The coming Barack Hussein Obama thugocracy

[dude1394]

Unfortunately the auto companies will be up for election much sooner than Barry or the rest of the democrats will.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...hp/rubin/67311

The Obama administration’s policy agenda on labor and climate control, to name just two items, is going to clash with the profit motives of car companies. Guess which side will prevail. Similarly, when the banks took the cash (or had it foisted upon them) they should not have expected the freedom to continue to operate as they did before they became wards of the state. Statism or crony capitalism, or whatever we call it, is about the sheer exercise of government power over what used to be private decisions regulated by the marketplace and the rule of law.


This is precisely why we shouldn’t go down this road and why those interested in preserving the rule of law and some semblance of a free market economy should speak up. But bondholders are being bullied into silence. And Congress has ceded its role as regulator and appropriator to the executive branch. What’s to stop “Government Motors”? Well, there’s the ballot box and car lots all over the country where Americans can register their views.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I wasn't sure if this belonged here or in the buyer's remorse thread. But as we are about to see Barry give away another automaker to his UAW pals, here seems correct.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052502135.html

the numbers in the post article are wrong.

"Under the new UAW terms, the union's health-care trust would own 17.5% of a reorganized GM"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1243...cle-outset-box

so let's review...the uaw isn't getting more of the reorganized gm than the amount owed to them, the lenders are getting paid back at almost 100 cents on the $, so clearly your post belongs in neither the "thugocracy" thread or the "buyer's remorse" thread.

my prediction is that won't stop you however from finding a way to characterize this deal as in some fashion the obama administration abusing someone or some group.

[dude1394]

Well bust my britches. Even when I post numbers from a sympathetic washingtonpost...I somehow am being partisan. Just can't criticize this boy.

I would expect that Barry got enough pushback from his last shakedown that he doesn't want to repeat it, good, I'm glad to be wrong in that case.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well bust my britches. Even when I post numbers from a sympathetic washingtonpost...I somehow am being partisan. Just can't criticize this boy.

it matters zero where incorrect information is obtained, incorrect is incorrect.

you can criticize all you want, yet if veracity is important and credibility is valued you would do well to be accurate on the basis of your criticism.

I would expect that Barry got enough pushback from his last shakedown that he doesn't want to repeat it, good, I'm glad to be wrong in that case.

"pushback from his last shakedown"? that's funny.

[dude1394]

Another evil hedge fund owner.

By DENNIS BUCHHOLTZ

I am an American retiree. Like many small investors, I am relying on "safe" investments such as bonds backed by America's largest companies to fund my retirement. One of these companies is General Motors.


First, let's set the record straight about who owns GM's bonds. We are hardworking families, individual investors and retirees who purchased billions of these bonds in $25, $50 and $100 increments. Many bonds were bought directly and others are held in our pension funds, 401(k) plans and other retirement programs.


I purchased GM bonds in 2005 and own $91,000 worth. These bonds account for a very sizeable portion of my retirement income, and so it is absolutely devastating to watch GM's problems bring the once venerable company to the brink of failure. My standard of living is truly in jeopardy.


Despite the terrible position my fellow bondholders and I are in, we are being portrayed as the cause of GM's problems and inability to restructure.

[Mavdog]

two words for you mr. buchholtz....

caveat emptor.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Another evil hedge fund owner.

dude... what is your point here? really?


please expand, and actually say SOMETHING.

[dude1394]

Barry has already bad-mouthed those bond-holders that were holding up the chrysler bankruptcy. This is just another one of those folks who are standing in the way of progress.

And I expect Barry's response would be the same as Mavie's. F'em.

[dude1394]

See Barry....folks who have to PUT UP their money instead of folks who are looking for a handout...just don't trust ya' brotha'. For good reason.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1243...ml#mod=testMod

WSJ: The Legacy Loans Program, being crafted by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., is part of the $1 trillion Public Private Investment Program the Obama administration announced in March as a way to encourage banks to sell securities and loans weighing on their balance sheets to willing investors.


But prospective buyers and sellers have expressed reluctance to the FDIC about participating for fear the program's rules will change in a political atmosphere hostile to Wall Street. In addition, some banks that might have sold troubled loans into the program earlier in the year have become less eager as they regained a sense of stability.

[mcsluggo]

so... what do YOU think should be the return to investors in a firm that goes belly-up?

[dude1394]

What I don't think should happen is the guvment deciding winners and losers. They want to file bankruptcy, fine, do it. They are both going to anyway. Instead we have the guvment purchasing what is it now 70% of GM and negotiating the rest of the spoils dependent on a viewpoints of a polical beauracrat?

The point of what I posted was to have Barry out there beating up investors trying to get folks to pick sides. It's quite disgusting imo. If he's going to do this at least STFU and go through it without making everything a political class-warfare political speech.

Even Barry has gotten the message since he HAS STFU with respect to GM at least instead of trying to persuade public opinion on this.

[dude1394]

Again I'm not sure if this belongs in the buyers remorse thread or not since there's a Democrat and Republican Senator asking...but since it's again talking about the new OAW group, it probably belongs here.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/s...8/daily62.html

Major Update: Two US Senators are now asking for details on the decision process - one from each party!

