First Conservative - Political Humor and Obamatudes

President Obama stepped into the world of automobile manufacturing yesterday by firing the CEO of General Motors and slapping an ultimatum on Chrysler Corp. to seek a merger with Italian automaker Fiat.  When asked what his credentials were to make such moves, Obama simply replied “we have to do something.”  Obama now has two central themes that run through all public appearances.  One, blame George W. Bush for all problems, and justify all decisions with the philosophy that “we have to do something.”

In taking action at General Motors though, Obama may have significantly overstepped both his expertise as well as his political will.  By stepping into this mess with taxpayer dollars, the President Himself is now the de-facto CEO of the company.  And the shareholders – read voters – will hold him accountable.  He will learn to hate being in this position.  The President’s background as a community organizer certainly positions him to understand the intricacies of automobile manufacturing. 

The interesting part of the GM saga will unfold in a couple months when a new restructuring plan will be revealed.  Prior to receiving additional public money, GM was required to produce a plan for its survival.  Obama judged the one already received to be insufficient, so he fired Wagoner and sent Interim CEO Fritz Henderson back to work on another plan.  That gives Team Obama more time to make recovery impossible.

Survival plans generally focus on producing products that the public wants more efficiently or at greater profitability per unit.   Apparently understanding consumer tastes and preferences better than GM staff, Team Obama immediately mandated that GM focus more manufacturing capacity on production of higher numbers of fuel efficient cars and fewer numbers of trucks.  As displayed in the Stimulus package, the Team also displayed financial management skill by making these mandates without regard to potential retooling or plant modification costs.  Also giving US consumers great cause for concern is the reasoning that trucks will be in relatively lower demand while gas-sipping, shoulder crunching small cars will be in greater demand should gasoline exceed $4.00 per gallon.  Obama certainly has plans to drive oil to this price level by strangling production, providing pretext to seize oil companies.

The interesting part of Obama’s GM recovery plan will occur at the point where the public as well as the administration realize that GM is a lost cause in current form.  Customers simply will not purchase small cars unless they absolutely have to.  And even then, they may prefer to hang on to their current vehicles.  This will leave Team Obama with a massive revenue shortage on top of taxpayer expenditures that were supposed to tide the company over until recovery. 

At this point, Obama can throw more taxpayer money into the organization to prop it up for another period of time.  He could lay off tens of thousands of UAW workers himself to cut necessary costs.  A third option would be to let the company go bankrupt and reorganize under Chapter 11.  In that instance though, he will be severely pressured to keep UAW contract agreements in place.  The President probably doesn’t have the backbone to lay off UAW workers himself.  He wouldn’t mind if someone else did it so he could lead the chorus of outrage, but he wouldn’t do it himself.  Since union agreements are a significant part of why GM has failed, Obama may have to revert to option 1 – throwing another huge taxpayer bailout before congress.  

Another bail out would occur well past Obama’s 100 day honeymoon period.  The public is already sick of expanding spending.  Opponents have already targeted key Democrats who will be looking for a way to tell constituents in their main-street districts why their government signed over a huge amount of their money to save the United Auto Workers from being laid off – after many constituents themselves have been put out of work.  It will be a tough sell.

President Obama seems adept at dodging responsibility for his actions.  His intervention in GM though, will be too high-profile to ignore.  Since the President can’t take meaningful action without upsetting taxpayers or key constituents like the UAW or other Michigan Democrat groups, he will have to figure out which course is the least damaging and which elements can be blamed on someone else.
Obama’s speechwriters will be significantly challenged to find a way to blame this on Bush.   At least that part might be entertaining.

After successfully attracting a majority of both Catholic and Hispanic voters, Team Obama’s leading international emissary displayed unbelievable ignorance of both Catholic and Hispanic heritage on her recent visit to Mexico City.  There to discuss drug wars, she successfully drew attention away from guns and cross-border issues by committing a gaffe that would have had George W. Bush exhiled to Mars.

Politico and others report that Clinton, when being shown the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, asked of her entourage, “who painted it?” 

The image is said to have miraculously appeared on the cloak of shepherd Juan Diego in the year 1531.  The Mexican press is rightfully having a field day with this.  There is nothing like a genuine insult to the nation to take one’s mind off kidnappings and murders occuring each day.  At least the Mexicans now know what kind of administration they have to deal with.

