost structure that can probably only be achieved through the bankruptcy courts, GM is still carrying $2,000 per vehicle in labor costs that its competition doesn’t have.  And what about those three players to his right in the dark glasses, do you think they are standing pat?  Although very low key, it is reported that Toyota, Nissan and Mitsubishi are all planning to introduce electric cars in the same time frame.  If they do that and they also have the $2,000 per vehicle edge, it will be very bad for GM and any bailout will go down the drain.

The other factor is the way the Japanese do strategic planning.  They typically do not look to just the next quarter.  They are known for developing 50 and 100 year plans.  That is not a typo.  So if they introduce a vehicle they will do it for the long haul.  Believe it or not the Toyota Prius has been on the market for seven years already.  The Japanese are not afraid to introduce a pretty good model and then continuously improve it and if they believe the direction is right, they are willing to wait for the results.  The Big Three, on the other hand tend to have a shorter planning horizon.  Witness Ford’s announcement that it intended to build 250,000 hybrids and then did a market survey when gasoline was about $2.30 per gallon, and decided that they should not go forward.  When gas prices took off they were caught flatfooted while Toyota was selling Priuses at a premium and they couldn’t make them fast enough.

New Administration, New Congress, New Energy Policy

Then there is the energy issue.  Putting more and more electric cars on the road is a good idea and a way toward energy independence.  However, the new administration and the incoming Democratic Congress want to kill the coal industry.  Coal currently generates 49% of our country’s electricity and when it comes to coal reserves, the U.S. is to coal what Saudi Arabia is to oil.  But the new incoming chairman of the House Energy committee, Henry Waxman of Beverly Hills, California, is more determined than ever to implement a green agenda and kill coal.

So what do you replace the coal with?  Oil? Gas? Nuclear?  On the campaign trail, I heard Barack Obama and Joe Biden mumble some things about nuclear being okay, but it was hardly a ringing endorsement.  Do they think for a minute that wind or solar are anywhere near replacing coal?  So, they actually plan to reduce our electric generating capacity by 49% and then not only replace it but grow it to be able to handle all these electric cars.  Where’s that plan?

If you don’t have enough electricity, you can’t charge up your electric cars.  If good old supply and demand does its usual thing, the price of electricity should skyrocket and I can tell you first hand that in New York, it’s not cheap right now.  If electricity skyrockets, whatever manufacturing is left in New York and other rust belt areas will be pulling up stakes left and right and heading south.  If that population follows the jobs, does that mean more votes for the red states and a shift in Congressional seats as well?

The Democrats better re-think that plan if they want to stay in power.

I was having lunch with a colleague the other day and the conversation turned to the economy. He spoke of some recent analysis of the number of jobs that would be lost if the Big Three failed.  He recounted not just the employees of the auto companies themselves, but the employees of their suppliers, advertising firms that produce car ads, and on and on.  His final tally was well over 1 million jobs lost.  He concluded by saying it would make the current financial crisis a walk in the park.

Getting enough exercise?

Does that mean that we are all going to start walking?  Not that that would be a bad idea, we could all stand to lose some pounds, but for someone who has a 23 mile one-way commute with no option for mass transit, it’s just not going to happen.  So what do we do?  Well, one of several scenarios is going to happen.

Scenario 1:  The Big Three Close Their Doors

If this scenario came about, what would we do?  We would go buy Toyotas, Nissans, Hondas, Volkswagens, etc.  Those companies would have to scale up to fill the void caused by the Big Three closing their doors.  That demand would need people.  So a significant number, but by no means all, of the laid off workers from Detroit would move to North Carolina, Alabama, and other points south, and join these auto companies at their U.S. plants.

Likewise the suppliers would form new alliances to supply these car companies, as would all the other ancillary companies that currently support Detroit.  Would jobs be lost?  Yes.  Would it be anywhere near the number of jobs my friend projected?  No.

Scenario 2: The Big Three Reinvent Themselves

The liberty of the car companies to reinvent themselves is constrained by government regulations.  Surprise!  If the Big Three have any hope of reinventing themselves, they have to have the freedom to do so.  Start by eliminating the CAFE standards.  CAFE, which stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy, is the mileage standards dictated by the government that the auto companies must comply with or face heavy fines, draining more money from the Big Three’s coffers.  So for every car that the Big Three build that may get 20 mpg, they may have to build and sell perhaps 3 that get 30 mpg, in order to meet the standard.  But what if they can make money on the 20 mpg car, but they lose money on every 30 mpg model?  What if the reason they can’t make money is because of their labor costs per vehicle, their pension costs per vehicle, their health care costs per vehicle, when added up are too high compared to their foreign competitors.  They are basically forced by the government to make an unprofitable product.

Why not abandon the CAFE standards?  Let Detroit build the cars and trucks that they can make at a profit.  Let the foreign manufactures make cars that they can make at a profit, including high mileage cars.  Let the American people have the freedom to choose which they want.  As the price of gasoline climbs as it did, and will again, people will want to buy high mileage cars, hybrids, electric cars, but they will also want to buy SUVs, luxury cars and light trucks.  Why does a particular manufacturer have to produce all kinds?  When has government ever made the right call on what products to produce? (Hint:  think of all the five-year plans and Great Leap Forwards from the Communist world).

Scenario 3: The Government Bails Out the Big Three

The government prints up a bundle of cash, $25 billion or more, gives it to the auto companies and hands the IOU to you and me.  The new Democratic Congress and Administration will toe the line for their backers in the environmental movement and demand higher CAFE standards for the auto companies in the interest of addressing: our dependence on foreign oil; green house gases; and helping consumers.  This will put increased pressure on the Big Three to make more unprofitable products and we will find ourselves back in the same place a few years hence.  More liberties will be vaporized as the government appoints a czar to oversee the auto companies to be sure they are building the right products, that management is not getting paid too much money, and well let’s face it, they would basically be nationalizing the auto companies.  Management talent would dry up, and socialism would make greater inroads into the U.S. economy.

The Best Scenario

The Big Three file for bankruptcy, if that is what they need to do.  The stockholders would probably be wiped out, the management team would be replaced, and this will let them re-negotiate their labor agreements.  Congress and the new Administration realize that people will want to purchase cars with higher mileage as the price of gas climbs regardless of any government requirement.  There is no justifiable reason that any particular auto company has to build a particular car because the government says so.  Achieving this state of enlightenment, Congress repeals the CAFE standards.  With the liberty to manage the company to make a profit rather than meet the constraints of a bevy of interest groups, a more energized management team takes the reins, and returns the Big Three to competitiveness.

Drawing a line in the Sand

If we don’t take a stand here and now, every company that wants a cash cushion will be working the halls of Congress to get their hands on your money.  There is not enough to go around.  In addition, many of the problems we are facing were created by government initiatives.  The mortgage mess was not the result of not enough regulation but by government programs that compelled lenders to give loans to people who could not afford them.  Detroit’s problems are a result of CAFE standards and onerous union contracts.  Since government created many of these problems why do we think that government knows how to fix them?  What we need to do is tell them to back off and let the free market work.