U.S. Sens. Claire McCaskill and Kit Bond wrote a letter Friday to President Barack Obama’s auto task force seeking answers to concerns raised by Chrysler and General Motors dealerships in Missouri that learned last week their contracts will be terminated.
Auto dealers statewide have expressed frustration to McCaskill and Bond about the lack of information they have received from Chrysler and GM, saying they didn’t know the criteria used to make the contract termination decisions.
The two Missouri senators asked the task force for the criteria used to determine how many and which dealerships would be terminated, as well as the process for dealerships to appeal decisions.

[mcsluggo]

no... what you want to do is whine about it (and everything else Obama) from all directions at the same time, whether it is contradictory or not.

the continued barrage makes paying attention to anything you say difficult at best

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

no... what you want to do is whine about it (and everything else Obama) from all directions at the same time, whether it is contradictory or not.

the continued barrage makes paying attention to anything you say difficult at best

right...I'll take that response under advisement if you ever ask again.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Again I'm not sure if this belongs in the buyers remorse thread or not since there's a Democrat and Republican Senator asking...but since it's again talking about the new OAW group, it probably belongs here.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/s...8/daily62.html





[/INDENT]

the "auto task force" did not make any of the decisions on which dealerships would be closed.

why aren't you criticizing these two senators for their grandstanding and telling them to stop trying to pick "winners and losers" for political reasons?

ah, I know the answer, their name isn't obama....

[dude1394]

So the press secretary says. I think the minutes of the decisions will have to come out.

Why shouldn't they ask the question, the Obama guvment owns 8 percent of the company. The same question will be asked when they own 70% of GM. Their constituents want to know how they were picked, their constituents who've just had their businesses taken want to know and the folks who's jobs have just been eliminated want to know and should.

If they weren't asking what the heck is going on they would be derelict in their duties wouldn't they? Or they should just tell their folks...I don't know how it happened, if Barry says it's okay, it must be.

The guvment cannot own anything without politics being suspected.

[Mavdog]

there is no debate about the fact there were too many chrysler dealers for the amount of sales. with average sales of about 500 vehicles/yr, the dealerships were inefficient. too much overhead, meaning they need to have fatter margins on new car sales as well as too high service costs. their facilities were old and tired for the most part because the dealers couldn't afford to invest in remodels due to the low sales volumes. it was a vicious circle of declining sales.

to blame the decision to pare the dealership ranks on the current administration is ridiculous.

the criteria was the sales volumes of each unit and the best store spacing to serve the targeted customer. store placement strategy isn't a guessing game, it's an analytical exercise based on data.

these dealers are dishonest if they say they have no idea why their dealership was chosen for closing. they all know the other dealers sales volumes, and they are very aware who the successful sales outlets are and that they weren't one of the winners.

most people don't know that dealerships are regulated by a state commission. the commission exists to protect the dealerships, the manufacturer cannot simply decide to pull the plug on a dealer, or to force the dealer to move, or to place another dealer in a market...except with the bankruptcy the manufacturer can unilaterally terminate the dealership agreement.

again, where is your critism of these senators for clearly trying to pick "winners and losers"? you're not being very consistent...

[dude1394]

If they know the criteria for closures it surely has not been forthcoming. I recall one dealer who stated he was top 2% in sales getting it? Confusing..very...

With respect to the senators...they are picking the folks who they always pick, their constituents...I see nothing different about that.

I do see something different about the Presidency owning 7% (and soon to be 70%) of Chrysler and GM. No one has any oversight to that endeavor. If the Presidency is going to own 70% plus of a company they damn sure have to be accountable as to what they are doing with it, especially if they are in ANY WAY involved in running it.

And they have been. Firing people, cutting ad budgets. So you don't think they would have any input into this decision either? Sorry...I don't trust Barry nearly that much.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

If they know the criteria for closures it surely has not been forthcoming. I recall one dealer who stated he was top 2% in sales getting it? Confusing..very...

the criteria is not a secret. it doen't need to be vetted by the press either, it's a internal decision at chrysler. here's what chrysler said:

"Chrysler said it evaluated dealers on such criteria as quality of customer service, sales volume per store, condition of the showroom and service department, as well as the demographics of the surrounding market."

pretty straightforward.

With respect to the senators...they are picking the folks who they always pick, their constituents...I see nothing different about that.

no, they are picking specific constituents, aren't all the dealers and the employees who work there their constituents? in this case the two senators are grandstanding for the ones who are to lose their relationship with chrysler, what about the dealers who are retaining the relationship and will have a better odds of surviving because of the contraction in points of sale?

I do see something different about the Presidency owning 7% (and soon to be 70%) of Chrysler and GM. No one has any oversight to that endeavor. If the Presidency is going to own 70% plus of a company they damn sure have to be accountable as to what they are doing with it, especially if they are in ANY WAY involved in running it.

the "presidency" doesn't own anything, the us government owns equity in these cos in exchange for the $ these cos asked to be given.

the "auto task force" aren't running these cos, they are actin g in the role as investors, just like the role that venture funds/hedge funds have done and still do.

