Car Czar Quits, Union Man Replaces Him

Car Czar Quits, Union Man Replaces Him

Announced today is the news that Steve Rattner, former investment banker who has led president Obama’s auto task force during the takeover of GM and the bankruptcy of Chrysler, has decided to quit his job. The Obama administration, not missing a beat, has slipped a union guy, Ron Bloom, in as his replacement.

Consistent with Obama's use of so-called "Czars" to obfuscate the links between the industries involved and the administration's machinations, we know very little about Bloom, but we are just now learning about the federal investigation into Rattner. Something was alleged about kickbacks sought by officials linked to government pension plans from Rattner's "former" venture capital firm:

Mr Rattner's brief tenure was not without controversy. The White House was accused of sidestepping the Senate's scrutiny of administration nominees by naming him a mere member of a taskforce - rather than the touted "car czar" - even though he assumed charge of one of the biggest state interventions in US industry.

After his move to Washington, his former private equity firm Quadrangle was caught up in an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into alleged kickbacks sought by people linked to the New York state comptroller's office.

Nothing to see here, just move along...

More Eco-Fraud from Congress

More Eco-Fraud from Congress

The greatest flaw in congressional actions is their lack of regard to the immutable Law of Unintended Consequences, especially when it comes to Obamanomics. They do one thing and it always has far reaching effects as their largess percolates into the greater world beyond their cloistered existence. A fine example is contained within the recently passed War Funding Bill. Its stated purpose is to remove less efficient, older cars from the road in favor of more efficient models. Help the poor and all that. But it will do far more than that.

It provides a cash payment of $3.500 to $4,500 for these older cars, when traded in for a new vehicle. Sounds good, right? But what will it actually achieve? It seems to me that many people with older cars can not afford new cars in the first place. Even a Kia will set you back at least ten thousand dollars, so the buyer will be several thousand dollars short of any new car. But with many people able to do so, many of these plder cars will be traded in and disappear from the market. For people who need to buy these older, less efficient cars for their basic transportation needs, the market will have to recognize these artificial trade-in values and lower supply by raising the price of these used cars. Many of these so-called transportation cars today sell for less than one thousand dollars, with quite a few going for two to three. These prices will all rise.

So who will be hurt? Clearly, like most of what congress does, the most vulnerable among us will suffer the most. We live in such a rich country that even most people living at the poverty line own automobiles. The old pickup died, so another one is needed, but instead of being able to pick one up for $750, it will now cost more like $2,000. Our government just committed to spend a cool billion dollars to accomplish this. Nice Change, for those with a little less Hope than the rest of us.

Strange Parallels

Strange Parallels

Yesterday one of my favorite blogs, Gates of Vienna, ran an important piece. It is mostly translated from the original Flemish (it comes from a Dutch blog, after all) and it is titled "The Hitler Myth." It is about some little known facts about Hitler's rise to power and how present day Germans (and others) promote a myth about how they were not culpable. But the really interesting thing I found in this piece is the close parallel to Obama's rise, and his plan for "Change."

I know that comparing anyone to Hitler is supposed to be verboten, but please bear with me, and read on. The parallel is not about slavery and death camps, it is more about politics and economics, and how Hitler became so beloved by his people. His people were the young and less well off. The "rich" and less favored minorities were sacrificed on the altar of the better good for all. A sample:

* The Nazis brought the automobile within reach of the people.
* They doubled the number of holidays for workers.
* They introduced agricultural subsidies for farmers to protect them against the risks of weather and a fickle world market.
* Prices of food were set by the government
* The Nazis introduced the progressive income tax (still a “sacred” item for the leftist parties).
* The Nazis were not just leftists, they were green as well: they were the first to make care for the environment a government responsibility.
* Landlords were required to charge their tenants affordable rents.
* The legal position of tenants was strengthened.
* Child benefits were introduced.
* Pensions were increased.
* The cost of health care was paid for by the government. [2]
* The only tax increase that hurt “the common man” was a 50% increase on the duty on tobacco and alcohol.
* And in the war a “special social benefit” was introduced: benefits for the cost of rent, insurance, coal, potatoes and other essential goods.

