Ironic that yesterday, NY Times columnist Charles Blow, certainly an Obama cheerleader from way back, penned a column entitled Obama’s to Fix, in which he cautions the President to stop blaming George Bush for the “mess” he inherited. Clearly, our President, far from undoing such a mess, is daily making a bigger one of his own. Mr. Blow begins with this ominous phrase:

What a difference a year makes.

In October 2008, the candidate Barack Obama delivered a major economic speech in Toledo, Ohio. In it he said: “Right now, we face an immediate economic emergency, and that requires urgent action. We can’t wait to help workers and families and communities who are struggling right now — who don’t know if their job or their retirement will be there tomorrow; who don’t know if next week’s paycheck will cover this month’s bills. … We need to pass an economic rescue plan for the middle-class, and we need to do it not five years from now, not next year, we need to do it right now.

“So today I’m proposing a number of steps that we should take immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities and help struggling homeowners. It’s a plan that begins with one word that’s on everybody’s mind, and it’s easy to spell: J-O-B-S.”

“Right now,” “immediate economic emergency,” “requires urgent action,” “can’t wait.” Wow! He gave the impression that job creation would be his top priority, that action would be swift and effective, that his solutions would not only stanch the hemorrhaging, but reverse the trend.

He has not made jobs his top priority. This health care debacle, bailing out Wall Street, getting into the car business and generally putting money into the pockets of everyone except those who need it have all taken priority over putting Americans back to work. And, no, putting an extra $13 a week into people’s paychecks is not going to do the trick when as Mr. Blow points out the new official labor statistics have us at 10.2 unemployment, which is an increase of “more than 50 percent from the time Obama gave that speech.”

“(By the way, the underemployment rate, which includes part-time workers who want to work full time and those who’ve given up searching, is a staggering 17.5 percent.)”

I am still at a loss to understand why there was such a great urgency to pass health care legislation that is not supposed to go into effect for more than three years. Someone on another blog made the observation that Obama and Pelosi et al are using the economic crisis and joblessness as a weapon to pass their agenda. As people are panicked at losing their jobs and their healthcare, they are more likely to look to government to bail them out – and more amenable. As Rahm Emanuel said, “never waste a good crisis.” What better time to ram this through. Mr. Blow continues:

Job creation has dropped from top priority to one of many, and President Obama has been remanded to pandering for patience and offering excuses. On the one hand, he argues the tortured rationale that there is good news in the awful numbers: Things are still getting worse but at a slower pace. On the other, he incessantly reminds us that he inherited the crisis. The implication: Don’t blame me, blame Bush.

But this president can’t keep deflecting to the last one. Pain is presently felt. The crisis that took form on Bush’s watch is being experienced on Obama’s. Fair or not, finger-pointing is not effective policy.

This is now Obama’s crisis, and it carries political consequences. During Tuesday’s gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, nearly 9 in 10 voters said that they were worried about the direction of the nation’s economy in the next year. And the majority of those who held that view voted for the Republican candidates. This could portend a flashback to 1994.

It isn’t President Obama’s fault that he inherited this mess, but it is his to fix, and he must make haste. To paraphrase his Toledo prelection: you need to do it not five years from now, not next year, you need to do it right now. J-O-B-S.

There were many options to put people back to work this year if that was really the priority. Clearly it was not. This President spent almost a billion dollars to get his job. I don’t want to hear complaints now. Obviously, he inherited a mess, which he has made worse with reckless spending. No one expects him to fix everything in the space of a year, but I thought his “good judgment” meant he knew how to prioritize. We need leadership and part of that involves sacrificing one’s ego to help those who need it most. That is far more important than pushing legislation just for the purpose of putting a check mark next to one’s name. You don’t not spend billions, even trillions, you don’t have at a time like this. Since this bunch so miscalculated on their $787 billion stimulus package, I am not inclined to trust them now by handing over 1/6 of the economy to their stewardship.

It is interesting that Mr. Blow, who played the race card on Mr. Obama’s behalf last year, is now joining the ever increasing number of his pundit supporters who are having problems with his endless campaigning, blaming and wrongheaded focus.

As to the health care debate, I called my Congressman’s office Friday morning to complain about the bill and his assistant debated the merits with me. At least she took the time to do so. It was a shame she was wrong on the facts. I told her to go back and read the thing. Now we have a 2,000 page beast that the Senate must contend with and we are told it will never pass in its current form. So why the rush? Why wouldn’t this Administration be in the same kind of rush to help get people back to work?

There are 237 millionaires in Congress. Perhaps that explains why they have difficulty relating to the urgent need to put millions of Americans back of work, instead manufacturing an urgent need to pass labrynthian legislation for the mere purpose of saying “Mission Accomplished.”

Hmm. Where have we heard that phrase before?

GMAC is back in line for another injection of YOUR money. Recall that GMAC was bailed out initially during the government takeover of GM. GMAC was then spun off in order for Uncle Sam to effectively provide taxpayer funded consumer auto loans and mortgages.

GMAC is not a public entity and thus not currently able to hoodwink investors and raise equity capital. What’s a cash strapped entity to do? Let’s play some more of that ‘bailout bonanza.’ The Wall Street Journal just reported on this developing story and writes, GMAC Asks for Fresh Lifeline:

In a stark reminder of how some battered financial firms remain dependent on government lifelines, GMAC Financial Services Inc. and the Treasury Department are in advanced talks to prop up the lender with its third helping of taxpayer money, people familiar with the matter said.

The U.S. government is likely to inject $2.8 billion to $5.6 billion of capital into the Detroit company, on top of the $12.5 billion that GMAC has received since December 2008, these people said.

The latest infusion would come in the form of preferred stock. The government’s 34% stake in the company could increase if existing shares eventually are converted into common equity.

The willingness by Treasury officials to deepen taxpayer exposure to GMAC reflects the troubled company’s importance to the revival of the auto industry. Founded in 1919, GMAC has $181 billion in assets and is a major financing provider on car purchases from General Motors Co. and Chrysler LLC. The new capital would help firm up GMAC’s balance sheet and solidify its auto-loan business.

Federal officials also are moving to shore up GMAC’s ability to fund its daily operations, with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. telling the company Tuesday the agency will guarantee an additional $2.9 billion in debt, according to people familiar with the discussions. The FDIC guarantee will make it easier for the company to sell debt to investors. The FDIC backed $4.5 billion in GMAC-issued debt earlier this year.

The FDIC approval came just four days before the expiration of the regulator’s program that guarantees debt issued by certain banks. It ended months of tense negotiations between GMAC and regulators. Without a deal, the company would have been forced to further reduce its lending volume. New-car loans by the company tumbled 55% to $5.6 billion in the second quarter from a year earlier.

Given these developments with GMAC, why are we allowing Barney Frank and friends to pander to the American public about how plans are being developed to wind down firms rather than bailing them out?

I would recommend we eat our loss on the money already injected in GMAC. Wind it down and let the free market work.

Rest assured, any new money injected in GMAC is nothing more than ‘good money after bad.’

LD

Many Americans were duped by financial practices and products emanating from Wall Street. Where was Washington? I would assess Washington’s involvement and responses in the following fashion:

1. At worst, Washington was complicit given a wide array of failed public policy programs, especially in housing. These public policies were largely ‘greased’ by lobbying dollars and campaign contributions.

2. To a large extent, Washington was negligent in terms of oversight, especially on the financial regulatory front.

3. At best, Washington was naive given a general lack of understanding of markets and finance.

The American public is now responding in appropriate fashion. How so? In increasing numbers, they are choosing not to play the Wall Street game. What game is that? Active trading and investing. While the numbers of pure day traders may have increased, the American population at large is focused elsewhere. Where is that focus? On the economy at large and on their individual pocket books.

Washington’s focus on Wall Street and its selling of the market rebound as reflective of a return towards prosperity is a product that will not fly . . . try as they might. Why?

It’s the economy, stupid! Reports this morning indicate that wages will likely show the greatest decline since 1991. Even in the face of declining wages, consumers’ purchasing power is being further eroded by the continuing decline in the value of the dollar. That decline is inflationary which hurts consumers but it continues to present a very cheap funding vehicle for those who want to use the greenback to employ leverage in the markets. Who has the advantage in that process? The large banks. Do they spread that wealth in terms of increased credit and higher savings rates? Now why would they do that?

The American saver and consumer shouldered the cost of the bank bailouts in 2008. They are now shouldering the cost of the wealth transfer to the banks in 2009. While Washington would like to sell this dynamic differently, the American public gets it.

Washington will continue to sell this dynamic at its peril.

LD

Since Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General for the (TARP) Troubled Asset Relief Program and Elizabeth Warren, Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel of the (TARP) Troubled Asset Relief Program were guest witnesses, it seemed a good time to get some answers to the $700 billion dollar questions of how well is TARP working and how stable has our economy become.