And they have been. Firing people, cutting ad budgets. So you don't think they would have any input into this decision either? Sorry...I don't trust Barry nearly that much.

yeah, barry and the wh staff take hours and hours to decide which dealer is cast off and which is not, how much to spend on ads...that's so absurd it's comical.

if you wish to criticize the investment in these cos and say the us government should let them fail, fine. that's not what is happening, it has become a publicity event of some people thinking they know better how to decide these issues while the truth is they don't have the experience and knowledge to do such.

let the people who are running the cos- and that is not the auto task force, who are involved in the financial restructuring not the day to day operating- make the decisions and see if they are successful.

[dude1394]

From IBD.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/arti...etermines.html

Economy: With General Motors' long-awaited "pre-packaged bankruptcy" finally here, America is on the verge of a new era — one where government, not investors and consumers, is the final arbiter of success.



GM's bankruptcy pushes bondholders aside in favor of the U.S. government and the UAW. Though bondholders hold $27 billion in debt, they'll get just 10% of stock.



How's that compare with the other "stakeholders?" For spending $50 billion to bail out GM, the government will get 60% of the equity in the new GM; the UAW, which along with other unions gave millions to Democrats, will be repaid for its loyalty with 17.5% of the stock for $10 billion of unsecured debts.


So the government, with roughly two times what private bondholders have on the table, gets a stake five times bigger. And the union, with about a third as much "invested," gets a 70% bigger stake. Even the Canadian government, with its $9.5 billion "invested," ends up with 12%.


They call it "restructuring." We call it theft. Never in our memory has there been a more thorough, systematic effort to disenfranchise the shareholders and bondholders of a major American firm.
It will make investors — domestic and foreign alike — think twice about investing in an American stock or bond in the coming years. Why invest if your money and rights as an investor can be arbitrarily stripped from you, as they were in GM's case?


But our real issue with this isn't that people will lose money. It's that we don't believe the government's actions are even legal.


The White House has basically been manipulating GM into bankruptcy since early this year, putting 31-year-old Brian Deese, a Yale law student, in charge of GM's restructuring. "It is not every 31-year-old who, in a first government job, finds himself dismantling General Motors and rewriting the rules of American capitalism," the New York Times said with tongue in cheek (we think).


It used to be that the "rules of American capitalism" came from 200 years of U.S. case law, the Constitution and legitimate federal regulation. But no more. Instead, the job's been given to someone not yet out of law school. This shows shocking contempt for GM, once the world's pre-eminent industrial company, for American capitalism and the rule of law.


We don't think this travesty passes constitutional muster and hope to see it vigorously challenged in federal court soon.


Our Constitution is very specific. It limits the executive branch's rights to those enumerated therein. The rest it grants to the people and the states. It also requires due process under the law, especially when government "takings" are involved.


That's why in 1952, when President Harry S. Truman tried to seize control of the U.S. steel industry during a debilitating strike, the Supreme Court made him back down. And Truman had a real emergency on his hands: the Korean War.


We pored over Article II of the Constitution, known as the Executive Powers Clause. Nowhere is the White House granted the right to override the time-tested bankruptcy process, to use Treasury money raised by taxing Americans to buy or bail out companies, to fire CEOs, to micromanage corporate policy, or to abrogate lawful contracts made by private parties.


Yet, our government has done these things and more — leading to a corrupt GM bankruptcy. The damage to our system of corporate capitalism and the rule of law is severe. Next stop: Federal court?

[mcsluggo]

once again... that is such moronic reasoning. I am sorry... but the bond holders invested in a company, that later failed. Thanks for playing.

the US government "investments" came in to the ruins. and as such is CURRENT and senior debt. it is not a complex issue. it is simple and straight forward... and anyone that tries to blend the apples and the oranges of the two two different types of investmetn as being equivalent is either someone that has ABSOLUTELY zero understanding of the issue, or is someone with an agenda, that is trying to mislead/misrepresent the situation.

in most cases, I strongly suspect BOTH are true.

(the rest of the article is basically "haruumph posturing" without really SAYING anything)



Not to speak too widely from one data point.... but frankly, THIS is the epitome of the downfall of conservatives. It used to always be moonbeam liberals that would throw in an impassioned attack on some business issue... with absolutely no understanding of actual business, or the actual issue... recently moonbat "conservatives" have more often than not taken over the role.

I miss my old GOP of coldheartedly efficient business pros.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

the US government "investments" came in to the ruins. and as such is CURRENT and senior debt. it is not a complex issue. ..

except, of course, that millions of people are being forced to invest in the company. And many of us would rather let it die if that's what it was doing.

[mcsluggo]

that point is fine (and valid).... but neither here nor there as concerns the relative valuations of the two positions.

[dude1394]

As they say....elections have consequences...It's nice to be king.