One can’t make this stuff up.  Had George W. Bush said anything like this, the media would be in a lather over how stupid and uninformed anyone that uttered this would be.  Dutifully, most media have ignored the story.

Having learned the lesson that pushing the Secretary to testify before Congress only reinforces the view that the administration has no understanding of a free economy, Team Obama chose friendlier turf for their star economic spokesperson by choosing Meet the Press with David Gregory.   Among the more interesting revelations was Geithner’s admonition that individuals must “learn to live within our means.”

Gregory allowed Geithner to coast through a series of softball questions free of meaningful follow up.  Platitudes and diatribes about the government having to do something about the economic crisis went unqualified and undefined.  Concluding the interview, Gregory asked “In the long run, is this crisis necessary for this economy?” 

The bright side for Democrats is that the crisis is being ginned up to ensure future Democrat control over formerly free institutions.  Banking, auto manufacturing, insurance, health care, energy, and on and on… will be consolidated under Democrat control with the willing consent of uninformed voters and an uncurious media.   Answering this question, though, Geithner simply responded that we all have to “learn to live within our means.”   Gregory failed to ask that if the crisis was necessary, aren’t all recessions necessary from time to time to correct market imbalances?  Gregory concluded his obligation by failing to ask why “living within our means” does not apply to government policy.   

Even weak journalistic effort would be welcomed by a public that is seriously and rightfully concerned that Obama misread his election as a mandate to nationalize the economy.  Focusing instead on Geithner’s statement that living within our means would just mean that individuals should not take on debt or other obligations that they cannot meet, Gregory nodded and let the issue drop.

An active journalist would have asked why then if living within our means is such a good idea, why does the federal government insist on a running up a record level of debt?  If it is good for individuals to build a solid economic foundation by not overborrowing and overspending,  why does this not apply to governmental institutions?  And after incredible increase in debt levels, why does the administration continue to state that it will “cut the deficit in half” when every single person that can add and subtract knows this is impossible given the level of spending commitments contained in the Stimulus and Budget packages?

In the end, Gregory failed to pursue these lines of questions, preferring to listen to the administration’s wunderkind explain why the nation will be better off if government takes over key pieces of the economy.  Interestingly, the Meet the Press brass determined that it wouldn’t be totally fair to let Geithner have the floor for the entire program and therefore dredged up an inarticulate and un-passionate conservative spokesperson in Arizona Senator John McCain.  If – as most of the media believes – that Rush Limbaugh is the spokesperson for the GOP – why not bring him on instead of McCain?  The obvious answer is that Limbaugh would make both Geithner and Gregory look terrible by providing reasoned examples of why the Geithner/Obama plan is going to fail.  NBC also doesn’t want to keep pumping up Limbaugh’s audience and as Meet the Press is their show, NBC is not going to let anyone make them appear to be uninformed, uncurious and carrying the water for the Obama administration – even though they are.

When Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner begins a statement with the phrase “you have to understand,” most investors hit the sell button on their Wall Street web accounts. 

Geithner on Meet the Press this morning revealed again that the Obama administration has no real plan to fix the economy.  In the ‘duh’ statement of the year, when asked what the core reason for banking crisis was, Geithner responded that banks “took on too much risk.” Meet the Press Interviewer David Gregory seemed stunned enough to avoid the obvious follow up questions that should have run something like “what conditions led to banks assuming too much risk?”  and “wouldn’t it make better sense to fix the reasons that banks took on too much risk before spending  trillions of dollars or taking them over?”  Instead, Geithner enjoyed smooth sailing and a Sunday walk in the park.

Following the tried and thus far true Obama interview methodology, Geithner repeatedly used the reasoning that in response to the current recession, the government had to do something.  Even dragging out Obama’s favorite word “inherited,” Geithner pushed blame to previous administrations for existence of the current crisis.   Gregory jumped into Geithner’s corner by dutifully failing to press Geithner with questions about the specifics of what “do something” actually means besides spending an outrageous sum of money.  Most importantly, Gregory avoided the single most important question – why will the Obama plan make things better and not worse?   In fairness, Gregory did try to raise this question – sort of -  but fell into the Obama trap by allowing Geithner to take up the airtime with diatribes on how bad the situation was and how great is the need for action now.   Geithner never actually answered the question nor was he pressed by serious journalistic effort to reveal specifics.