And, well, you might want to hold off on the champagne.

From SIG Neil Barofsky:

“I think we may be in a far more dangerous place today than we were a year ago,” he said.

As Ms. Warren points out in her testimony:

EESA [Emergency Economic Stabilization Act] listed five specific objectives for TARP: to restore financial stability, protect home values and family savings, promote jobs and economic growth, maximize returns to taxpayers, and provide public accountability.

——

Since EESA was enacted one year ago, the apprehension that pervaded this country has turned into something else: frustration and anger. Taxpayers have committed over $531 billion through TARP, and although there is no doubt that the financial system has begun to stabilize, families are still feeling the pain of rising unemployment, rampant foreclosures, higher bank fees, and limited access to credit.

Today’s fragile stability has come at an enormous cost to the American people. Taxpayers have a right to expect full clarity, full transparency, and full accountability in Treasury’s use of their money. They also have a right to know what has fundamentally changed to prevent this crisis from ever happening again….

From Mr. Barofsky testimony:
On Maximizing Returns to Taxpayers

The progress on meeting the goal of “maximiz[ing] overall returns to the taxpayer” is unclear. While several TARP recipients have repaid funds for what has widely been reported as a 17% profit, it is extremely unlikely that the taxpayer will see a full return on its TARP investment. For example, certain TARP programs, such as the mortgage modification program which is scheduled to use $50 billion of TARP funds, will yield no direct return, and for others, including the extraordinary assistance programs to AIG and the auto companies, full recovery is far from certain.

Similarly, Treasury’s original stated goal of increasing lending has not yet occurred, although, as SIGTARP’s recently issued audit on TARP recipients’ use of funds indicates, it is likely that lending from TARP recipients would have decreased far more in the absence of TARP funding.

On Protecting Home Values and Family Savings;
On Promoting Jobs and Economic Growth

…the goals of “preserving homeownership,” “promot[ing] jobs and economic growth” have not yet been met, and the ultimate success of meeting these policy goals will depend on programs that are just now reaching the implementation stage, such as the TARP’s mortgage modification program and the public-private investment funds. In the meantime, the risk of foreclosure continues to affect too many Americans; unemployment continues its rise to levels that Treasury has characterized as “unacceptable”; the so-called “toxic” assets that helped cause this crisis for the most part remain right where they were last fall – on the banks’ balance sheets; and it is becoming more and more clear that the commercial real estate market might be the next proverbial shoe to drop, threatening to increase the pressure on banks and small business alike yet again.

On Providing Public Accountability

“Treasury’s default position should always be to require more disclosure rather than less and to provide the investors in TARP — the American taxpayers — as much information about what is being done with their money as possible. …TARP largely remains a program in which taxpayers are not being told what most of the TARP recipients are doing with their money and will not be told the full details of how their money is being invested.”

More from Ms. Warren:
On Restoring Financial Stability

“The toxic assets remain on the books of the banks. The commercial real estate mortgages are a coming crisis. Small banks are continuing to fail. We were talking a year ago about too big to fail. We are now facing an industry that’s more concentrated than it was a year ago and too big to fail is up on us now in a much larger sense.”

“Until we get down to dirt, to something that’s solid, that we can put our feet on, our financial institutions are standing in a secure place, we can’t rebuild and know that we are safely past this crisis”

“The question about how we’re going to get these toxic assets out of here at a time when the real estate mortgage market is still in trouble and the commercial real estate mortgage market may be getting into more and more trouble – I’m not hearing the plan.”

Then again, the way our government has been working of late, maybe it is a good thing if they don’t have a plan for this.

Now is when I remind you that not only does Obama have very strong ties to ACORN (he worked on their behalf as a lawyer at one point), and its sister organization, SEIU, and let’s not forget that Obama gave $832,000 to an ACORN affiliate to “get out the vote” during the Election Season. And ACORN, the alleged non-partisan organization, currently under investigation in at least 14 states for voter fraud, the organization that helped create the Fanne Mae/Freddis Mac fiasco, is receiving YOUR tax paying dollars, $53 million to date, and stands to receive $8.5 Billion in Stimulus money.

The aforementioned article? It is this: Former Leftist Activist, Turned FBI Informant, Pulls Back the Curtain On ACORN. Well, you know that caught my eye right away - this guy, Brandon Darby, was a leftie activist, like many of us were, but unlike most of us, worked with the FBI on terrorism. Here is Darby’s story:

I first experienced ACORN in post-Katrina New Orleans. I was part of a relief organization, Common Ground Relief, which had been delivering much needed aid to the 9th Ward, an area that had been hit especially hard by the flood waters and by neglect. Rumors immediately began surfacing, questioning our motives and intentions. I was very confused by these rumors. Who was behind them? How could anyone question the vital work we were doing in the community? We lived and worked in the 9th Ward. We suspended our regular lives and, in many cases, left our families to travel to New Orleans to help those affected by Katrina and poverty. We slept on dirty plywood floors and shared everything we had with the residents. Most of us were white. Was our skin color the issue? I knew from personal experience that the majority of the Black 9th ward residents didn’t care what color our skin was. It took me awhile to get over the hurt I felt at such allegations and to find out where they were coming from.

In the following weeks, I was made aware of the fact that ACORN had reopened its New Orleans office (several months after the storm). Various groups from around the city informed me that Acorn was upset with us because we were in “their” community and had not sought approval from ACORN to operate there. I was told that ACORN said that we were “privileged white people who had come to a Black community as saviors and we refused to work with local Black leadership.”

The more I pondered the matter, the more I realized what was happening. As usual in marginalized and impoverished communities, a small group of radical self-proclaimed leaders was insisting that all local aid and relief came through them—even if they were AWOL for several months. Though the majority of residents either hadn’t heard of ACORN or simply disagreed with their politics- ACORN insisted that they were THE Black leaders. This was upsetting to me. Sure, the local pastor we worked most closely with was Black; but that didn’t matter to ACORN. It was as if Pastor Johnson didn’t count because he didn’t evoke the name of Elijah Mohammed or Malcolm X. It was as if Pastor Johnson didn’t count because he didn’t submit to ACORN’s mandate that ACORN was the sole leadership of Black New Orleanians.

Am I reading this correctly? Only black people can work with black people as far as ACORN is concerned? Dang, I bet all of those organizations and churches who sent so many people and aid to New Orleans didn’t know the rules. I know I didn’t when I sent money, and took my niece and nephew there post-Katrina to spend tourism dollars as requested. I think we all thought we were helping our fellow Americans. This is a bit of a shock, I have to say.

Back to the article:

As then director of Common Ground Relief’s 9th Ward project, I was warned by many that ACORN would ruin me politically if I didn’t submit to their leadership. I believed in what I was doing and how I was doing it. I refused to submit. The political fallout was almost unbearable. I just kept my eyes on meeting the needs of the community. When confronted by adherents to ACORN’s brand of race analysis, I pointed out that ACORN was not there immediately after the storm, so I could not have sought their leadership even if I had wanted to.

Over the following years, that particular style of political attack was prominent in New Orleans. Anytime that ACORN was displeased, the other party was deemed a racist. If the other party disagreed with the label or with ACORN’s agenda- they were met with “of course you feel that way. You are a racist.” Though it is clearly woefully inaccurate and unethical to use such an accusation as a political attack and as a means of shutting down philosophical debate and discourse, some at ACORN didn’t let that stop them. I refused to submit to it. I believed in listening to the majority of the community, who were desperate for our help, and not only to the self-proclaimed leaders. I paid a dear price for it.

This is disturbing on so many levels, not least of which is the people there NEEDED this help. They still do. People who WANT to help, who take time to do this, are then treated shabbily, and labeled racist to boot. Wow. I can only imagine how that felt to Darby after all his work there on behalf of that community.

And where does the FBI fit into all of this? Here’s how:

I returned to Texas after a couple of years adminst the political quagmire of post-Katrina New Orleans. My experience there with various groups was educational and life-changing, though some of these groups concerned me. Eventually I began to see some of them as dangerous and deceitful about their missions. This, along with a growing appreciation of my country helped lead me to work with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.

I was as proud of this new era in my life as I was of my time in New Orleans. I had the privilege of participating in efforts where lives were saved; both in the United States and in Israel. While working undercover with the FBI at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota, I helped to uncover a bomb plot. Two men had made firebombs with a homemade napalm mixture of gasoline and oil. Their initial targets were Republican delegates. These bomb-makers (domestic terrorists) later decided to attack a staging area for the Secret Service and other law-enforcement agencies. Fortunately, they were stopped and arrested.