(Via Protein Wisdom) How fortunate the subjects* of MA-04 are to have as their overlord someone who can make certain that the collective pain of an automotive company bailout ends up collectively pains everybody else but them:

Rep Barney Frank (D-Mass.) won a stay of execution on Thursday for a General Motors plant in his district that the automaker had announced it would close.
No other lawmaker has managed to halt the GM ax. As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Frank oversees the government’s bailout program, known as TARP. Frank’s staff said the lawmaker spokes with GM CEO Fritz Henderson on Wednesday and convinced him to keep the Norton, Mass. plant open for at least 14 months.
GM announced Monday in its bankruptcy and restructuring plans it would close of nine of its plants and idle three others. The automaker said it would also shutter three service and parts operations by the end of the year — one of which is in Frank’s district.

For the record...I don't begrudge Frank doing this, only that he CAN. And the only reason he can is because Barry has purchased GM.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

As they say....elections have consequences...It's nice to be king.






[/INDENT]For the record...I don't begrudge Frank doing this, only that he CAN. And the only reason he can is because Barry has purchased GM.

yeah, we certainly don't know the whole story in this particular situation...... but the danger of "rent-seeking-behavior" rises dramatically in situations like this. It is something that will have to watched VERY closely for abuse

[dude1394]

Maybe he can have a data czar to keep 100K date nights from happening.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124416737421887739.html

By DEBORAH SOLOMON

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration plans to appoint a "Special Master for Compensation" to ensure that companies receiving federal bailout funds are abiding by executive-pay guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter.
The administration is expected to name Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw the federal government's compensation fund for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to act as a pay czar for the Treasury Department, these people said.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Maybe he can have a data czar to keep 100K date nights from happening.

odd, but I cannot remember reading you criticize bush for his many extended vacations and the cost of those numerous journeys back and forth across the country....nothing like inconsistency and double standards to expose a person's agenda.

[dude1394]

I have no problem with Barry going on a vacation.

A one-night frolic that cost upwards of 100K. Sorry mavie....I don't quite think it compares.

[Mavdog]

why not?

he deserves to be able to have the opportunity to see a play and have a dinner out. is he to blamed or penalized for the amount of security that the office of the president requires?

it's no different than the many sojourns to tx that bush took.

at least obama is back at the white house the next day rather than playing rancher for weeks on end.

[dude1394]

A play and a night out in washington would have been fine. If he wanted to have a night out in NY a planned trip would have been fine also imo.

We'll just have to disagree. When Barry is telling everyone that we are broke(while running up the charges), the dems are admonishing GM for using their own plane to get to washington and barry is also railing against "junkets to las vegas" it's tone deaf in the least, extravagent at this time for sure.

Dubya going to crawford for a vacation (barry will also be going on them as well which I have no problem with) is nothing like what barry did imo. Obviously the president does not have to be in the white house to be doing his job (as barry is currently overseas now) so your statement about being back in the white house like it matters where they are is irrelevant.

But actually it was a throwaway line to highlight the "compensation czar" that looks to be appointed. However it is funny that Barry talks about saving bucks (while not all over the place) and AlGore talks about saving the enviroment (while not also).

[dude1394]

Quit whining..
http://cbs4.com/local/tamiami.chrysl...2.1030032.html

“Tamiami Chrysler-Jeep-Dodge spokespeople claimed in a press release that Tamiami is the only Hispanic dealer in the area and ranked #70 in the nation among more than 3000 dealers.


Tamiami Chrysler’s 100 employees were stunned to learn it was getting the axe. For decades, the family-owned dealership has set sales standards for South Florida car lots. The lot is within the top two percent of Chrysler dealerships nationwide, with a trophy case full of sales awards.


“I came here from Cuba in the ’60s with nothing,” general manager Alex Planas told CBS4’s Gary Nelson. “Now I understand what it’s like, you know, when my parents would tell me stories of what it’s like for someone to take away your business.”


The fighting dealership took out a full page ad in Sunday’s Miami Herald, appealing to customers to write Chrysler and protest the closure. Members of Congress have expressed their dismay, both Republicans and Democrats writing a letter to Chrysler’s chairman.”

[dude1394]

The thugocracy continues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/bu...k.html?_r=2&hp

The Obama administration plans to require banks and corporations that have received two rounds of federal bailouts to submit any major executive pay changes for approval by a new federal official who will monitor compensation, according to two government officials.
Skip to next paragraph Enlarge This Image
Doug Mills/The New York Times
Compensation is a minefield for President Obama and Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury chief.

Related

Times Topics: Executive Pay | Kenneth R. Feinberg




The proposal is part of a broad set of regulations on executive compensation expected to be announced by the administration as early as this week. Some of the rules are required by legislation enacted in the wake of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and they would apply only to companies that received taxpayer money.
.......
Citigroup, Bank of America, the American International Group, General Motors and its finance arm, GMAC, which all received two taxpayer infusions, will face the strictest scrutiny from the new federal official charged with vetting compensation, Kenneth R. Feinberg. He is known for overseeing payouts to the families of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
.