Gregory made a routine effort to ask why Geithner and Obama had expressed outrage over the AIG bonuses when in fact they were the ones that created the bonus provision in the first place.  By inserting bonus language via the Dodd amendent to the Stimulus package, Geithner and Obama specifically approved the bonus plan.  Obama and Geithner then led the chorus of outrage against the bonuses when it became public knowledge.  Gregory gently pressed the issue, but again allowed Geithner to suck up the airtime with a speech on how bad the economy is and why the government has to take drastic action now. 

Perhaps it is beneficial that Gregory didn’t pin Geithner down on his plans.  The market opens in less than 24 hours.   On most previous instances of Geithner’s previous public Q&A sessions, the people that invest their own money are reminded that the current administration has no clue regarding how an economy actually works on Main Street.   They watched as Geithner was allowed to deliver platitudes instead of answers.   

In previous instances, the market tanks when Geithner talks.  When Geithner talks, people sell.

An old story told by utility workers in the late seventies went something like, “When an environmentalist calls to tell you his power is out, tell him to put on a sweater.  When his pipes freeze, tell him to wait for spring. When his children get cold, tell him to stop having them.”  We need to dust off that old storyline.

Worldwide users of energy have been asked by environmentally concerned groups to curtail use of power for one hour this Saturday to bring worldwide attention to the concept of global warming.  Shutting down spotlights on famous landmarks is all well and good and does save whatever energy it takes to light them, but this won’t be a significant accomplishment.  Earth Hour will be heralded as a first step in building a global coalition to fight global warming.  Unfortunately, it will be the first step in a global campaign to pressure the US into solving the world’s energy problems.

The Chinese build multiple dirty-coal fired power plants each week.  Supporting their population is the common excuse for allowing China to continue as the worlds worst polluter and worst producer of the gasses blamed for global warming.  The Chinese at least understand that no one wants to live cold and in the dark, and its cheap energy grid allows production of cheap goods and services.  The Chinese government is extremely adept at selling the labor of its people and understands exactly what input costs of manufacturing (including energy) are.   The Chinese government is a better free market enterprise than many US citizens give it credit for.  Because cheap power is necessary for the comfort of its people as well as for the economic engine that keeps them fed, China will never change its power supply model regardless of what the environmentalists do.

Environmentalists and Democrats here at home understand this argument and have decided on their course of action - blame the United States!  With a compliant and uncurious media, this sells well.  Blaming the US for world problems - including the Mexican drug wars - is popular sport.   It just fits that the US would be the main culprit for dirty power coming out of China.  The Obama administration has enabled this line of reasoning and has taken it one step further.  When Hillary Clinton went to Mexico this week to claim responsibility for a role in the Mexican drug wars, she indicated that American appetite for illegal drugs was at least partially to blame.  It would follow then that the US should contribute to solving the problem.  Now, look for Obama and the Democrats to blame American consumption of cheap Chinese goods for the global warming problem.  This will therefore make it our problem to fix.   Just as in Mexico and their terrible drug wars, the US will be asked to assume responsibility for keeping the Chinese people warm in winter without enlarging the global carbon footprint.  

Hillary Clinton today journeyed to Mexico to offer US assistance in fighting drug and arms trafficking that are threatening to impact US cities. Playing for support south of the border, she stated that the US has a responsibility and a role to play in solving these problems.  Inserting the US government and taxpayers into this hornet’s nest is a huge mistake - similar to the bank bail outs.