I was asked, and agreed, to testify against them. As was expected, the more radical elements of the media began to attack both me as an individual and the FBI as a whole. One of the men accused plead guilty; the other hired an expensive defense attorney and concocted a story about the FBI building these bombs to “set up left-wing activists” and stop dissent. But once the facts became clear, the defense changed their story and instead tried to blame the FBI for ”influencing” the terrorists. Thankfully, after one hung jury and many months of intense media attacks against me, the other bomb-maker (domestic terrorist) decided to come clean and admitted to the judge that he had invented the whole story.

What does any of this have to do with ACORN? I wondered the same thing on January 31st of 2009 when I was reading an ACORN blog that is run by Wade Rathke (the man who claims credit for founding ACORN). He devoted an entire page to my work with the FBI. How did he describe the FBI’s effort and success in preventing innocent Americans, local police and federal agents from being burned, maimed and/or possibly killed by firebombs? He wrote that it’s “one thing to disagree, but it’s a whole different thing to rat on folks.” That is what ACORN’s founder had to say about my role in stopping a bomb plot.

I was even more shocked as I continued reading the article. ACORN’s “founder” went on to mention that another self-proclaimed “radical” activist who had worked closely with him was also involved in my story. Her name is Lisa Fithian. I first encountered Ms. Fithian in New Orleans. She came to town after Common Ground Relief had started operations. She assumed a position of prominence and continuously challenged my work and leadership. During the RNC bombing trial, she cooperated with the defense of the bomb plotters and led media attacks on me and the FBI.

Ms. Fithian has been quoted in various mainstream news articles as saying, “Nonviolence is a strategy. Civil disobedience is a tactic,” and “Direct action is a strategy. Throwing rocks is a tactic.” She is also quoted as stating that “When people ask me, ‘What do you do?’ I say, ‘I create crisis’, because crisis is that edge where change is possible.”

ACORN receives tens of millions of dollars from taxpayers to promote their agenda. Free speech is sacred, of course. However, it is clear that ACORN has made a practice of blurring the lines between free speech and tax-payer-funded activism. Fortunately, our federal government is adept at investigating and identifying the misuse of federal funds. It will be interesting in the near future to see how Mr. Rathke and his ACORN associates stand up to the same scrutiny they have focused on our military, the FBI and other governmental groups and agencies.

After the revelations exposed in the O’Keefe/Giles videos, maybe the FBI will get the hint and take a look into ACORN. If they need a reminder, they can go back and look at the testimony of ACORN Whistleblower, Anita Moncrief, who had PLENTY to say about how ACORN operates, and acknowledged the connections between ACORN and Obama. It is a shocking reminder of what the MSM let go by in order to carry water for Obama.

So, maybe it’s not too late? Maybe after all of these recent (and not so recent) revelations SOMEONE in law enforcement will do the right thing and go after ACORN? Make the connections, hold them accountable, and do it now? Heaven knows, there is enough information available, isn’t there?

MARK YOUR CALENDARS!!! Anita Moncrief, the ACORN whistleblower, is going to be on Paulie Abeles, Sins of Omission NQ radio show SEPTEMBER 21st at 9:00 PM (EST)!! WOW!!!! I cannot wait. I’ll be there - hope you will, too!

No need to take my word for it. Watch this short video (from a traffic camera) to get an idea of just how many people were there (and again, thanks to Logistics Monster, who was THERE, for this video link):

The thing that bugged me about the MSM reporting is that they consistently copied each other - oh, no wait - it just LOOKED that way (check out their opening lines in the articles above and you’ll see what I mean). No, it is that they consistently claimed the marchers were all Conservatives. Apparently, this was their way to dismiss the real anger and frustration people have toward this Congress, whose approval rating is LOW, something else these writers could have looked up easily, and this President, whose ratings continue to decline. They just write them off as some right-wing whackos (1.5 million or so of them), and pay no attention to their actual concerns.

And they have plenty of them. You know, concerns like the fact that the US Government now owning 61% of GM (hey, anyone want to buy a Cadillac?); or that the Obama Administration is adding $3 MILLION to the National Debt EVERY MINUTE; or maybe it’s the 32 czars - oops, make that 31 czars (see ya, Van) Obama is appointing left and right; or the Health Care Bill; or I could go on and on and on. These aren’t just Conservative concerns - these are AMERICAN concerns. But they won’t report it that way, because it doesn’t suit the meme they have created. Had they bothered to talk to some more people on the ground, they would have found out they were Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, all coming together to protest the out of control spending of this Congress and this Administration. To put it in perspective, we are $1 TRILLION more in debt since Obama took office. $ONE TRILLION. Once again, that’s not just an issue for Conservatives. That is an issue for ALL Americans.

Here are some photos of signs at the march - they came via Barbara Espinosa who sent them to Pajamas Media at THIS site. You can see more there:

This video from - of all places - MSNBC - is a fairly good synopsis (though they still couldn’t refrain from painting this as a wholly conservative movement - until the very, very end, when the reporter actually spoke the truth). I saw it at Michelle Malkin’s site while looking for an awesome photo I saw last night, which I have not been able to find again. The sign said, “We Are Not Wee Weed Up: We are PISSED!” If I find it, I’ll add it. Here’s the video:

This is but a snapshot of the day. There is so, so much more to the events of the day, the numbers of people, the calls for accountability in our government.

For those people who aren’t upset about the added $Trillion to our deficit, the takeover of GM, the unvetted czars, the $Trillion Health Care Plan, etc., etc., those people who are downplaying the size of this march, who blow it off as just some group of conservatives going off half cocked, my question is, Why the hell are you NOT upset at what our government is doing??? Bill Clinton downsized our government tremendously, Bush increased it, and now Obama is bankrupting it. Why AREN’T they upset??

And I have another number for you: 400. Yes, Saturday marks an inauspicious milestone. 400 is the number of Service Members who have been discharged under DADT during Obama’s Administration. 400 men and women whose lives were changed simply because of whom they love. 400 men and women who were willing to serve their country, to put themselves in harm’s way for us, for the U.S.A, and they have now been fired.

And here’s another number for you: $56,400. That is the average, approximate cost to train a service member for their first duty station by one estimate. $56,400 each for enlisted personnel, not officers, including when they first visit a Recruiter (these are 2006 figures, so it might be more now).

The average cost to train an officer? That number is: 120,772. If that officer happens to be a fighter pilot, you can go ahead and round that number up to: $1,450,000. Remember, these are just averages. The cost to train Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach was $25,000,000. Fehrenbach, a decorated war hero, was fired from the Air Force under DADT.

And one last number for you: 9/11. Many people in this country were moved to do some kind of service to and for their country as a result of the attacks on 9/11, GLBT people included. Obama has been pushing this huge call to Service, including on 9/11/09. Secretary Clinton gave a speech on the Commemoration of the First Annual National Day of Service And Remembrance on 9/11. Presumably, the ability to serve one’s country should be open to ALL of its citizens.

Yet today, that ability is not. As of today, 400 Americans have been told their willingness to serve their country, to put themselves in harm’s way on her behalf, is neither desired nor accepted. 400 Americans have been told that the National Day of Service does not apply to them. 400.

How about those numbers?

And again, the top cars being purchased are FOREIGN - Toyotas and Hondas are the ones being bought the most, with Ford Focus thrown in there. Just to be clear. (Toyota and Honda are non-unionized, just in case you are keeping score.)

NY state dealers have had it with the program:

Hundreds of auto dealers in the New York area have withdrawn from the government’s Cash for Clunkers program, citing delays in getting reimbursed by the government, a dealership group said Wednesday.

The Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association, which represents dealerships in the New York metro area, said about half its 425 members have left the program because they cannot afford to offer more rebates. They’re also worried about getting repaid…

“(The government) needs to move the system forward and they need to start paying these dealers,” said Mark Schienberg, the group’s president. “This is a cash-dependent business.”

You betcha it is. Check out just how quickly the dealers are getting reimbursed for their cash outlay:

The program offers up to $4,500 to shoppers who trade in vehicles getting 18 mpg or less for a more fuel-efficient car or truck. Dealers pay the rebates out of pocket, then must wait to be reimbursed by the government. But administrative snags and heavy paperwork have created a backlog of unpaid claims.

Schienberg said the group’s dealers have been repaid for only about 2 percent of the clunkers deals they’ve made so far.

Many dealers have said they are worried they won’t get repaid at all, while others have waited so long to get reimbursed they don’t have the cash to fund any more rebates, Schienberg said.

“The program is a great program in the sense that it’s creating a lot of floor traffic that a lot of dealers haven’t seen in a long time,” he said.

“But it’s in the hands of this enormous bureaucracy and regulatory agency,” he added. “If they don’t get out of their own way, this program is going to be a huge failure.”