Nah...The guvment isn't going to be involved in these companies. I'm wondering a couple of things...whether guvments intrusion into GM/Chrysler will be a competitive advantage or disadvantage to Ford?

Ford should be ablle to attract the best people, but unlike Amtrak, they won't have an unending supply of guvment dollars backing 'em. It will be interesting to see which is better/worse.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

The thugocracy continues.

is it "thugocracy" to enforce the law as enacted by congress? pay limits were a part of the bill that was passed.

if that is indeed the case (not that I subscribe to that view btw) than all the administrations have been guilty of "thugocracy" by enforcing laws, haven't they?

your desire to characterize the current administration as practicing "thugocracy" falls flat on its face when looked at in an historical manner.

Nah...The guvment isn't going to be involved in these companies. I'm wondering a couple of things...whether guvments intrusion into GM/Chrysler will be a competitive advantage or disadvantage to Ford?

Ford should be ablle to attract the best people, but unlike Amtrak, they won't have an unending supply of guvment dollars backing 'em. It will be interesting to see which is better/worse.

that very subject was discussed in the wsj this am. as for compensation, that doesn't appear to be an issue as all the cos are tightening their belts, and pay is one of the areas to do that.

Ford to Face Tougher Rivals Following U.S. Rescue
By MATTHEW DOLAN
DETROIT -- Ford Motor Co. is the healthiest of the Detroit's Big Three auto makers but could face a rough ride facing off with its newest competitor: the U.S. government.

General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC are in line to get $62 billion in investments from the Treasury Department.

As a result, the pair are expected to cut their debt and shrink their dealership networks, which will make them leaner competitors once they emerge from bankruptcy-court protection.

And GMAC LLC, the giant lender now serving Chrysler as well as GM, has received billions of dollars in aid and been granted access to low-cost capital from the Federal Reserve.

Ford CEO Alan Mulally says his company isn't at a disadvantage without federal assistance. Above, the executive spoke at a press conference last month announcing plans to convert an SUV factory to a small-car plant.
Meanwhile, Ford, which has lost more than $30 billion since 2006, remains saddled with about $33 billion in debt including its obligations to retirees. Its lending arm isn't getting government support, and Ford is moving ahead with a bloated dealer base.

"What bankruptcy does for GM and Chrysler is give them some opportunity to change quickly. Ford will have to fight for those same changes," said Christopher J. Ceraso, an automotive analyst with Credit Suisse.

Ford Chief Executive Alan Mulally said Ford faces no long-term disadvantage because of the bailout of Chrysler and GM and has no plans for government assistance.

"Clearly, we are in a different place because we have taken a lot of that restructuring action," he said in an interview Thursday. "That's what some of our competitors are doing now."

Ford has been restructuring since Mr. Mulally's arrival almost three years ago, shedding more than 40,000 jobs, closing 17 plants and reducing costs by more than $5 billion. And its global operations are moving forward on the development of new models.

GM and Chrysler's product-development operations are only now being reshaped.

In the short term, Wall Street analysts and advisers to Ford see challenges for the company.

One of the biggest is in auto loans.

GMAC in January became a bank holding company, making it eligible for bailout funds from the Treasury and low-cost lending programs from the Fed. GMAC has since received $12.5 billion in financial aid from the government.

GM on Wednesday began issuing $3.5 billion in three-year debt backed by the federal government. This should cost GMAC about 2.2% a year.

Ford Motor Credit Co., meanwhile, recently priced a five-year bond and is paying 8%.

After getting help from the Treasury, GMAC in the beginning of the year started offering 0% loans on some GM vehicles. Ford Motor Credit finally followed suit last week.

Ford Motor Credit has applied to become an industrial bank, which would help lower borrowing costs as a federally insured lender.

A spokeswoman said it hopes to have to have the classification by year-end.

GM and Chrysler are also expected to emerge from bankruptcy reorganization with considerably less debt than Ford, which would lower their fixed costs.

GM's debt load is likely to fall postbankruptcy to about $17 billion, plus its obligation for retiree health care, from more than $70 billion.

While Ford has been able to reduce its debt burden with some equity swaps, which analysts expect to continue, the auto maker still is carrying more than $30 billion in long-term debt. Coming payments include $5 billion for Ford Credit due in October and $10 billion due in 2011 on a revolving credit line the auto maker drew from in January.

Another challenge for Ford is its agreement with the United Auto Workers.

The union has reached deals with Ford, GM and Chrysler to cut the amount they have to put into a trust fund to pay for retiree health care.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger estimated GM is obligated to fund the trust at about 25 cents on the dollar, and Chrysler at 30 cents on the dollar -- down from original payments of 60 cents.

It was unclear what Ford is paying but many analysts believe it is higher than GM and Chrysler.

A person familiar with the matter at Ford said the company expects additional concessions from the UAW long before its current contract expires in 2011. Union officials have said they want the auto maker to remain competitive with its domestic rivals.

Lastly, GM and Chrysler are using the bankruptcy process to shed hundreds of small or money-losing dealerships. GM plans to drop 2,600 of its 6,000 dealers and Chrysler 789 of its 3,200.