Bankers were roasted by Congress some weeks ago for paying bonuses, flying on corporate jets and other behavior that is normally not considered anti-American.  Never mind that a good number of these folks were contributors to the Democrat party, Congress lit them up anyway.  After threatening to cap banker’s salaries, it was pointed out to the Obama administration that a number of these guys did in fact contribute substantially to Democrat candidates.  Obama then backed off his threat, saying that he didn’t want to create a ‘brain-drain’ in the US banking industry.  Nice Save.
‘
Knowing that the US government had positioned itself to intervene to save banking institutions, bankers failed to take the necessary actions to improve their balance sheets.  Savvy financial managers understood that layoffs and perhaps even Chapter 11 protection would be required to reorganize assets and set their banks up for future success.  However, knowing that the US taxpayers were set to intervene, CEOs paid themselves as usual and took none of the action necessary to prevent the banking mess.  Taxpayers are now bailing out the Democrat-supporting CEOs as well as their institutions.

Hillary’s trip to Mexico outlines a similar but much more deadly scenario.  After claiming some responsibility for the problems, Clinton placed the United States in exactly the same position relative to the banking industry.  Bankers knew the US would intervene and therefore did nothing.  The Mexican government - significantly controlled by the drug cartels - now knows the US has committed to intervene.  The problem is that there really isn’t much the US can do other than curtail consumption of illegal drugs (and that won’t happen).   Expecting the US to help will only further paralyze the Mexican government. 

Solving the drug trafficking problem must be done by the Mexican people themselves.  Unfortunately, only one side of this conflict is armed, and it is not the good guys.  In typical leftist fashion, Clinton wants to stop the flow of arms into Mexico in the naive belief that this will reduce violence.  What should be considered is increasing the flow of arms and make sure that each Mexican citizen has at least a fighting chance to survive.  If good and law-abiding Mexicans are unarmed, they will quickly perish.  

Clinton and Obama’s view of this conflict needs to be extremely sober.  They must decide right now what the United States is committed to do - will we simply wall off the border and let the Mexicans fight it out?  Or will the US intervene with necessary military force to defeat the guys with the guns?  The simplistic view that stopping the flow of guns will allow the Mexicans to regain their country is foolhardy and dangerous.  It will cause Mexico to cease its internal actions and expect that a reduced flow of arms will improve its situation.  A real civil war is coming to Mexico. Obama’s intervention can only make it worse.

Hope and Change require investments of faith, not reason. Too much thought is bad for the Obama plan. 

President Barack Obama is pulling out all the stops.  Creating crisis after crisis, He has positioned Himself as the true savior of the country.  Simply the pace of his activity brings comfort to some.  CNN’s imbibing commentator Jack Cafferty feels good that at least someone is doing something to prevent the country from being driven into the ground. . 
We will see how Cafferty feels in a couple of months.  The country is awash in so much debt that even now we are scolded by Europeans and the Chinese about how this level of borrowing is both unsustainable and will act as an anchor to other national economies.   They have experimented with Socialism enough to know it doesn’t work.  Additionally, they won’t purchase our T-bills even now. Even Democrats understand this is bad.  Yes, the country is in trouble, but it is in deep trouble from Obama himself and from a compliant and tragically uncurious media.  The media is made up of performers and no longer of journalists who insist on getting facts to the public. 

Taking over the country in 90 days is clearly Obama’s objective.  Utilizing parliamentary maneuver to avoid discussion on universal health care and ‘cap and trade’ is a clear indication that team Obama understands that it has to accomplish its objectives before the country has time to understand the consequences of these actions.  Trumpeting the theme that health care costs are driving the deficit, Obama has removed all analysis from his campaign.  Health care costs are indeed significant, but they are not driving the deficit.  Health care costs contribute to the deficit through government mandates that require illegal aliens to be treated free of charge at emergency rooms across the country.  Government support for trial lawyers also fuels health care costs as massive punitive damage awards are paid out to lawyers and not victims of medical mistakes.  No one of clear mind would not award a victim sufficient damages for actual losses from lost work and productivity, but punitive damages drive the insurance costs of providing health care through the roof.  More importantly, the legal parasites that make their living off mistakes of others drive many bright young minds into fields other than medicine.  Much can be done to reduce health care costs without the government taking it over.