“If they don’t get out of their own way…”Wow. That’s a pretty telling comment right there, isn’t it? And that sounds SO like the Federal Government, too, doesn’t it Uh, yeah, sure:

The program is administered by the Department of Transportation. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Wednesday that dealers will be repaid for the clunkers deals they have completed.

“I know dealers are frustrated. They’re going to get their money,” LaHood told reporters. He said the Obama administration would soon announce how much longer the $3 billion car incentive program will last.

Through early Wednesday, auto dealers have made clunkers deals worth $1.81 billion, resulting in 435,102 new car sales, according to the DOT.

This begs the obvious question: if the Federal Government is incapable of reimbursing these automobile dealers for less than half a million cars, how in the HELL do they think they are going to be capable of running health care for millions and millions of people? That is to say, their track record just isn’t great in this area.

And that is what makes the current threat by Harry Reid to use the “Nuclear Option” to push through what the Wall Street Journal says is “the most expensive part of the plan.”

Oh - and the “Nuclear Option,” in case you don’t know, is a simple majority. Not a veto-proof one, a simple one of 51 - 49.

And they WONDER why so many people are hesitant to have the Feds control our health care? Really?? Wow - kinda makes you wonder about them making decisions for us about, well, EVERYTHING, doesn’t it? Holy smokes…

And while he is only ruling on these seven companies, his determination is binding and will no doubt cause ripple across the financial world.

So the question now becomes, how big of a wave is this administration willing to make?

Robert Reich, for one, does not have high hopes of being impressed. And finds it a troubling indicator of other reform measures for both Wall Street and health care by the Obama administration. There are “Grim early Indications for Wall Street reform: The banks want to stay huge and indulgent, and the administration may not be willing or able to stare them down.”

Second only to healthcare reform as a test of Obama’s toughness and resolve is reform of Wall Street. And like the healthcare industry, Wall Street has platoons of lobbyists and an almost unlimited war chest to protect its interests and prevent change. So what can we learn by what’s going on now, regarding pay for the top brass at big “too big to fail” banks?

…Tragically, Treasury has already given in on this one.

Somehow, I thinking Main Street might find stronger adjective to express their disappointment/anger/frustration then does Mr. Reich.

But beyond the lack of emotion he gives sound reasoning for why these pay decisions are wrong. And also why they really matter for both their political and financial ramifications.

… In judging whether a proposed pay package is appropriate, Treasury has decided to be guided by “comparable” pay packages in the industry. This means Ken Feinberg, appointed as special master to decide on a case-by-case basis, will be the flak-catcher. …

“Comparable” pay is a ridiculous standard to begin with, and the argument that $10 million, or even $7 million, is necessary to keep talent is absurd on its face. …Wall Street has exhibited a truly astonishing lack of talent. … Without these [taxpayer] bailouts, there’d be no “talent” because there’d be no Goldman, no Citi, no Street.

…The whole system of “comparable” pay is propped up by a zero-sum self-perpetuating competition in which the price of so-called “talent” is determined by how much every other bank is willing to pay for “talent.” If every bank decided to pay $1 million, that would be the “comparable” price of talent on the Street. I mean, it’s not as if this economy has so many other $1 million-a-year positions begging for Wall Street executives and traders.

Personally, I think the taxpayers should vote on pay since we were forced into becoming shareholders. And I’m thinking the taxpayers might find $1 million far too expensive.

And then there is moral hazard of pay for the “too big to fail.” Which only reinforces the non-reforming reform strategy of this administration. One would think that eliminating “too big to fail” would have been the first reform. But back to Reich:

The fact that these big banks have been judged “too big to fail” means their top executives and traders know they can take even bigger risks now, because we taxpayers will bail them out. So inevitably part of their firm’s earnings, based on such risk-taking, now come as a result of this public insurance policy. When risks pay off, as many are doing now that the stock market is showing signs of life, they reap large rewards. When the risks turn really bad, you and I and other taxpayers will pick up the pieces.

The insurance these “too big to fail” banks are receiving makes them more like public utilities than private firms. As such, not only is it entirely appropriate for government to review their pay but also to make sure pay is kept within strict bounds … earning just about what the top brass of any public utility earns (which, when I last looked, ranged from $100,000 to $600,000).

The big banks have a choice, of course. They could opt out of the “too big to fail” system. They could break themselves apart (or invite antitrust agencies to do the breaking for them) so they were no longer too big to fail and won’t be bailed out the next time they make hugely stupid mistakes. Then they could award their executives and traders as much money as they wanted and as the market would bear — because then they’d be part of the free market instead of wards of the state.

I thinking Main Street is learning that “free market” is an oxymoron for taxpayers. Nothing is “free”. It’s only a matter of who is pays. And we the people are paying, and paying, and paying.

As usual, Dylan Ratigan and his Morning Meeting group have some interesting things to say about Wall Street compensation.

________

_____________

You are absolutely NOT going to believe this. Don’t be put off by this being Glenn Beck - I’m not a huge fan, but he is absolutely right to be outraged by this. You should be, too:

My favorite part is the “…and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.” Say WHAAAAA??? What the hell does THAT mean?

And how in the world can any of this be legal?? They can jump inside your computer? Listen to your phone conversations on Skype with no warrant?

If you were considering checking out this program, whatever you do, do NOT log onto this website and check, “I agree” at the “Privacy Act and Security Statement” to continue. Unless you want the government to forever be able to access your computer.

This is insane. Absolutely insane. What has our country become??

Okay. I can see some wisdom in that. It is great to get these old gas guzzlers off the road, recycle the vehicles, have people driving new, more efficient vehicles, and helping out the automobile industry. Not bad! Oh, but wait. Maybe it’s bad for the taxpayers, and those who have been more energy conscious all along:

Well, there’s a problem. Not to mention that many people will not be putting the money back into the AMERICAN automakers’ pocket, but foreign automakers who are making affordable, fuel efficient vehicles. So there is that.

But here’s a HUGE problem: The program is already broke. I am not kidding you. In FOUR days, the program has expended ALL of the money, $1 BILLION dollars, allocated to it. I guess that’s a good news/bad news kind of thing. It worked, but now the funds have gone * poof *! There’s hope, though:

A source told FOX News that senior Congressional leaders, the Obama administration and other lawmakers involved with the program are exploring potential options to either undertake administrative or possibly even Congressional action to infuse the program with cash.

Lawmakers were examining whether there was a possible avenue to provide much-needed reserves for the program as early as Friday.

Rep. Ed Markey, D.- Mass., co-author of the cash for clunkers provision, pledged to work with the Obama administration to ensure the program continues.

“Cash for Clunkers may have run out of cash, but America’s consumers haven’t run out of clunkers. We’re going to work with the Obama administration to keep this wildly successful program going until it reaches its goal of helping consumers take 1 million gas guzzlers off the road,” he said.

Like I said, glad the program was successful for the consumers for all of four days.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t TOTALLY successful:

A survey of 2,000 dealers by the National Automobile Dealers Association found about 25,000 deals had not yet been approved by NHTSA, or nearly 13 trades per store. It raised concerns that with about 23,000 dealers taking part in the program, auto dealers may already have surpassed the 250,000 vehicle sales funded by the $1 billion program.

“There’s a significant backlog of ‘cash for clunkers’ deals that make us question how much funding is still available in the program,” said Bailey Wood, a spokesman for the dealers association.

Alan Helfman, general manager of River Oaks Chrysler Jeep in Houston, said he was worried that the government wouldn’t pay for some of the clunker deals his dealership has signed because they aren’t far enough along in the process.

His dealership has done paperwork on about 20 sales under the clunker program, but in some cases the titles haven’t been obtained yet or the vehicles aren’t yet on his lot.

“There’s no doubt I’m going to get hammered on a deal or two,” Helfman said.

Oops. Sorry, dealers!

So the dealers are left holding the bag. They may get reimbursed, or they may not. Who knows?

But what does that say about how the government will manage HEALTH care?? That’s just a tad more serious for many, many people - getting in to see their doctors, or having surgery - than trading in an old car. Nice program and all, but if they cannot handle that without huge complications in the very first week, running out of money, how in the world can we trust them to do right by us in terms of our HEALTH?? Sure gives one pause, doesn’t it?

UPDATE: The House has just voted to give an additional $2 Billion to this program. Well, gosh - maybe it will last a whole week then, especially if you figure there are lots of dealers who haven’t been paid for the first four days…

What is the nature and size of this dirt? The losses assocated with those dastardly large twins, Fannie and Freddie. I lifted the rug on this dirt on June 18th in writing, Uncle Sam’s Dirty Little Secret.

Fannie and Freddie hold 50% of the mortgages in our country. These entities are most likely sitting on hundreds of billions in embedded losses currently with limited prospects to generate real revenue. They have no viable business model at this point in time.