Ford is unable to match its competitors' moves because of state laws that favor the dealer franchises.

The auto maker had 3,723 dealers as of March 31 and has been only able to trim the ranks gradually.

Ford executives said the company has cut its number of dealers by 15% since 2005.

Ford says it remains optimistic. The auto maker will increase production of cars and trucks in the third quarter by about 10% from a year earlier and is gearing up a marketing campaign in hopes of grabbing market share from its cross-town rivals.

Goldman Sachs on Friday estimated that Ford would gain about 25% of GM's market-share losses.

[dude1394]

I guess the Supreme Court will hear the arguments from terrorists however.

Auto Taskforce: We Don’t Negotiate With Terrorists



By Eric Morath

Reuters Thomas Lauria

Thomas Lauria, the attorney who represents dissident lenders in Chrysler LLC’s bankruptcy case, was called “a terrorist” by a member of the Treasury Department’s automotive taskforce in an e-mail exchange with a Chrysler adviser.

[dude1394]

Don't you DARE get after one of the boyz. What was that about dubya firing someone who he actually COULD fire? Heh...


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-47877797.html

What's behind Obama's sudden attempt to fire the AmeriCorps inspector general?

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
06/11/09 8:14 PM EDT

New info: See updates below for Walpin's "one-hour deadline" e-mail to the White House.
There are a number of unanswered questions today about President Obama's abrupt decision to fire the inspector general of the AmeriCorps program, Gerald Walpin. Obama sent letters to House and Senate leaders yesterday informing them that he was firing Walpin, effective 30 days from the date of the letters.

"It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General," the president wrote. "That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector General."

The 30 day requirement is important because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which was designed to strengthen protections for IGs, who have the responsibility of investigating allegations of waste, fraud and abuse within federal agencies, against interference by political appointees or the White House. Part of the Act was a requirement that the president give Congress 30 days' notice before dismissing an IG. One of the co-sponsors of the Act was then-Sen. Barack Obama.

The Act also requires the president to outline the cause for his decision to remove an IG. Beyond saying that he did not have the "fullest confidence" in Walpin, Obama gave no reason for his action.

There are two big questions about the president's actions. One, why did he decide to fire Walpin? And two, did he abide by the law that he himself co-sponsored?

According to Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, a strong advocate of inspectors general, Walpin received a call from the White House Counsel's office on Wednesday evening. Walpin was told that he had one hour to either resign or be fired. Senate sources say Walpin asked why he was being fired and, according to one source, "The answer that was given was that it's just time to move on. The president would like to have someone else in that position." Walpin declined to resign.

Grassley fired off a letter to the president on Thursday saying that, "I was troubled to learn that [Wednesday] night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated," Grassley wrote. "As you know, Inspectors General were created by Congress as a means to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and to be independent watchdogs ensuring that federal agencies were held accountable for their actions. Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure. This independence is the hallmark of all Inspectors General and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny."

Grassley's version of events suggests that the White House first tried to muscle Walpin out of his job without having to go through the 30-day process. It was only when Walpin refused to resign that the White House then notified Congress of the president's intention to fire Walpin.

The bigger question is why the president is doing this and why he is attempting to do it so quickly. Senate sources now believe Obama is firing Walpin over Walpin's investigation of Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and a prominent supporter of the president.

Johnson, now the mayor of Sacramento, California, started a non-profit organization called St. Hope. The group's mission, according to its website, is "to revitalize inner-city communities through public education, civic leadership, economic development and the arts." As part of its work, St. Hope received a grant of about $850,000 from AmeriCorps.

Last year, Walpin began an investigation of how Johnson's group spent the money. According to the Associated Press, "[Walpin] found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car." Walpin asked federal prosecutors to investigate. In April, the U.S. attorney in Sacramento, a Bush holdover, declined to file any criminal charges in the matter and also criticized Walpin's investigation.

That might suggest that St. HOPE was OK, and it was Walpin who was in the wrong. But at the same time prosecutors decided not to file any charges against St. HOPE, the U.S. attorney's office also entered into a settlement with St. HOPE in which the group also agreed to pay back about half of the $850,000 it had received from AmeriCorps.

In his letter to the president, Grassley defended Walpin's performance. "There have been no negative findings against Mr. Walpin by the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), and he has identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds either wasted outright or spent in violation of established guidelines," Grassley wrote. "In other words, it appears he has been doing his job. "

The bottom line is that the AmeriCorps IG accused a prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. After an investigation, the prominent Obama supporter had to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. And Obama fired the AmeriCorps IG.

[chumdawg]

It takes a lot of personal-errand-running and car washing to add up to 400K. Surely there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.

[Mavdog]

yes, there is a lot more to the story...
-------------------------------------------------------
More Details Emerge In President Obama's Firing of Inspector General
June 13, 2009 8:37 AM

It was Wednesday evening and Gerald Walpin was pleading for his job.
Just a few hours before, at around 5:20 pm, Walpin -- , Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) -- was driving on a highway when he had received a phone call from Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, informing him that President Obama no longer had confidence in him and wanted him to resign.

