Obama and the Guvs

/65 Comments/in /by

hall_hp.jpgIn a really smart move, Obama is quickly pulling together a meeting between him and the nation’s governors (and always the master of theater, he’s holding it at Independence Hall in Philly).

President-elect Barack Obama is meeting with nearly all the U.S. governors in Philadelphia next Tuesday to discuss how the economic crisis is crimping states and their budgets.

Nick Shapiro, a spokesman for the Obama transition, said the meeting will provide an opportunity for Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden to talk with state chief executives about "the unique challenges facing our states." The discussions are being hosted by National Governors Association Chairman Ed Rendell and Vice Chairman Jim Douglas.

Douglas said 40 governors and governors-elect plan to attend the group discussion, which was put together just in the last few days, at the city’s famed Independence Hall.

"It’s short notice, some grumbled, but virtually everyone has cleared his or her calendar," said Douglas, the Republican governor of Vermont.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, running mate to Obama’s Republican opponent in the presidential race, Sen. John McCain, also planned to attend the gathering, her office said.

Originally when I heard Palin was going to be meeting with Obama, I thought it just an elaborate excuse for Sasha and Piper to get together discuss their recently more sophisticated fashion tastes.  But this move is much, much smarter than a sleep-over between Sasha and Piper.

Consider that most observors believe that Republican Governors (including, but not limited to, Palin, Jindal, Pawlenty, Crist, and Utah’s Huntsman) will set the new direction for the beleaguered Republican Party. These governors are increasingly the leaders of the Republican party, not John Boehner or Mitch McConnell.

And Obama has seen to it that–as one of their last orders of business before the holidays, and therefore one of their last orders of business before the new Congress–they will meet with the President-Elect to tell him about how important infrastructure investments and loans to cash-strapped states will be to the nation’s economic recovery. What Governor, after all, Republican or Democrat, doesn’t love getting federal funds to spend in their state?

Obama is soliciting support among the Republican party’s rising leaders for the massive stimulus package that will arrive on Congress’ lap at the beginning of January. He’s doing so just in time for these Governors to give their Congressmen and Senators an earful over the holiday cocktail party season. 

Read more →

Uncle Toobz? Are You Obstructing Oversight of TARP?

/67 Comments/in , /by
by Genista

by Genista

POGO notes something I hadn’t seen reported elsewhere–the last paragraph of a Chris Dodd statement regarding the selection of Neil Barofsky as Inspector General for the TARP bailout funds.

Unfortunately, the confirmation has been delayed by at least one Senator. That delay is regrettable and not in the best interest of American taxpayers.  It is my sincere hope that those who are blocking this nomination will reconsider their actions and confirm Mr. Barofsky at the earliest opportunity.

I posit Ted Stevens as one potential source of the hold only because he has been known to put holds on finance oversight in the past. Plus, he’s probably been in an ornery mood of late.

But there are plenty of other Republicans who like to obstruct good legislation. There’s John Kyl’s hold on FOIA reforms.  John Ensign’s hold on electronic filing of Senate disclosure forms. And there’s Tom Coburn’s hold on just about everything–though to be fair to Coburn, his MO is usually to obstruct things he finds culturally offensive, not matters pertaining to oversight.

Still, someone’s out there making sure that no one is watching over our $700 billion dollars. 

Now why would some corporate shill want to do that?

Breaking the Consumption Addiction

/36 Comments/in /by

Economics Professor Atrios notices that the housing industry is–predictably–asking for its share of the bailout and points out that it’s probably not a good idea to try to reinflate the housing bubble.

 Department Of Really Bad Ideas

While I’ve been more than a little skeptical about Treasury and Fed shotgunning trillions to their rich friends, there are at least germs of arguments here and there for why some of it may be desirable. But the home builders are serving up an even stinkier shit sandwich!

The builders’ lobby is ramping up its sales pitch for a $250 billion stimulus package called "Fix Housing First," arguing that financial markets won’t recover until home prices stop falling. They are calling for a generous tax credit for home purchases and a federal subsidy that would lower a homeowner’s mortgage rate.

REINFLATE THE BUBBLE! REINFLATE THE BUBBLE!

But that’s a problem with bailing out our economy, in general. You can’t bail out the housing industry–at least not in the way they want–because that’ll just encourage the same kind of foolish investments that got us into this problem.

Similarly, though, we need to make sure any auto bridge attempts to shift the profit calculation for manufacturers, because right now, producing gas guzzling behemoths would be the quickest way to pay off federal loans.