And the great industrialists? How did they do under Hitler? Companies had to pay 98% tax under Hitler. In some cases even 104% of profits had to be paid. And the weapons industry? The Nazis seized all “war-related” profits. Or, in the words of Hitler himself: “As long as there are soldiers fighting at the front, nobody will be allowed to make profits from the war.”

Investors had to hand in all dividends above 6% to the State. In 1941 this was followed by a special profit tax. In that year homeowners suddenly had to pay property tax in advance over the years ahead. An increase of residential rents was not allowed.

How socialist was Hitler? Let us look at the government contributions to social security between 1938 and 1943 (in millions of Reichsmarks)

1938 640
1939 749 +16%
1940 940 +26%
1941 1395 +48%
1942 963 -31%
1943 1119 +16%

This is how socialist Hitler was. He commanded a solidarity and social justice policy the current Social Democrats can only dream about.

This is all well documented in the piece, and then goes on with an explanation of how the Shoah was concocted to pay for all the benefits the state was giving to the "workers." Other than that detail, the Obama parallel holds true, at least it does to me. Another bon mot:

The inherent problem of democracy is “the dictatorship of the majority”. In order to come to power, the politicians have to forge a majority coalition. This majority will only vote for them when there is something to gain. But where should that money come from? That can only be taken away from the minority.

In they era before Hitler, Socialism was seen as weird, intellectual, and unsuccessful. Hitler made two innovations that were crucial for the practical success. And finally Hitler succeeded in transferring money from a minority to a majority.

Of course, to get it all you should read the whole thing. But if your time is short, at least read Part IV, at the end of the post.

Recklessness and Overreaching

Recklessness and Overreaching

Almost eight weeks in now and it is becoming clear what kind of a president we have, and voices fromn the heartland are becoming more strident in calling him out.

From a The Detroit News, editorial page editor Nolan Finley writes a bylined column headlined "Obama opens new era of recklessness" in which he avers:

The miraculous marketing machine that carried a junior senator into the White House is now at work trying to convince Americans that writing fat checks from an empty Treasury represents a giant step toward fiscal responsibility.
[snip]
Call it the Audacity of Hype. The president, casting himself as the somber task master of a frivolous people, is demanding sacrifice of every American. But there's little sacrifice in his budget. His entire claim to responsibility rests on raising taxes on the wealthy, an action that is as ideologically driven as anything George W. Bush put on the table and will likely do severe harm to the economy.
[snip]
The Obama budget perpetuates the have-it-now, pay-for-it-later mentality that has brought us to the brink of financial ruin. He isn't going to let the economic crisis deter him from enacting his hugely expensive social agenda. Nor will he heed warnings that his energy and health initiatives may place additional financial hardships on struggling taxpayers.

In his weekly radio address, the president explained, "like every family going through hard times, our country must make tough choices." But few families in tight financial straits can choose to borrow to accelerate household spending.
[snip]
Rather than exalting personal responsibility, Obama is encouraging dependency. His plan will turn more Americans from contributors to the system to recipients of government handouts.

Cutting the tax deduction for charitable deductions made by the wealthy will take an estimated $9 billion away from nonprofits and send it to Washington, where it will be redistributed as Obama sees fit. The idea of taking care of your own -- your own families, your own communities -- will become a quaint notion.
[snip]
Overall, the Obama budget will make Americans more dependent on government, explode the federal deficit, risk further crippling of the economy and leave the nation more exposed to its enemies.

If this is what responsibility now looks like, then we have for sure entered a new era.

