What the auto industry bailout lacks that it rescues not people or jobs, but stupid business plans. With my money. And so far they are a disaster. The auto industry is ready to take big subsidies to keep on building cars whose basic principle of design (and gas mileage) haven't changed substantially since the 50's.
The problem with both bailouts is they short-circuit the "creative destruction" inherent in capitalism. Usually when well-off CEO's invoke creative destruction, they mean people losing their jobs is good. I think people whose business plans got us here should enjoy a little of the old creative destruction, while protecting working people.
So here's an alternate plan:
1. GM has been described as a health care company that happens to make cars, ~$6B/yr for 1.1 million people, less than half of whom are current employees. The big 3 have substantial liabilities in health care and retirement, which the government should assume and guarantee to assure that peoples' *existing* benefits are not compromised by what is to come.
2. A "job bailout" should be instituted that extends substantial relocation and pay extension to jobless workers. 100% benefits for some number of years capped at $100K/yr.
3. The remaining parts of the company should be sold off at a substantial discount to someone who will present a credible plan to make cars. Maybe not as many cars, but probably not the stupid gas guzzlers they've been making since the Glen Miller era.
Would Tesla motors present a plan to build a million electric family sedans per year in three years with part of the infrastructure, labor and capital freed up? Who knows? I'd like to find out. It boils my blood that the auto industry CEO's have their hands out for welfare for *them* to build more crap.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Conciliatory republicans
Over the last week, I've been hearing a lot of strangely conciliatory sounding words from the right, like "Hey it was a hard election, but your guy won, congrats". I have to say these leave me strangely cold. As if the blasts of hell hadn't been coming from that direction since about 1986, and especially the last 8 years, and especially in this election. So what's the reason for all this bonhomie?
- They're scared we'll do to them what they did to us. Personally, I'm ready for our 30 years of dominating the national discourse to the point that even the other side has to pretend they're us in order to get elected, then we dump on them.
- They're thinking, this is the only way to have any influence now. Yes it feels a little funny to suddenly be part of the ruling class for a change.
- They know the fairness doctrine is coming back, and they want to put it off as long as possible. In listening to right wing talk radio, I have heard them talking about the injustice, and inevitability of the return of the fairness doctrine. We can't disappoint them now can we?
- It's temporary. Oh, yes. The floodgates of hell will re-open soon.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Hooray!
Now the #1 reason why I write this blog: So I can get stuff off my chest and go to sleep:
Good Night!
- Are the culture wars over for now?
- Can Republicans admit the legitimacy of a democratic president?
- Can the GOP operate as a respectful minority party?
- Will they give Obama the room to govern, now that he has a clear mandate from the people of the United States?
Good Night!
Saturday, November 1, 2008
What is this election a referendum on anyway?
I've been listening to a lot of right-wing radio recently. Maybe it's just the long boring commutes or the fund-raising drives on my favorite lefty stations. (Question: Why do right wing stations never have to hold bake sales and such? They don't run much advertizing. Hmmmm. Can you say vast right-wing conspiracy? And Rush makes millions!). Anyway, Rushbo, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, they're all beating the drum like crazy. It seems like all of America is bathed in these photons of electronic energy that say that a vote for Obama is a vote for socialism. And still Obama's poll numbers improve.
Is this telling us something?
Is Obama's election now a referendum on the idea of social democracy in America? What would that look like, anyway? In European social democracies, health care is cheap and afforadable for all. For the unemployed street person and the millionaire, and *especially* for the middle class breadwinner, it's something you take for granted is always there, like traffic lights, garbage pickup and the elementary school around the corner. Losing your job is not a nightmare of pre-existing conditions, or the loss of group health. The dreaded words co-pay, co-insurance and deductible are unknown. Though here's a neat trick: you save your claims up for a year, and if they're less than X dollars, you hold on to them and get a big refund. Otherwise you submit them and break even or are ahead.
And when I lived in Europe, the total cost of taxes plus health insureance was about the same as it is here. Live with it. It's nice.
Public universities (remember when UCLA in-state was free?). Public transportation -- I have the choice between a 2-hour round trip to my airport or a $140 shuttle. Wouldn't a $5.00 train be better? Like in civilized countries?