And what about the retail industry? While the emails listing tons of retail closings are over-stated, you’ve still got outlets like Ann Taylor and Footlocker and Macys closing stores and crappy chains like Circuit City going into bankruptcy–and that’s before what promises to be a dismal Christmas shopping season. That means that a lot of people who can least afford it–those with minimal education, seniors returning to the workforce, and so on–may lose their jobs. Nevertheless, I sort of regard it as a good thing that people aren’t going to spend $3000 on a fancy new teevee this year–that much money would feed entire families for a year in some developing nations. Eventually, we’re going to need to cushion the losses of the retail sector–but hopefully we don’t do it in such a way that encourages the orgy of conumption we’ve been on in recent years.

Granted, with sound policy decisions, we might be able to help out these struggling sectors while still encouraging sounder consumption choices: Read more →

Saving Citi But Not GM

/33 Comments/in /by

I don’t know which is more insulting to Detroit, as Congress makes the automakers grovel for a bailout. That in one night, with no oversight from Congress, Treasury just risked $300 billion of support for Citigroup. Or that, on top of that, Citi got $20 billion in funds from TARP–more for just one company than any one of the Big Two and a Half had requested (and that’s on top of $25 billion that Hank Paulson has already dumped into Citi)? And while offering this massive bailout for one company, our government had the audacity to claim,

  • We will exercise prudent stewardship of taxpayer resources.
  • We will carefully circumscribe the involvement of government in the financial sector.

Uh huh.

Why isn’t Richard Shelby, ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, on my teevee talking about the failed business model of our entire financial sector?

The Boogeyman versus the New Bretton Woods

/61 Comments/in /by

Lots of people are posting this YouTube, but no one, as far as I’ve seen, has contextualized it.

This seemingly organized snub took place, after all, at the end of the attempt on the part of the G20 to find some global solutions to our present economic crisis. The snub occurred after Bush welcomed his guests with a radio address pre-empting some of the demands those guests were making.

This is a decisive moment for the global economy. In the wake of the financial crisis voices from the left and right are equating the free enterprise system with greed, exploitation, and failure. It is true that this crisis included failures by lenders and borrowers, by financial firms, by governments and independent regulators. But the crisis was not a failure of the free market system. And the answer is not to try to reinvent that system. It is to fix the problems we face, make the reforms we need, and move forward with the free market principles that have delivered prosperity and hope to people around the world. [my emphasis]

And the snub came during a summit in which Bush championed the adoption of a passage in the Declaration that came out of the summit that, once again, insisted the free market was working fine (this could have–and probably did–come straight out of Administration statements leading up to the summit).

12.  We recognize that these reforms will only be successful if grounded in a commitment to free market principles, including the rule of law, respect for private property, open trade and investment, competitive markets, and efficient, effectively regulated financial systems.  These principles are essential to economic growth and prosperity and have lifted millions out of poverty, and have significantly raised the global standard of living.  Recognizing the necessity to improve financial sector regulation, we must avoid over-regulation that would hamper economic growth and exacerbate the contraction of capital flows, including to developing countries.

And the snub came after the rejection of international regulation to control those purportedly functional free markets.

8.  In addition to the actions taken above, we will implement reforms that will strengthen financial markets and regulatory regimes so as to avoid future crises.  Regulation is first and foremost the responsibility of national regulators who constitute the first line of defense against market instability.

Read more →

Mitch McConnell’s Undisclosed Location

/84 Comments/in , /by

I’m utterly fascinated by two aspects of the debate over the bailout. First, why it is that reporters repeatedly cite Richard Shelby–the biggest opponent of the bailout–without noting that if GM goes under, the foreign manufacturers making big inefficient SUVs and trucks in his state will get a huge competitive advantage? Carl Levin is presented as representing Detroit, why isn’t Shelby described as representing Detroit’s foreign-owned competition?

I’m also fascinated by the role of Mitch McConnell–with McCain’s electoral embarrassment and John Boehner’s imminent ouster, the leader of the Republican party. McConnell, of course, represents an auto state–a pretty fascinating auto state, in fact, one that has a bunch of union manufacture of American products, as well as non-union manufacture of efficient Japanese cars. So does Mitch lead the opposition to the bailout–and oppose the interests of thousands of his constituents? Or does he support it, presenting an awkward defection for the Republican campaign to break the unions?