CNN reports today, Fannie and Freddie: The Most Expensive Bailout

When Congress was debating the bailout of Fannie and Freddie last July, the official estimate from the Congressional Budget Office was that a bailout would most likely cost taxpayers $25 billion, with only a 5% chance of the price tag reaching $100 billion between them.

In addition, both Fannie and Freddie are likely to need billions of dollars more after they report second quarter results in the coming weeks. Experts believe the cost will only continue to rise in the next year.

“We’re assuming they each will cross the $100 billion mark fairly soon. They could be hitting the $200 billion barrier by the end of next year,” said Bose George, mortgage analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, an investment bank specializing in financial services firms.

The fact remains that these two wards of the state are no longer for profit entities but rather vehicles for promoting Obama’s housing plans and redistribution of wealth.

The losses within Fannie and Freddie will accrue as long as housing delinquencies and defaults increase. No credible analyst can truly predict when those statistics may peak. They can guess but given the runup in home prices along with the growth in housing, that is all they can do.

In fact, the argument can be made that the very policies being utilized to forestall delinquencies and defaults will ultimately exacerbate and extend the pressure on the housing market, and in turn, Fannie’s and Freddie’s losses.

Will the American taxpayer ever see a return on the funds being pumped into Fannie and Freddie? Don’t hold your breath.

CNN continues,

Neither firm has given an estimate as to how high losses will reach. But the original limit of $100 billion in losses set in place when the government put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship, essentially a form of bankruptcy, last September was quickly raised early this year to $200 billion each because of concerns about looming losses.

In return for pumping taxpayer dollars into the two firms, Treasury received preferred stock, which is designed to give the government a healthy 10% to 12% dividend. But few expect that Fannie or Freddie will be able to pay that dividend, let alone return the money handed to the firms to cover their losses..

Even James Lockhart, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the government body that has overseen the two firms since they were placed into conservatorship, said it will be a challenge for Fannie and Freddie to make their scheduled payments.

Let’s be honest, Fannie and Freddie have become financial intermediaries used to promote a form of socialized housing.

With Uncle Sam’s dirty little secret now revealed, break out the industrial strength vacuums!

LD

Related Commentary

Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae Deja Vu? ; May 28, 2009
If you think Fannie and Freddie are alone amidst this dirt, they have sizable company in the form of the Federal Home Loan Bank system.

The average Goldman worker could end up taking home more than 10 times the typical American family’s income.

Woohoo - aren’t you SO proud that your money has helped to buoy up this company? Let’s just make clear what that means with the whole salary thing:

Were the firm to set aside bonuses at the same rate in the second half, the compensation pool would hit a record $22.8 billion — and the average Goldman worker would stand to make $773,000 for 2009, more than doubling their 2008 take.

That would eclipse the $662,000 Goldman spent on its average worker in 2007, according to the firm’s regulatory filings. Median household income was $50,233 in 2007, according to the most recent Census Bureau data, while mean income — the apples-to-apples comparison — was $67,608.

And there ya have it. Doesn’t it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?? The AVERAGE worker made close to $700,000!!!! Gee - I wonder how that compares to MOST people in this country? And how many of US got bailouts??

Hmmm, I wonder just what they are going to do with all of that money? One of my favorite satirists, Andy Borowitz, had an idea in this post:

Goldman Sachs in Talks to Acquire Treasury Department: Sister Entities to Share Employees, Money

In what some on Wall Street are calling the biggest blockbuster deal in the history of the financial sector, Goldman Sachs confirmed today that it was in talks to acquire the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

According to Goldman spokesperson Jonathan Hestron, the merger between Goldman and the Treasury Department is “a good fit” because “they’re in the business of printing money and so are we.”

The Goldman spokesman said that the merger would create efficiencies for both entities: “We already have so many employees and so much money flowing back and forth, this would just streamline things.”

Mr. Hestron said the only challenge facing Goldman in completing the merger “is trying to figure out which parts of the Treasury Dept. we don’t already own.”

Goldman recently celebrated record earnings by roasting a suckling pig over a bonfire of hundred-dollar bills.

Well, that’s a bit mixed - on the one hand, they cannot do a worse job than Timmy Geithner, right? So yeah - taking over the Treasury Department might not be all that bad.

On the other hand, well, just more of our tax dollars going to roast those suckling pigs, and I don’t even EAT pork! Sheesh.

Oh, Borowitz finishes out his column with these two tidbits:

Elsewhere, conspiracy theorists celebrated the 40th anniversary of NASA faking the moon landing.

And in South Carolina, Gov. Mark Sanford gave his wife a new diamond ring, while his wife gave him an electronic ankle bracelet.

Now, I can SURE see that happening with Mark and Jenny, can’t you?? Uh, yeah…Too bad she didn’t think of that before! Live and learn, I reckon…

Don’t you just LOVE our new government?? It hands out money like candy to all the wrong people, and then wants more sacrifices from US. It’s gonna be a long 3 1/2 years, isn’t it?

Clearly Mr. Van Dyk was a huge fan of this President, thought his campaign “superb” and appreciated his promises of “reaching across party and ideological lines to get the public’s business done.” Van Dyk opines:

“You displayed an intellect and sense of cool that made us think you would weigh decisions carefully and view advisers’ proposals with skepticism.”

You know what I get from that phrase? Since the President acted “cool,” some mighty educated people actually believed this to be more than just a pose on his part. Not unlike Madonna’s use of “Voguing” back in the day. Now perhaps they begin to see that a pose has neither to do with governing nor an ability to adapt to the changing realities on the ground.

At that point, Mr. Van Dyk goes off the rails and we see that his blanket approval has come to an end:

The first warning signals for me came with your acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. In it, you stressed domestic initiatives that clearly were nonstarters in the already shrinking economy.

He then complains of Obama stocking his White House with “Clinton administration retreads who had learned their trade in the never-ending-campaign culture of the Clinton years.” Again, blame Clinton. But who did Mr. Van Dyk think this man was going to hire? He faults Obama for his “reliance on these Clinton holdovers.”

Your chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, defined your early strategy by stating that the financial and economic crises presented an “opportunity” to jam through unrelated legislation. To many of us, the remark was cynical and wrong-headed.

The crises did not represent an opportunity. They presented an obligation to do one thing: Return our financial system and our economy to good health.

Does Van Dyk assume any Democratic president would have been this reckless? Hillary Clinton had different health care proposals, different proposals for helping homeowners in this crisis and a much better understanding of the economy. None of her ideas are being utilized, I’m afraid. She just may have exhibited the good sense Mr. Van Dyk longs for and put the financial floor back under us before attempting a more drastic change. But we’ll never know…

Van Dyk discusses Mr. Obama being unfairly compared to FDR & LBJ. Discussing President Johnson’s “Great Society legislation”…

…at every stage, congressional leaders of both political parties and financial, business, labor and other private-sector leaders were consulted. Johnson wanted to assure that his legislation was substantively sound and could get consensus support in the Congress and the country.

Your strategy, by contrast, has been to advocate forcefully for health-care and energy reform but to leave the details to Democratic congressional committee chairs. You did the same thing with your initial $787 billion stimulus package. Now, you’re stuck with a plan that provides little stimulus until 2010. A president should never cede control of his main agenda to others.

President Obama is in over his head, so of course he “outsourced.” Why is this gentleman surprised? Mr. Van Dyk willfully ignores the fact that the biggest culprit here is not a “Clinton retread,” but the Queen Bee herself, Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She crafted the stimulus package behind closed doors and the President willingly allowed her this control. Perhaps that was his devil’s bargain for her help in kicking the ladder out from under Hillary. Republicans were not the only ones to be shut out of the crafting of the Stimulus package. Many Democrats were as well. Van Dyk continues:

This tactic has already had negative consequences. Frightened by the prospective costs of your health-care and energy plans — not to mention the bailouts of the financial and auto industries — independent voters who supported you in 2008 are falling away. FDR and LBJ, only two years after their 1932 and 1964 victories, saw their parties lose congressional seats even though their personal popularity remained stable. The party out of power traditionally gains seats in off-year elections, and 2010 is unlikely to be an exception.

He then offers up a prescription for a fix:

- Cut back both your proposals and expectations. You made promises about jobs that would be “created and saved” by the stimulus package. Those promises have not held up. You continue to engage in hyperbole by claiming that your health-care and energy plans will save tax dollars. Congressional Budget Office analysis indicates otherwise.

It’s time to re-examine these initiatives. Could your health plan be scaled back to catastrophic coverage for all — badly needed by most families, but quite affordable if deductibles are set at the right levels? Should the Rube Goldbergian cap-and-trade proposals be replaced with a simple carbon tax, with proceeds to be allocated to alternative-fuels development?