Walpin had an hour to make up his mind as to whether he was going to resign or have the president seek his suspension and termination, as indicated in email from Walpin to Eisen obtained by ABC News.

(A White House official tells ABC News that on Wednesday afternoon, "Walpin was informed, as a courtesy, of the president's decision to replace him. Mr. Walpin asked for time to consider resigning. He was told the decision to replace him was final, but for logistical reasons having to do with preparing the Congressional notifications, he could call back within the hour if he chose to resign.")*

In that email, as well as other documents surrounding Walpin's termination obtained by ABC News, a picture emerges of an ambitious and aggressive inspector general whose actions repeatedly offended officials of the US Attorney's office, to the point that the Republican-appointee in the US Attorney's office filed an official complain against the Republican-appointed Inspector General.

Walpin -- appointed to his job under President George W. Bush -- wrote to Eisen that "Congress intended the Inspector General of CNCS to have the utmost independence of judgment in his deliberations respecting the propriety of the agency's conduct and the actions of its officers. That is why the relevant statute provides that the President may remove the IG only if he supplies the Congress with a statement of his reasons--which is quite a different matter than executive branch officials who serve at his pleasure and can therefore be removed for any reason and without notification to Congress."

Walpin told Eisen that he took "this statutorily-mandated independence of my office very seriously, and, under the present circumstances, I simply cannot make a decision to respect or decline what you have said were the President's wishes within an hour or indeed any such short time."

Walpin had just issued two reports that were very critical of the actions taken by the Corporation for National and Community Service.

"It would do a disservice to the independent scheme that Congress has mandated--and could potentially raise questions about my own integrity--if I were to render what would seem to many a very hasty response to your request," Walpin wrote. "I heard your statement that this request that you communicated on behalf of the President and the timing of our reports and disagreement with the CNCS Board and management are 'coincidence,' as you put it on the phone, but I would suggest there is a high likelihood that others may see it otherwise."

Walpin said that he suspected that "when presented with the circumstances I have just discussed, the President will see the propriety of providing me additional time to reflect on his request. If however he believes that my departure is a matter of urgency, then he will have to take the appropriate steps toward ordering my removal, without my agreement."

The latter scenario is the one that played out, with President Obama informing congressional leaders of his decision in a letter stating that “it is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General. That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector general.”

In a follow-up letter, White House counsel Greg Craig -- responding to a letter of concern about Walpin’s termination from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa -- noted that Lawrence Brown, the “Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, a career prosecutor who was appointed to his post during the Bush Administration, has referred Mr. Walpin’s conduct for review by the Integrity Committee of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.”

Craig said that the White House was “aware of the circumstances leading to that referral and of Mr. Walpin’s conduct throughout his tenure and can assure you that that the president’s decision was carefully considered.” He noted that Walpin’s termination “is fully supported by the Chair of the Corporation (a Democrat) and the Vice-Chair (a Republican).”

As we detailed yesterday, Walpin was criticized by Acting US Attorney Brown for his handling of an investigation into the use of AmeriCorps funds by a community group called St. HOPE Academy, founded by Kevin Johnson, former point guard of the Phoenix Suns, who was elected Mayor of Sacramento last November and is an ally of the president’s.

In that April 29 letter from Brown to Kenneth Kaiser, chair of the Integrity Committee for the Counsel of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, the Acting US Attorney wrote "to express my Office's concerns about the conduct" of Walpin in the handling of the Johnson case.

"In our experience," Brown wrote in the letter obtained by ABC News, "the role of an Inspector General is to conduct an unbiased investigation, and then forward that investigation to my Office for a determination as to whether the facts warrant a criminal prosecution, civil suit or declination. Similarly, I understand that after conducting such an unbiased investigation, the Inspector General is not intended to act as an advocate for suspension or debarment. However, in this case Mr. Walpin viewed his role very differently. He sought to act as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier."

In April of this year, St. HOPE Academy agreed to pay a $423,836.50 settlement -- $72,836.50 of which would be paid personally by Mayor Johnson.

Brown expressed chagrin that US Attorney's office learned about the investigation into Johnson and St. HOPE through articles in the Sacramento Bee, and he said they found Walpin's comments surrounding the investigation unprofessional.

"Moreover, we considered the IG referral somewhat unusual in that it was accompanied by a letter from Mr. Walpin explaining that he viewed the conduct in this case as egregious and warranted our pursuing the matter criminally and civilly," he wrote.

On August 25 Brown's office met with Walpin and two investigators and "expressed our concerns that the conclusions in their report seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered in their investigation." For example, Brown wrote, Walpin's office had not actually done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent.

The next time Brown heard from Walpin's office, Brown wrote, was through the Bee a from a press release in which Walpin advocated to have St. HOPE, Johnson and Gonzales placed on the list of parties suspended from receiving federal funds -- a serious move that Brown suggests his office did not know about until reading it in a press release.

On September 26, Brown said, the then-US Attorney McGregor Scott "emphatically informed Mr. Walpin that under no circumstance was he to communicate with the media about a matter under investigation and that his acts "were hindering our investigation and handling of this matter."