Apparently, if you’re Mitch McConnell, you chose option "C," none of the above. Instead, if this article from McConnell’s state is any indication, you hide.

The article cites,

  • William Parsons Jr., who organizes the annual Global Automotive Conference in Kentucky
  • Ken Troske, director of the University of Kentucky’s Center for Business and Economic Research
  • Toyota spokesman Mike Goss
  • Laurie Harbour-Felax, an industry observer and president of the Harbour-Felax Group
  • Kristin Dziczek, a researcher at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich

And of course,

  • Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala

But no mention of the hometown Senator and the most powerful Republican in the country, Mitch McConnell.

I’ve got unconfirmed sightings of Mitch in a spider-hole in Iraq, but I’m still working to confirm that report.

The Auto Bridge Plan

/62 Comments/in , /by

Here’s what Barney Frank’s Financial Services Committee is proposing to bail out the US auto manufacturers, using money from TARP.

  • Short-term Operating Plan – The automaker must submit a short-term operating plan that describes the intended use of the loans, including the commitment of resources to develop a long-term restructuring plan and repayment of the loan to taxpayers with interest.
  • Long-Term Restructuring Plan – By March 31, 2009, loan recipients must submit to Treasury an acceptable restructuring plan for long-term viability and international competitiveness, including meeting enhanced fuel efficiency standards and for advanced technology vehicle manufacturing,and restructuring of existing debt. 
  • Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance – All executive compensation restrictions from TARP apply to loan recipients for the duration of the loan plus the following additional restrictions:
    • No bonuses to employees making more than $200,000 (which Treasury will adjust for inflation).
    • No golden parachutes under any circumstances.
    • No compensation plan that could encourage manipulation of reported earnings to enhance compensation.
  • Warrants – Treasury must obtain warrants from each loan recipient (or economic equivalent in the case of a privately held firm) equal to 20 percent of the loan or such greater percentage as may be determined by Treasury in consultation with the Oversight Board. 
  • Dividends – Recipients may not pay any dividends for duration of the loan.
  • Acceleration of Repayment for Failure to Comply – If a company receiving a loan fails to prepare an acceptable restructuring plan, the Treasury can demand accelerated repayment of the loan.
  • Terms of Loans:  
    • Term:  7 years (or longer as may be determined by the Oversight Board). 
    • Interest Rate: 5% for Read more →

The Auto Bailout: Who Is In Favor of What

/22 Comments/in /by

In this post, I described the three different proposed funds for the auto industry. Now, I’d like to lay out which politicians are advocating what. I’ll update this as we go forward.

Pro-Bailout

Carl Levin (and Jennifer Granholm and the rest of the MI delegation, both Democrat and Republican): Particularly given John Dingell’s current focus on retaining his Chairmanship, Levin has taken the lead on championing a bailout for the auto industry. Levin has said he would be willing to discuss hard conditions on the industry–and already advocates more oversight than the financial bailout–though he has not committed to all the oversight some would like.

Barney Frank: Frank will submit the counter-part to Levin’s bailout proposal today. He advocates even stronger conditions than Levin and than the conditions place on the finance bailout.

Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama: Both the Speaker and the President-elect first floated a unique bailout but now (presumably realizing a unique bailout won’t get done), want money from TARP. Both have advocated significant oversight and conditions on any bailout. Both are trying to prevent the $25 retooling fund be turned into a bridge loan, because they want to make sure the retooling happens as well.  

George Voinovich: Unlike John Boehner, Voinovich is putting his constituents ahead of ideology. Given that he is up for re-election in 2010, he may be thinking of how the populist Sherrod Brown trounced Mike DeWine in 2006.

Middle Ground

George Bush: Bush supports a bailout, but would like to use the $25 billion that was supposed to be used for retooling factories to produce more efficient cars rather than tapping into TARP or providing new funds.

Mitch McConnell: Like Bush, McConnell would be willing to consider supporting a repurposing of the $25 billion targeted for energy efficiency, but not new funds. McConnell is in a fairly tough place on these issues. While I’m sure he’d love to bust the UAW, he’s got a bunch of auto plants in his state–with a remarkable mix of both Japanese and American manufacturers. Significantly, two key Ford plants in KY will be idling for 5 months over the holidays.

Kit Bond: Bond, who like Voinovich is up for re-election in a swing state in 2010, wants to save the jobs of Missourians, but wants to look tough at the same time.