The question the administration must ask at some point is when does the wielding of power become a weapon against oneself? Bruce Wilson, a columnist living in Washington, Utah, writes in The Salt Lake Tribune a piece headlined "Those who ignored rules should lose homes" with an even sterner tone:

During the run-up to approval for his mortgage bailout plan, President Obama frequently claimed it provided necessary and justifiable aid for those who "played by the rules" and "through no fault of their own" were being forced out of "their homes."

Like all of Obama's rhetoric, it sounded great and tugged at heart strings everywhere. But like too much of his rhetoric, it's a solution for a situation that doesn't really exist. And unlike many of the clever but dishonest straw men that Obama has created to sell his programs, this is one most Americans will see through.
[snip]
It's clear to anyone who is willing to be honest about the situation that most of those who will qualify for Obama's bailout didn't play by the rules. They agreed to mortgages they couldn't possibly afford, some right from the start, others when higher interest rates they agreed to kicked in at a later date.

Still others would have been fine with their original mortgage payment, but when the perceived value of the home skyrocketed they took out second mortgages to fund home improvements and all sorts of other things -- things they couldn't really afford unless they continued to suck additional artificial equity out of the home.

The root causes of the problem are so obvious and so different from the straw man created by Obama that it makes one wonder whether his life experiences have been so different from life in suburban and rural America -- where most home ownership is concentrated -- that he never learned the rules of homeownership.

These are not opinion pieces skewering a political opponent with rhetoric. These are plaintive cries for this madness to stop, backed up with fact and cold observation. Moreover, this is just a sample, as voices all over the land are attempting to put the brakes on what is widely perceived as a rush to impending disaster.

The question is, will the 56% of Americans who are still snowed by this radical young president open their eyes in time to stop him, or are they willfully entering into the Faustian bargain of Obanomics, where every man gives according to his ability, and all sheep receive according to their needs, and their demands. This is a test. Has a majority discovered that it can vote itself largess from the federal treasury? Even if there is no money?

Call it a national test of character. I can hardly wait to see how we score.

People Turning Away from Obamanomics

People Turning Away from Obamanomics

Interesting new polling just out, and it is becoming clear that the American people, or at least those who were polled, are not as stupid as some have feared. While many will yawn at the headline, which states that Obama is behind where Bush was in popularity 50 days in - as with all polls, and life itself, the interesting stuff lies within the details.

The details I find very interesting are the findings, and I quote from the article, not the poll numbers themselves:

Only less than a quarter of Americans believe that the federal government truly reflects the will of the people. Almost half disagree with the idea that no one can earn a living or live "an American life" without protection and empowerment by the government, while only one-third agree.

That sounds to me like a complete disavowal of Obamanomics entire. More detail of how sophisticated this rejection of the lefty aganda really is lie within this paragraph:

Fifty-six percent of Americans oppose giving bankers any additional government money or any guarantees backed by the government. Two-thirds say Wall Street will benefit more than the average taxpayer from the new bank bailout plan. This represents a jump in opposition to the first plan passed last October. At that time, 45% opposed the bailout and 30% supported it. Now a solid majority opposes the bank bailout, and 20% think it was a good idea. A majority believes that Mr. Obama will not be able to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term.

Interesting stuff, much of which contradicts the feeling one could get from watching major media reports and speeches made by administration figures. Looking around on any polling site (I prefer Rasmussen) will provide a wealth of information. Quite a bit of it looks promising to me. Like the fact that only 43% of Americans want government to run health care, which is 17% behind the place the people were at when Clinton failed to pass his version of it - and Obama's version promises to be more intrusive, more government, and less choice than the plan Hillary went down on in 1993. Only 27% see the need for another stimulus package. And only 23% believe the government reflects the will of the people. That may be a few more than thought so a few years ago under Bush, but it still falls far short of a mandate for radical action by those same worthies.

So, while I seldom make much of polling data, in these days we need to take out our prediction tools, if only to discern whether Obama will succeed in his stated agenda of Change. He will get change, that is unavoidable, but it appears that Obama's style of change is not the change we ALL believe in.