Ultimately the US Attorney's office determined that "a significant portion of the AmeriCorps grant funds were appropriately expended." They concluded that Walpin's investigation was wanting. For instance, Walpin's referral of his investigation to the US Attorney's office concluded that St. HOPE AmeriCorps members performed no tutoring," but the principal of an elementary school told the US Attorney's office that wasn't true, that St. HOPE AmeriCorps members had performed tutoring at his school. Upon further investigation, Brown wrote, the US Attorney's office found that Walpin had received a similar statement from the principal "but did not include it in their report or disclose it" to his office.

Walpin "overstepped his authority by electing to provide my Office with selective information and withholding other potentially significant information at the expense of determining the truth," Brown concluded.

In his official response to Brown's complaint against him, Walpin referred to the Inspector General Act of 1978 which asserts that the IG has the duty to "[a]ssume a leadership role in any and all activities which he deems useful to promote economy and efficiency in the administration of programs and operations or prevent and detect...waste in such programs and operations."

"IG offices are not intended to shy away from communication to the public through the media," Walpin wrote.

He disputed that he hadn't informed the US Attorney's office that he was considering asking the Corporation for National and Community Service to have Kevin Johnson and St. HOPE suspended from receiving federal funds. "The only thing that the United States Attorney's Office did not know was whether and when the Corporation would act."

As for the exculpatory testimony of the principal, Walpin said he found it irrelevant since the principal had told them that he had not "physically observed members on a daily basis...conducting tutoring."
------------------------------------------------
and here is the letter written by the (republican appointee) us attorney
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Polit...eth_Kaiser.pdf

[Zaknaf3in]

Without having read anything in this thread - as I just finished the book Mr. Obama wrote in 1995, I just have to say: Awesome man, awesome story - hopefully awesome things happening during his reign.

[dude1394]

VERY awesome things are happening during his reign.

[dude1394]

Yes there is more to the story...but the main one is that someone wanted Walpin shut up so that Barry's supporter and sacremento could get their hands on the money. It's about money and getting Barry's man some more of it. I'm sure Barry is checking up on all of the DA's so closely.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../06/023805.php

Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General responsible for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that runs AmeriCorps, was fired by Barack Obama after he blew the whistle on waste of government funds by a nonprofit run by Obama supporter Kevin Johnson, the Mayor of Sacramento. (It apparently is undisputed that Johnson was using AmeriCorps funds to pay people to wash his car, run errands for him, and so on.) Walpin's effort to discharge his duties got him in hot water not only with Johnson, but also with the Corporation's head, Alan Solomont, a Democratic Party fundraiser and Obama crony, and the acting U.S. Attorney in Sacramento.


We wrote about Obama's firing of Walpin here. Now, Walpin has given an interview and more details of the incident have come to light. Byron York explains that Walpin's firing grew out of Sacramento's desire to get its hands on millions of dollars in federal "stimulus" money:

The White House's decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin came amid politically-charged tensions inside the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that runs AmeriCorps. Top executives at the Corporation, Walpin explained in an hour-long interview Saturday, were unhappy with his investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California and a prominent supporter of President Obama. Walpin's investigation also sparked conflict with the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento amid fears that the probe -- which could have resulted in Johnson being barred from ever winning another federal grant -- might stand in the way of the city receiving its part of billions of dollars in federal stimulus money. After weeks of standoff, Walpin, whose position as inspector general is supposed to be protected from influence by political appointees and the White House, was fired.

The proposition that Sacramento could lose its stimulus money if Johnson was barred, as Walpin wanted, from receiving federal grant money, seems dubious to me as a legal proposition. But a lawyer retained by the City came to that conclusion, as the Sacramento Bee reported:

The city of Sacramento likely is barred from getting federal money -- including tens of millions the city is expecting from the new stimulus package -- because Mayor Kevin Johnson is on a list of individuals forbidden from receiving federal funds, according to a leading attorney the city commissioned to look into the issue.

So the investigation had to be swept under the rug quickly, and Walpin had to go. Obama had one of his White House lawyers call Walpin and demand that he resign within an hour. When Walpin refused to quit, Obama fired him without giving a reason other than his supposed lack of "fullest confidence" in Walpin. This certainly violated the spirit, and may have violated the letter of the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act, which Obama co-sponsored. (I think it probably did.) This is classic Obama--ignoring a statute which he himself had sponsored just a year earlier.


Everything that we know about the Walpin episode so far contributes to the picture we are getting of the Obama administration--its fondness for bullying tactics; its lawlessness; its cronyism; its lack of transparency; its eagerness to crush anyone who gets in the way of Democratic Party corruption. I'm afraid we're going to see many similar stories over the next 3 1/2 years.


A final observation: it is inexplicable that many liberals who are convinced that money in politics is the source of corruption nevertheless believe that the government can spread around $800 billion in what can charitably be described as disorganized fashion without engendering corruption. I don't believe that the love of money is the root of all evil, but it does account for a significant chunk of it.