The evolving health and cap-and-trade bills are loaded with costly provisions designed to gain support from congressional leaders and special-interest constituencies. In short, they have become an expensive mess. This legislation will not clear Congress by the August recess, as you have requested, and could be stalled for the remainder of 2009. Settle for incremental change: Do not press Democratic legislators to vote for something they fear will destroy them in 2010.

- Talk less and pick your spots.

Applause and adulation are gratifying. But the more you talk, the less weight your words will hold. Let voters see you at your desk, conferring with serious people about serious matters. When you do choose to talk, people will understand that it’s important and they should listen.

“Let voters see you at your desk!” Doing some “work.” Great ideas!

- Conform your 2009 politics to your 2008 statements. During your campaign, you called for bipartisanship and bridge-building. You promised to reduce the influence of single-issue and single-interest groups in the policy process. Yet, in your public statements, you keep using President Bush as a scapegoat.

You have ceded content of your principal proposals to Democratic congressional leaders who in large part have yielded to special-interest constituencies and excluded Republican leaders from policy formulation. This certainly was the case with the stimulus plan. It has been the case with health and energy legislation, with the notable exception of Sen. Max Baucus’s attempt in the Senate Finance Committee to develop genuinely bipartisan legislation.

He concludes by telling Obama

“You have an enormous reservoir of goodwill among Americans of all persuasions. They want you to succeed. Level with them and trim your proposals to what is practical in the current environment.”

But ironically, it is Mr. Van Dyk’s closing statement with which I most take issue:

You had things right in 2008. Take a timeout. Get back to yourself. Make a fresh start.

He did not have things “right” in 2008 because there is no “self” to ‘get back to’. His campaign was always “words, just words.”

While I graduated college with high honors, I am no genius, yet I figured this out from my living room couch back in January of 2008. I watched this man at a debate and his “performance” told me everything I needed to know. I then looked at his voting record and the corporate interests with whom he surrounds himself, his addiction to pretty sound bytes and an over reliance on canned speeches rather than a resume that indicated he had worked even on a smaller level to achieve his stated goals. His current proposals are loaded with top heavy payback for special interests that arguably got him elected in the first place. Wall Street has gotten bailed out. Not Main Street. He lives in support of an oligarchy, like his immediate predecessor. If these are true Democratic principles, its the first I’ve heard of it.

The obscene amount of money spent on his inauguration, expensive “dates” and pizza parties and his hiring not less than 30 “czars” all of whom require staff and total salaries in the millions are more accurate indicators of the man than any of his campaign rhetoric.

Like Obama’s other supporters, perhaps Mr. Van Dyk has yet to understand that speeches will never equal governing ability. He too, blamed the Clintons for being “polarizing” as Bush was, but how true is his claim? Clinton passed true bi-partisan legislation. He had to, as he was working with a Republican Congress for 6 of his 8 years and did very well in that regard. But in his case, he also had deep knowledge of the economy and a willingness to reach across the aisle and conform to the existing reality. He certainly left the country in better shape than he found it.

President Obama, by contrast is the “salesman in chief.” That is what the DNC wanted. How is he supposed to pull us back to “reality” with his proposals when he clearly did not have these reasoned intentions in the first place, or a true understanding of how to get us there?

Apparently, Mr. Van Dyk has yet to travel the last mile in his awakening.

Wow. This is but one of the profound statements made by Dr. Jones throughout the course of Bill Moyers’ “Journal: Faith and Social Justice,” which also included Dr. Cornel West, formerly of Union, now at Princeton University, and Dr. Gary Dorrien, from Union. There is a video of the show, which can be seen HERE, and is from which all further quotes are taken (thanks, SusanUnPC, for the link).

Back to President Jones for a moment, though. In Union Theological Seminary’s 172 year history, she is the FIRST woman to hold this post. I wrote about her way back in April, 2008, “Is This A Sign Of Things To Come??” Of course, now we know that the Powers-That-Be made sure it wasn’t, but a girl has to have her dreams, and that was mine at the time. (Now, it is that Secretary Clinton can get out before her ability to affect change has been marginalized beyond recognition. As in, she should be in Russia right now - just sayin’.) President Jones has a distinguished resume, including teaching at Yale for the past 17 years, at the university as well as the law school. She is an impressive woman, brilliant mind, yet the kindness and warmth exude from her like, well, like it does from Hillary. Or as one might expect from someone who is the head of, and teaches at, a seminary preparing students for ministry.

Union has long had a history of social justice in the world. One might say that is its calling, or the calling of the students who attend it. During my time there, we were able to get the Board of Trustees to divest assets in South Africa, still in the throes of apartheid at that time. Many of the students worked in soup kitchens, engaged in protests on a variety of issues, and dealt with the AIDS crisis as it first erupted in New York City. In addition to that, because it was understood that language shapes reality, all classroom discussion, all papers, and all worship services HAD to be in inclusive language. It was an amazing environment in which to learn, though it made it rather difficult in the world at large in which language was certainly not all inclusive, or in which women did not hold prominent positions Even then, though, we had a number of outstanding professors in women’s theology, ethics, and Hebrew Scriptures. Thankfully, those numbers continue to increase among the faculty. (Photo by wallyg)

So, it is in that environment that this discussion took place with Bill Moyers moderating. Bear in mind, these are Christians, and that is the place from which they move in the world. BUT - that being said, they may not be the kinds of Christians you are used to hearing from, thus why I encourage you to listen to the whole video, if you have the time and inclination.

This is what followed the statements made by Dr. Jones above:

BILL MOYERS: And that’s the trade union movement you talked about.

SERENE JONES: That’s what love is.

CORNEL WEST: That’s the woman’s movement. That’s the gay and lesbian movement.

SERENE JONES: You put it in policy forms.

GARY DORRIEN: It’s the love that, that’s what holds you in the struggle, you know. Even if you’re not succeeding, you know.

CORNEL WEST: Allowing you to sustain and do.

GARY DORRIEN: It’s the energy. It propels you into a struggle in which you might not be succeeding.

BILL MOYERS: You remind me that all three of you come out of what, once upon a time, was called the Social Gospel movement. The movement to apply Christian ethical principles to society. And wasn’t that a response to the first round of economic collapse in the early part of the last century?

GARY DORRIEN: There is something new that started in the 1880s with the Social Gospel. You have a sociological consciousness itself that there’s such a thing as social structure. And so, well, if there’s such a thing as social structure then now there’s something that’s just different.

That makes the equation different. That it’s not just a question of bringing people to Jesus who will then transform society. But rather salvation itself has to be conceived, not just in personal, but social-structural terms. So, with the Social Gospel movement in the 1880s, you do, for the first time, see preaching and theology in which Christian salvation is being talked about as including making movements toward the change of social structures themselves in the direction of something that’s now being called social justice.

CORNEL WEST: There’s a sense of-

GARY DORRIEN: Because even the term social justice is only coined during that very same period.

BILL MOYERS: But the Social Gospel tradition was, in itself, overwhelmed by the materialism of the last part of the 20th century and by the turbo capitalism that you were talking about enshrined in Thomas Freidman’s icon. I mean, the Social Gospel was not sufficient to sustain itself against the power of economics and, in fact, structural wealth. Right?

CORNEL WEST: Right. That’s true.

SERENE JONES: But I think we can never underestimate the crisis of desire. That it wasn’t just that there was - it didn’t have enough social strength, or a good enough analysis. That what turbo capitalism does, is it - the biggest, sort of, war zone is interior to us - where it takes over your desire. It makes you into a creature who wants to buy the commodities. So you could have a great political analysis. But what you’re doing, on the ground every day, is you’re fueling this turbo capitalism. And it’s in the churches that another kind of desire should have been being crafted. That’s where you can get people in their bones and really begin to force the question of, what is it that you want? What makes you happy? What makes your life mean? What, you know, it’s those deep questions of want.

“Turbo capitalism” - what a concept that is. I think we have seen that operating on Wall Street and in our banks (which was the discussion preceding this one). Here is a good bit of the discussion on Obama. Now, I should say that early on, as I understand it, West was a supporter of Hillary Clinton’s. Clearly, he has moved to back Obama, but critically so, as he points out in this discussion. There is more about Obama, but for space reasons, I am limiting that part of the discussion to this:

BILL MOYERS: You said the age of Obama is about everyday people. And you asked the question: how do we unleash their power? What’s the evidence that that’s happening?

CORNEL WEST: Well, I think it’s a very complicated situation. Because, of course, the age of Obama actually emerges with a discredited Republican party in disarray. With a mediocre Democratic party that only had the Clinton machine at the center. And if this charismatic, brilliant, young, black brother can somehow get over the Clinton machine, he can become president.