If this election is a referendum on social democracy, and Barack Obama wins it, can we actually start thinking about these things?
Just asking.
Is this telling us something?
Is Obama's election now a referendum on the idea of social democracy in America? What would that look like, anyway? In European social democracies, health care is cheap and afforadable for all. For the unemployed street person and the millionaire, and *especially* for the middle class breadwinner, it's something you take for granted is always there, like traffic lights, garbage pickup and the elementary school around the corner. Losing your job is not a nightmare of pre-existing conditions, or the loss of group health. The dreaded words co-pay, co-insurance and deductible are unknown. Though here's a neat trick: you save your claims up for a year, and if they're less than X dollars, you hold on to them and get a big refund. Otherwise you submit them and break even or are ahead.
And when I lived in Europe, the total cost of taxes plus health insureance was about the same as it is here. Live with it. It's nice.
Public universities (remember when UCLA in-state was free?). Public transportation -- I have the choice between a 2-hour round trip to my airport or a $140 shuttle. Wouldn't a $5.00 train be better? Like in civilized countries?
If this election is a referendum on social democracy, and Barack Obama wins it, can we actually start thinking about these things?
Just asking.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Vice presidential duties
Two interesting quotes from Sarah Palin:
From the debate: "Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. "
From a third grader's question: "[T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom."
A lot has been made of these quotes as showing a lack of understanding on her part about what the Vice President does. In fact she (or someone she's working with) may know a lot more than we think. In fact, the Vice President is in charge of the senate, and presides over the Senate, period. If the Vice President is away (which is usually), then a President Pro Tem is elected.
But what if Sarah Palin is telling us she intends to be an activist Vice President?
An activist president of the Senate could do a lot of things that would essentially hold the senate hostage, preventing it from getting anything done until such time she sees fit. As an example, a cloture vote. What if the President of the senate simply refuses to call a cloture vote on a bill she doesn't like? She's a one-woman filibuster, one that can't be voted down.
What if she shuts down the Senate and refuses to open proceedings unless she gets her way on a specific bill? These are actually enormous powers, they have just never been used, and I suspect that Sarah Palin could be preparing to use them.
Why? Well for one, she is the leading Neocon, now that George the W. has started to quack. The people behind Dubya (in particular David Addington, legal enabler for Dick Cheney) have already been at it, inventing all kinds of new powers for the President and Vice President. Remember the idea that the Veep is not a member of the executive branch? Remember the "Nuclear option"? That depended on the role of the Vice President, as President of the Senate, to rule on a point of order requiring only a majority vote for cloture henceforth. So clearly they're thinking about it.
Why hasn't it ever happened? 1) The Senate is a very (small-c) conservative and tradition-bound body. 2) Nobody's ever tried it. Remember that since Addington's been in office, it's never been that useful for the Veep to throw his weight around in the Senate -- the Senate is a largely ineffective body since 2000. Even in Democratic hands, with Joe Lieberman casting the 51st vote, the Senate is no barrier to the powers of the imperial executive. However, with a very Democratic Senate, the Vice President all of a sudden makes it possible to shut down congress completely.
What recourse would congress have? Well, they could consider that an abuse of power and decide to impeach the VP. But her sentencing would go to the Senate, where, guess what, it never comes up for a vote. Constitutional crisis time, and the Supreme Court is asked to decide. Which way will the Roberts court go, strict constructionists that they are?
I wonder...
From the debate: "Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. "
From a third grader's question: "[T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom."
A lot has been made of these quotes as showing a lack of understanding on her part about what the Vice President does. In fact she (or someone she's working with) may know a lot more than we think. In fact, the Vice President is in charge of the senate, and presides over the Senate, period. If the Vice President is away (which is usually), then a President Pro Tem is elected.
But what if Sarah Palin is telling us she intends to be an activist Vice President?
An activist president of the Senate could do a lot of things that would essentially hold the senate hostage, preventing it from getting anything done until such time she sees fit. As an example, a cloture vote. What if the President of the senate simply refuses to call a cloture vote on a bill she doesn't like? She's a one-woman filibuster, one that can't be voted down.