Comrade Obama believes that taking over health care will improve health care for all Americans.  Here is where facts get in the way.  There simply aren’t enough primary care physicians to provide this level of service. And there will be a very significant retirement rate in the next ten years, so the supply will constrict even more.  The inevitable result of this will be a shortage of and rationing of health care.   British MP David Hannan this week warned Americans about attempts to provide health care through a governmental entity saying that British medical boards ration care and pharmaceuticals based on who has longer to live should they be provided these treatments.  The lefties who designed this healthcare model are unapologetic.  You are older and have a medical condition requiring treatment?  Good Luck - it is probably over for you.   Obama will no doubt figure out a way to dodge responsibility for this as well.  He may also ride the inevitable wave of public anger as he did with the AIG bonuses to campaign against a situation that - again - he created.  The media will have no clue as to what happened.

Obama’s version of Hope and Change requires a willing suspension of disbelief.  And the Jack Cafferty’s of the world are all too willing to join Obama and not invest any brain energy to understand what He proposes.

A battle is brewing between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate finance Committee over whether or not to use a procedural maneuver to limit debate on President Obama’s health care reform initiatives.  Pelosi is pushing for a tactic that allows the Senate to limit debate and move health care through the same legislative channel as budget action - requiring only a 50% majority for passage.  This would eliminate the possibility of Republican filibuster and guarantee passage. 

Health care legislation is so sweeping, that Baucus is rightfully concerned that lack of debate will mean that the Democrats are completely responsible for all associated political liabilities.  Health care legislation is so expensive, that Democrats alone will have to justify the costs to the country in the midst of a severe recession.  Not wanting his party to sail dangerous waters alone, Baucus is looking for Republican allies.  Pelosi on the other hand only answers to a handful of lunatic San Francisco voters and couldn’t care less about any political downside. 

One would hope that Baucus’ main reasons for opposing using finance rules to pass health care reform would be found in understanding that voters are entitled to be equally represented and those representatives are entitled to be heard.  Ramrodding something as major as health care reform through the Senate with limited debate and without bipartisan support is akin to passing a declaration of war without discussion.  Democrats have grown fearful that Republicans have just enough votes in the Senate to block major legislation through filibuster.  As Sens. Specter, Snowe and Collins faced the wrath of conservatives over their support of the Stimulus legislation, they are somewhat less available to again turn their coats and support another exceptionally expensive Democrat initiative.   This leaves very few opportunities for Democrats to achieve the magic number of 60 votes in the Senate required to cut off debate and move the health care measure to a vote.  And as the Obama Honeymoon is winding down Pelosi is watching the window of opportunity close for passing major legislation such as health care reform, so called ‘cap and trade’ energy policy, and union card check.

Utilizing a procedural move to forever change the US health care system would forever modify Senate rules and protocol.  Republicans would never forgive being completely cut out of the discussion and would have no problem overturning or overhauling Democrat measures using the same tactic should they ever regain the majority.  Use of this tactic would effectively make all future legislation budget and tax oriented and therefore not subject to the 60 vote rule.  Achieving a 60 vote threshold nearly always requires bipartisanship and cooperation.  This is the balance the Senate was looking for when the 60 vote rule was established.  Budget votes are not subject to the 60 vote rule as the Senate sought to avoid shutting the government down should one side use a filibuster to prevent passage of a given budget.  Pelosi now wants to exploit this loophole in the 60 vote rule to take over a huge part of the US economy.

The concept of violating established rules and procedures for one particular action (although it should be noted that Baucus is under similar pressure to include ‘cap and trade’ in the budget process) would defeat the fundamental relationship of taxation and representation.  One of the principle claims going back to establishment of the nation was that taxation was imposed without a process by which the people could voice objections and have a reasonable opportunity to defeat the proposed tax.  Should Democrats use a parliamentary move to take over a significant part of the economy without a reasonable opportunity to discuss and defeat it, voters will have a legitimate claim that they are being taxed for health care costs without their consent or the reasonable consent of their elected representatives.  For Democrats, this is a sure ticket out of power.

If Pelosi and Obama were so sure that the country supports health care reform, a full and open debate would not be anything they would object to.  If health care reform proposed by Pelosi is so good for the country, the 60 vote threshold will not be a problem to achieve.  Should Democrats do an end run around Senate rules, the country will vocally object and Republicans will have a head start on the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Hillary Clinton this week embarked on a long road trip to bring the new message of Hope and Change to the world.  To celebrate, the North Korans are preparing to fire a missile - capable of hitting portions of the US - in her general direction.  Calling North Korea’s expected missile launch a “provocative act,” the North Koreans are sure to shrink from their test and invite Bruce Springsteen to play a concert in Pyongyang.    Clinton’s next mission is to visit the campus of Notre Dame to smooth the way for President Obama’s commencement speech later this spring. 