Anti-Bailout

Richard Shelby: Shelby is the lead opponent of any kind of bailout and will, if pushed, demand a series of totally unrealistic conditions to try to thwart any kind of bailout. Partly, Shelby holds this position because as a good Republican he’d love to bust the UAW. More importantly, though (and something that the media appears either uninterested or unaware of), his stance, if successful, would give the major foreign manufacturers in his state a big competitive advantage. Read more →

We Are All Flint, MI Now

/103 Comments/in /by
Flint, by afk

Flint, by afk

I was talking with mr. emptywheel about what one of the bad–but by no means worst–case scenarios in a GM bankruptcy would be. This scenario is just one of several that might happen–by no means guaranteed, and Congress would fight the scenario at every stage, though with increasingly less leverage. But it is a scenario that follows a great deal of logic about possible outcomes. It is this scenario, though, that explains why both Toyota (I’ve seen reported–looking for the link) and many in Congress want to bailout GM before it gets to bankruptcy.

Here’s the short version: more details below.

  1. GM files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy
  2. GM’s Chinese partner, SAIC, buys much of GM (Buick, Chevy, Cadillac)
  3. GM/SAIC starts importing Chinese-made Buicks and Chevys, undercutting Toyota’s cost advantages
  4. GM/SAIC owns the Volt technology, requiring US firms to lease it if they wanted to use it

GM Files for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

As Jonathan Cohn points out, an imminent GM bankruptcy is more likely to be a Chapter 7–total liquidation bankruptcy–rather than a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. That’s for the same reason why GM is begging for cash right now in the first place: no one is lending.

In order to seek so-called Chapter 11 status, a distressed company must find some way to operate while the bankruptcy court keeps creditors at bay. But GM can’t build cars without parts, and it can’t get parts without credit. Chapter 11 companies typically get that sort of credit from something called Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) loans. But the same Wall Street meltdown that has dragged down the economy and GM sales has also dried up the DIP money GM would need to operate.

That’s why many analysts and scholars believe GM would likely end up in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which would entail total liquidation. 

So if GM goes bankrupt in January, as may happen, it may well have to sell itself off (unless the government guarantees the same kind of financing that it is refusing now). And I believe one company is one of the most likely–and indeed sensible–buyers: Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation, or SAIC, the Chinese company with which GM partners to do business in that country.

GM’s Chinese partner, SAIC, buys much of GM (Buick, Chevy, Cadillac)

SAIC is, in my opinion, by far the most sophisticated of China’s automobile companies. Read more →

What the AP Left Out about the UAW

/61 Comments/in /by

The AP has an article reporting that Ron Gettelfinger, head of the UAW, says the union will not make any more concessions to keep the Big Three in business. I guess the editor cut a big chunk–because the article obviously falls short of explaining why the UAW is taking this stand. Here’s what the AP left in:

”The focus has to be on the economy as a whole as opposed to a UAW contract,” Gettelfinger told reporters on a conference call, noting the labor costs now make up 8 percent to 10 percent of the cost of a vehicle.

”We have made dramatic, dramatic changes and the UAW was applauded for that,” he said.

Instead, Gettelfinger blamed the problems the auto industry is suffering from on things beyond its control — the housing slump, the credit crunch that has made financing a vehicle tough and the 1.2 million jobs that have been lost in the past year.

”We’re here not because of what the auto industry has done,” he said. ”We’re here because of what has happened to the economy.”

And here’s what the AP didn’t report (I’m sure it was just an oversight, really).

In its contract last year, the UAW made painful concessions, adopting a two-tier wage structure, such that new employees make just $12 to $15 an hour. The move is projected to bring the American manufacturers in line with their Japanese rivals’ non-union labor costs in the near future.

In addition, the union has taken responsibility for providing retiree healthcare, thereby eliminating one of the last remaining competitive disadvantages for the American manufacturers’ unionized workforce as compared to their Japanese rivals.

With these agreements, the UAW has managed to save jobs, while still providing the superior labor force that leads most segments (big PDF, see page 10-11) in terms of the most efficient plants measured in hours per vehicle.

The UAW’s workers have made deep concessions to ensure American-owned auto industry remains competitive with its foreign competitors. Now that the American-owned manufacturers have eliminated some of the structural disadvantages that gave foreign competitors a market advantage, it would be a terrible waste for its country not to do what’s necessary to sustain American manufacturing though this tough financial period.

There. Now it tells a more complete story.

image_print