That’s why I supported him. Critically! A Socratic, prophetic, orientation toward the brother, right? Because he becomes the initiator of a new age. We had to bring the age of Reagan to a close. The era of conservatism had to be brought to a close. Thank God it was. But then the question will be, well, is he going to focus on the poor and working people? Will he recycle neo-liberal elites from the old establishment of Wall Street - which the economic team is?

BILL MOYERS: We know the answer to that.

CORNEL WEST: We know the answer to that.

BILL MOYERS: Right after the election, you were-

CORNEL WEST: Will he recycle the same neo-imperial elites when it comes to foreign policy. I know he’s dealing with tremendous power. Wall Street. Congress. And so forth, and so on. I understand the political considerations. People have the right to organize. Lobbies have a right to bring power and pressure to bear. That’s what American democracy’s about.

But that’s not truth. That’s not the same as prophetic witness to truth. Especially as Christians, you see. So that the critique launched against Barack Obama, be it Gaza, be it Darfur, be it in Ethiopia, be it wherever. It has to be put forward. That is the calling of prophetic Christians.

GARY DORRIEN: Well, I wouldn’t even give him the out that Cornel just gave him. Because I think, in fact, he could stay in his lane and do way better than he has on the economy, and also on scaling back the military empire.

So, on those two things, to be so solicitous of Wall Street, to have treatment of the banks that’s just absurdly favorable to their interests, and refusing to clear out shareholders, and refusing to get to the bottom of it.

And also in his just utter refusal to really face up to the cost and extent of the military empire that, even though he notes in this book, “The Audacity of Hope,” is outspending the next 25 nations combined in the military. He says in the next paragraph, and he has continued on this line, that we need to expand it further. So we’ve got nothing coming on sort of pulling back on that issue as well. On the other hand, you can’t say that this has been a cautious president overall.

I mean, it’s quite amazing that he is taking on virtually everything one way or another at the same time. So he has - there’s been a fair amount of audacity in deciding that this is his moment. There’s not going to be a better moment to come along anyway.

If he’s going to do something about health care, or a number of issues. Dealing with Iran, maybe make a breakthrough with Cuba. That he’s got to put his cards on the table now and get what he can.

BILL MOYERS: You said, after the election, “We want to give him time. We want to give him room.” And my question to you is: how much room and how much time?

CORNEL WEST: Well, the first thing we want to do, we want to protect him, and he and his precious family. Second thing we want to do, we want to make sure all the criticism is fair, so it’s not ad hominids, it’s not personal. It’s not racist. It’s not whatever, you see.

At the same time, he is subject to all the same requirements of truth and justice as any other president, any color. So my criticism out of love for, not just the people, but Barack Obama himself. How my criticism help him? Give him strength? He plans to be progressive Lincoln. Fine. That’s difficult. He will be helped by more progressive Frederick Douglasses. That’s what I aspire to.

BILL MOYERS: Do you see the-

CORNEL WEST: To help him push him in a progressive direction.

BILL MOYERS: Do you hear those voices coming from his left? We know about them from the right. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh. We all know them.

CORNEL WEST: Well, the voices are there! Paul Krugman, and Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Ben Barber and William Greider and Ron Walters. The voices are there. He’s not yet listening. That’s the difference. Lincoln listened to Douglass, Garrison. Brother Barack Obama, he is listening too much to Summers, Thurman, Geithner. We can go right down the neo liberal list. That’s dangerous if he wants to be a progressive president.

BILL MOYERS: Why do you think that is?

SERENE JONES: I think one of the reasons that it happens is that we are living in a very overwhelming time. And it’s always going to be the case that a conservative familiar neo liberal agenda sounds safer.

Because it’s what we know. But the truth of the matter is what we know is what got us in trouble in the first place. So it’s one of those moments that everybody faces in their own life. We happen to be facing it structurally right now. Is everything collapses, what do we do? In the midst of that fear, do we grasp for what’s most familiar? That’s what’s happening. But the very thing you’re grasping for is the thing that got you there in the first place.

CORNEL WEST: Absolutely.

SERENE JONES: It takes a little opening of spirit and an opening of intellect and courage. It’s courage.

There is so much more to this discussion. But for me, it is heartening to know that these kinds of discussions are taking place at all. I hope that their being Christians didn’t put you off, because what they say really transcends what their particular faith system is (and I say that as someone who is not Christian, myself). I am glad that people like this are keeping a watchful eye on Obama, and I think they make good partners with us as we try to reclaim our country from where Obama and his Wall Street cronies are trying to take us.

I began with the words of President Jones, and now I’d like to conclude with them as well. I think these are good words to live by in general, and especially in these days:

It takes a little opening of spirit and an opening of intellect and courage. It’s courage.

Is it even possible to track the massive government outlays across the entire economic landscape? Is it further possible to measure the actual cost of the outlays as a percentage of the overall subsidies? Can we navigate this terrain without getting bogged down in the midst of a thicket of government data and statistics? You have come to the right place.

Subsidyscope has just released a report, entitled Estimated TARP Subsidy Rate Rises, which links to a report from the Congressional Budget Office highlighting all aspects of the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program).

Just as “you can’t tell the players without a program” when attending a sporting event, “you can’t track Uncle Sam without Subsidyscope and Sense on Cents.”

What do we learn? Uncle Sam is still holding some TARP firepower. The TARP was launched as a $699 billion capital commitment. If you recall, the TARP legislation was passed as a vehicle to purchase toxic assets from banks. It has moved a long way away from that.

The TARP now covers 4 initiatives:

1. capital purchase and repayments from financial institutions

2. additional support for large financial institutions

3. financial assistance to automakers and related businesses

4. other actions, such as mortgage modification, TALF subsidies, and purchasing securities backed by Small Business Administration loans.

To be perfectly frank, I think it is very plausible that the actual capital commitments and activities ongoing under the TARP may not have met the pure letter of the initial legislation. That said, in an environment in which so many initiatives are capital constrained, there is no real legislative pushback. When was the last time we worried about the spirit or letter of our laws when we had bigger issues concerning money?? Money is more important than legal precedents, correct? We’ll get into that on another post.

On the numbers front:

Of the $699 billion in total capital, $142 billion has yet to be committed. Of the funds already allocated, Uncle Sam has incurred a total cost of $159 billion. What does that mean?

Recall the number of times that government officials told taxpayers that we would make money on investments in AIG and the like. Well, so far we’ve lost $159 billion dollars across all our TARP investments. The loss is calculated as the difference in funds committed and allocated to securities and the market value of those securities. That loss represents 36% of the funds committed and actually allocated.

Not that anybody in the media or the financial industry would want you to know that.

Program, here….get your program….step right up…program, here!!

Enjoy the ballgame, folks!!

LD

Door #1: A Revitalized and Profitable General Motors

Behind this door, for GM to be a viable entity they need to address the deeply embedded culture and values within the organization. In order to effect change, the people of GM need to understand dramatically different expectations, define and live a new value structure, and execute.

Why do losing teams in professional sports change general managers and coaches? Culture. GM has a culture that allowed a failed financial framework to gain a foothold and ultimately crush the organization.

Without new management at the senior level and throughout the organization, how does the new culture - predicated on total discipline - get established?

Some may argue that Chrysler came out of bankruptcy with no cost to the taxpayer. That is a fair point. Time will tell, though, if the same can happen with GM.

In my opinion, Chrysler benefitted from the growth of the shadow banking system in the mid 1980s which increased leverage throughout the economy. Currently our economy and culture are headed in an opposite direction, that is, consumers and corporations are delevering and will likely continue to delever going forward. As such, I do not envision vehicle sales rebounding as strongly as GM needs to prosper.

Sense on Cents handicaps a vibrant General Motors as a longshot.

Door #2: A Bureaucratic “Government Motors”

Behind this door, I see an entity burdened by red tape, sluggish proceedings, and social agendas. Why?

Any organization is ultimately a reflection of the people and its ability to attract dynamic, entrepreneurial, intelligent leaders at all levels. With all due respect to those currently working at GM, I have a hard time believing this organiztion will be able to attract sufficient numbers of these leaders going forward. Why?

Leaders of that ilk do not tend to enjoy and thrive within an environment burdened by systems, processes, and hurdles inhibiting its success. With government ownership, those hurdles just got much higher.

What are the hurdles?

- How will success be measured? Will it be bottom line profitability? Market share? New vehicles? Social goals, such as environmentally efficient vehicles?

- Is it better to survive than thrive? Organizations in the private sector take prudent risks to drive growth. Will GM be risk averse in an attempt to maintain stability rather than pushing ahead in the spirit of venture capitalists?

Sense on Cents handicaps a bureaucratic Government Motors as a better than even money bet over the next 5 years.

Door #3: A “Going, Going, Gone Motors”

Behind this door, I see an entity that will ultimately utilize the $60 billion (and potentially more) government injection of equity capital as nothing more than an interim bridge loan.