Diplomacy requires skilled interpersonal negotiation but effectiveness ultimately depends on the existence of a credible action in the event one party violates the rights of the other.  As Obama certainly doesn’t express the courage to confront evil or to present a credible threat to our potential enemies, the North Koreans are shaking in their shoes over Clinton statement of disapproval. 

The Obama model of diplomacy adheres much more to the 20th century European version which simply requires two parties to talk until an agreement is reached.  Should no agreement be reached, the parties agree to additional talk.  They then talk until no agreement is reached again and the entire process is repeated.  It is no surprise then that European negotiators rarely achieve anything.  In the case of North Korea, Clinton will express disapproval, the North Koreans will fire their missile over ally Japan’s territory, and Clinton will call the action regrettable.  Of course this will accomplish nothing other than to encourage those that have evil intentions towards the United States, to continue in their work.  It will also cause our allies - such as Japan -  to lose trust in the United States.

The United States as the only remaining superpower is by default the only nation capable of negotiating from a position of strength.  President Obama - as implied in his campaign -  has determined not to use strength in negotiations as it would be out of touch with the rest of the world.  Europe, Australia (who are to be commended for being one of the few other nations with the will to fight terrorism) and Japan however, count on the United States to be a strong ally.  Now that Obama is withdrawing US strength from most negotiating situations, Japan, Australia and Europe are getting nervous and North Korea, Iran and Muslim terrorists are preparing for action.  Perhaps a silver lining to all this is that Europe and other allies are seeing the need to become stronger.  French President Sarkozy has recently stated his intention to re-involve France in the military arm of NATO.  At least the French understand that if Obama is standing down in his obligations as leader of the western world, that someone - particularly a nuclear capable French Republic, will need to stand up and defend it.  Who would have thought a few years ago, that France might soon supplant the United States as the courageous defender of western civilization?  Vive La France!

This is what Hope and Change means to the international community.  It means that terrorists now have the Hope and our allies have to deal with the Change.  As Hillary visits Mexico this week, the drug cartels that run the country are sure to be intimidated by her words.

The Presidential Press Conference last evening was revealing.  The President continued his tradition of delivering a finely tuned speech before the nation with the aid of a teleprompter.  In that there is no surprise.  The surprises began occurring well into the performance when - of all people - CNN’s Ed Henry - asked why the President had waited three days to express outrage over the AIG bonus payments.  Obviously annoyed at the impertinent question, Obama said that he just wanted to be sure he knew what he was talking about before reacting.

Henry’s question illustrated a new movement within the media-watching part of the country.  Viewers are wondering why the President who had a major hand in manufacturing this controversy by pressuring Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticuit to include language allowing bonus payments in the Stimulus package would then express such outrage when it became apparent that the country was angry about paying bonuses with tax money.  Obama and his Treasury created this problem and then lead the performance of outrage against it.  Obama’s methodology discredits media providers by relying on them to keep quiet about things like including bonus language in the Dodd Amendent. 

CNN has seen it’s viewership decline in recent months.   When CBS News saw it’s ratings hit bottom, the organization incorrectly judged that performance quality was the problem and brought in Katie Couric.  Unfortunately, CBS News’ problem was credibility, not performance quality.  CNN in trying to rebuild its ratings needs to capture good news by asking difficult questions.  Unfortunately for CNN and Ed Henry, Obama wants no part of an aggressive media.

Team Obama has relied on it’s performance quality to fan the flames of outrage and build an atmostphere of crisis.  To do this, they need accomplices in the media that will continue to support the twin doom and gloom messages.  But when it is pointed out that the administration themselves created the AIG bonus outrage and then lead the charge against it, Obama couldn’t provide an answer and hit back against Henry with a flippant and condesending response.

The real issue now is how CNN responds to the slapdown of a decent question.  Will they continue to rollover before the Obama performance machine, or will they begin to do the work of a free media by investigating and revealing information that the President would rather be kept under wraps?