What if she shuts down the Senate and refuses to open proceedings unless she gets her way on a specific bill? These are actually enormous powers, they have just never been used, and I suspect that Sarah Palin could be preparing to use them.
Why? Well for one, she is the leading Neocon, now that George the W. has started to quack. The people behind Dubya (in particular David Addington, legal enabler for Dick Cheney) have already been at it, inventing all kinds of new powers for the President and Vice President. Remember the idea that the Veep is not a member of the executive branch? Remember the "Nuclear option"? That depended on the role of the Vice President, as President of the Senate, to rule on a point of order requiring only a majority vote for cloture henceforth. So clearly they're thinking about it.
Why hasn't it ever happened? 1) The Senate is a very (small-c) conservative and tradition-bound body. 2) Nobody's ever tried it. Remember that since Addington's been in office, it's never been that useful for the Veep to throw his weight around in the Senate -- the Senate is a largely ineffective body since 2000. Even in Democratic hands, with Joe Lieberman casting the 51st vote, the Senate is no barrier to the powers of the imperial executive. However, with a very Democratic Senate, the Vice President all of a sudden makes it possible to shut down congress completely.
What recourse would congress have? Well, they could consider that an abuse of power and decide to impeach the VP. But her sentencing would go to the Senate, where, guess what, it never comes up for a vote. Constitutional crisis time, and the Supreme Court is asked to decide. Which way will the Roberts court go, strict constructionists that they are?
I wonder...
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
What's your wish list?
What are the most important things Barack Obama, should he win, needs to do right away? Having asked the question, I won't wait around holding my breath until somebody answers -- here's what I think:
1) Clear out all the extra-constitutional crap that has accumulated as "current practice" in our government. By this I mean:
- Signing statements: Get laws passed nullifying the legal effect of all signing statements past present and future. This might be done simply by deliberately making a particularly egregious one that the supreme court would strike down.
- Torture: Make it impossible for future administrations to commit torture and call it legal. How? I don't know.
- Extralegal detentions: Close Guantanamo, CIA black sites, and make it impossible (once again by a well-timed Supreme court challenge perhaps) for such activities to be considered outside US legal jurisdiction.
2) Comprehensive election reform. This means developing federal standards for voting equipment, establishing a federal election review board to oversee state procedures for voter roll verification and prevent caging, purging (and yes, voter fraud).
3) Repeal the AUMF. Once again, the supreme court could be forced to conclude that future declarations of war by congress must contain a specific enemy or enemies and a timeline in order to be legal. continure the war by specific act of congress if need be.
4) Join the ICC.
5) Double the budget for basic science.
1) Clear out all the extra-constitutional crap that has accumulated as "current practice" in our government. By this I mean:
- Signing statements: Get laws passed nullifying the legal effect of all signing statements past present and future. This might be done simply by deliberately making a particularly egregious one that the supreme court would strike down.
- Torture: Make it impossible for future administrations to commit torture and call it legal. How? I don't know.
- Extralegal detentions: Close Guantanamo, CIA black sites, and make it impossible (once again by a well-timed Supreme court challenge perhaps) for such activities to be considered outside US legal jurisdiction.
2) Comprehensive election reform. This means developing federal standards for voting equipment, establishing a federal election review board to oversee state procedures for voter roll verification and prevent caging, purging (and yes, voter fraud).
3) Repeal the AUMF. Once again, the supreme court could be forced to conclude that future declarations of war by congress must contain a specific enemy or enemies and a timeline in order to be legal. continure the war by specific act of congress if need be.
4) Join the ICC.
5) Double the budget for basic science.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The AIG "boondoggle" ... really?
Wait a second, when I do the math for 70 people for a week, I get about $125 per person per day, and that doesn't seem that expensive. Especially for a retreat where they're going to be deciding how to save the company.
Seems to me the outrage on this is a little overheated.
Update: I slipped a decimal point, it's $1270 per day, which is over the top by anybody's definition.
Seems to me the outrage on this is a little overheated.
Update: I slipped a decimal point, it's $1270 per day, which is over the top by anybody's definition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