Is the new GM on the other side of the bridge? No. Behind this door, GM will have been flushed down the river and out to sea unable to compete in the Brave New World.

The equity injection of government funds will actually be utilized as more of a stopgap to prevent the immediate dissolution of the company.

Robert Reich addresses this likelihood at Wall Street Pit.

Reich flies in the face of his Democratic Party leaders in asserting that the true motive of the government takeover of GM is ultimately:

The only practical purpose I can imagine for the bail-out is to slow the decline of GM to create enough time for its workers, suppliers, dealers and communities to adjust to its eventual demise.

Reich views the GM situation from a macro standpoint and in the context of a shift in our economy and the world to new technologies. GM is not well positioned currently to adapt and thrive in that environment. Over and above that, GM will be downsizing and not in a position to invest the necessary human and financial capital to lead the company and the industry.

Although Reich’s assessment is not exactly a rosy picture, I give him credit for voicing his opinion and looking beyond the immediate landscape. While Reich sits in the comforts of academia, where are the political leaders who are willing to take these risks in making these statements. As Reich asserts:

US politicians dare not talk openly about industrial adjustment because the public does not want to hear about it. A strong constituency wants to preserve jobs and communities as they are, regardless of the public cost. Another equally powerful group wants to let markets work their will, regardless of the short-term social costs. Polls show most Americans are against bailing out GM, but if their own jobs were at stake I am sure they would have a different view.

So the Obama administration is, in effect, paying $60 billion to buy off both constituencies. It is telling the first group that jobs and communities dependent on GM will be better preserved because of the bail-out, and the second that taxpayers and creditors will be rewarded by it. But it is not telling anyone the complete truth: GM will disappear, eventually. The bail-out is designed to give the economy time to reduce the social costs of the blow.

So once again the American public is forced to deal with a correction based
upon the lapse of time. What do we know about time?

“Can you teach me about tomorrow
and all the pain and sorrow running free?
Cause tomorrow’s just another day
and I don’t believe in time
Time, why you punish me?”

– Hootie & the Blowfish

LD

Basically, the Germans wanted an adult in the room as opposed to the adolescent they got:

Hillary Clinton has intervened in talks over the future of Opel and Vauxhall at the request of German ministers as the American Government unveiled plans to sink more taxpayers’ funds into the European carmakers’ US parent, General Motors (GM).

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German Finance Minister, spoke by telephone today with Mrs Clinton to seek “support in the search for a solution,” his spokesman said. Mrs Clinton pledged to intervene to demand “the greatest possible American support” from Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, the spokesman added.

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, the Economics Minister, also denounced the US Treasury for dispatching a junior official who had to consult Washington through a video link at regular intervals during the night.

Mr Guttenberg said the talks had been “absurd in parts” and demanded “more seriousness and a greater willingness to compromise on the part of the US.”

It is also hoped that developments today in the US could pave the way for smoother negotiations with the two preferred bidders - Fiat, the Italian car group, and Magna, the Canadian components maker.

Nothing like insulting one of our big allies and business partners by sending some flunky to do a woman’s job. Ahem.

As for the rest of the article, some of this may have changed - who knows? I guess it depends on whatever mood Obama is in today and just how much control he is handing over to the union that bought him, but here it is:

GM’s biggest bondholders have agreed to a new offer to wipe out the automaker’s debt, raising hopes that the carmaker will make a quick exit from the now inevitable move into bankruptcy.

Bondholders that own about 20 per cent of GM’s $27.2 billion of unsecured debt agreed to wipe out the borrowings in return for a 10 per cent stake in the company and warrants to buy a further 15 per cent of the equity in the new business.

They had previously rejected an offer of a flat 10 per cent because the United Auto Workers (UAW) union had been promised more equity - 17.5 per cent - for a smaller $20 billion debt.

The remainder of GM’s debt investors, which include individuals and pension funds, have until Saturday afternoon to agree to the new offer.

If they do not support the offer, forcing GM into a contentious bankruptcy, the Government has warned that bondholders will be all but wiped out.

In exchange for the improved payout, creditors must agree not to oppose a move to sell GM’s profitable assets to a new company funded by the Government in a fast-track bankruptcy process.

Just a teensy weensy little reminder - when they talk about wiping out GM’s debt, that’s all the money WE paid to bail them out because they were “to big to fail.” So, all those BILLIONS of dollars of OUR money that Obama was handing out like candy to them? Poof - GONE!!!!

And then, add to that, the government going into the automobile business - as if it knows ANYTHING about it:

GM’s filing also revealed that the Government’s stake in the restructured company would be 72.5 per cent, much larger than the 50 per cent it was expected to be handed in return for forgiving some of the bailout cash it has provided the company.

The bigger stake is likely to increase the cost of GM’s bankruptcy to taxpayers, which is estimated to reach as high as $50 billion.

Overnight negotiations over the future of the US carmaker’s European operation broke down when GM sought more funding for Opel despite Germany’s pledge to provide billions of euros in state guarantees as well as a €1.5 billion bridging loan.

Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary today reiterated the British government’s support for Vauxhall but said it was too early to comment on what funding the UK may provide since talks over Opel needed to be resolved first.

He also said that unlike Opel, Vauxhall was not in desperate need of funding.

Lord Mandelson has extracted promises from both Fiat and Opel over the future of Vauxhall and British jobs.

Although the Business Secretary has conceded that GM Europe suffers from excess costs and is selling vehicles into a depressed market, he has made clear that the amount of money that Britain will commit will depend on the level of job guarantees in the medium term and the long term.

“Each of the bids envisages government support, but we are some way off from a discussion about government’s role in any commercial outcome to these discussions,” he said.

The assurances represent a significant victory for Lord Mandelson, who has been desperate to make sure that the German Government does not give in to election-year pressure with a pledge to protect domestic jobs at the expense of those in the UK. Berlin’s view is crucial because it is being asked to stump up billions of euros in loan guarantees as part of any deal.

Magna calculates job losses of 9,000 across Europe – 2,500 of them in Germany. However, before a Chancellery meeting last night, Magna hinted that it could shift the production of the Opel Astra from Antwerp, Belgium, to Bochum, Germany. Under that scenario, job losses in Germany would total only 300.

Fiat has promised to cut fewer than 10,000 jobs in GM Europe. That could entail closing an engine factory in Kaiserslautern, Germany. Unions fear that overlapping of Fiat’s products with those of Opel and Vauxhall will mean that redundancies could be much higher than promised.

Whew. This is really a pickle, isn’t it? We have taken over, no - check that - OBAMA and the UAW have taken over a private business in this country, about which Obama, anyway, knows NOTHING. He is not a businessman, you know. The UAW is certainly a business - some might say a racket - which has ensured ITS pensions at the expense of ours. How is it that some Americans deserve to have one and others don’t?

That’s just one of those pesky little questions I am certain Obama would label as “Un-American,” just like he did the secured creditors to GM - you know, the Teachers Retirement Fund and State Police of Indiana, for example:

Maybe Obama should follow Germany’s example, and ask Secretary Clinton to figure this out for everyone - GM, the taxpayers, the UAW, everyone. Heck, she could probably design a more aerodynamic, fuel efficient vehicle, change the oil in everyone’s car, AND not rip off the taxpayers for billions of dollars all at the same time! Oh c’mon, you know she could!! In any event, it is sure worth a try.

I mean, really, if it is good enough for Germany to have her step in, it is surely good enough for us! No doubt she would do far better at this than Obama and the UAW are doing now. I say, bring her on!!

Remember those Black Panthers who were arrested in Philly for voter intimidation? Well, guess who’s got a friend in the White House? That would be the three men charged - amazingly, the charges have been DROPPED by the Justice Department! Oh, you know I’m not making this up:

Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department, FOX News has learned.

The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 when three members of the party were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force — one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.

The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he “supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews.”

The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15.

Click here to see FOX News video from the scene on election day.

Click to watch the incident on YouTube.

The complaint says the men hurled racial slurs at both blacks and whites.

A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960’s and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen. (Emphasis mine.)

In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote “I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.”

He also said they tried to “interfere with the work of other poll observers … whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically,” noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said “you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

A spokesman for the Department of Justice told FOX News, “The Justice Department was successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again. Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote.”

Golly, I am just SO surprised, aren’t you? I just never expected that Obama’s Justice Department would let these three men who were engaging in extreme voter intimidation off!! Ahem. Who am I kidding? Of course I did. I’m just surprised it didn’t happen sooner…

One last note - as a follow-up to all of the GM news, including the closing of plants about which I just wrote, I recommend this post by Uppity Woman, “Congratulations, Comrades and Comradesses! You Are Proud Owners Of Government Motors“! That pretty much says it all! What’s next? California?