No Runny Eggs

2.5, 2.5 million jobs:

Obama outlines job-creation plan

 3.0, 3.0 million jobs:

 
Obama ups jobs goal to 3 million on bad economic news

3.5, 3.5 million jobs:

Obama: Stimulus will create 3.5 million jobs

And the latest:

Obama: Plan would create 4.1 million jobs

Clearly, President elect Barack Obama is “The One.”   There is no further discussion, the debate is over.   There must now be a consensus amongst the masses.    Not since the miracle of the loaves and fishes, have we seen an earthly being create any outcome desired simply with the imposition of an individual’s will.

Is Obama really that tone deaf or naive to not understand the credibility hit his already questionable plan takes, each time he announces a new  “outcome of the day?”

President elect Barack Obama made his first speech pitching the need for a massive government infusion to stimulate the economy.  

Parts of Obama’s speech sounded eerily like  statements made  last September as Ben Bernanke talked about the need for his bail out program.    Statements like:

We start 2009 in the midst of a crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime.  

I don’t believe it’s too late to change course, but it will be if we don’t take dramatic action as soon as possible.

and

We could lose a generation of potential and promise, as more young Americans are forced to forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs of the future. And our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world.    

I’ve always been skeptical of the “don’t ask questions, just do as I say approach.”   While there are times when debate about how/if/when is not helpful, like when your house is on fire, most situations are not that way.   Most situations benefit from some discussion, debate if you like, amongst folks with varying perspectives.   In all but the most rare situations you will find that this debate makes for a better action and end product.

There’s a lot to not like about Obama’s proposed stimulus package:   the size of it, the increase in government employment, one time tax cuts that were proven last year to have little effect stimulating the economy.   However, there was a  statement in Obama’s speech that clinched my opposition to his plan.      A statement that was intended by Obama, to cause me to agree with his approach did just the opposite.   What was the statement?   It was near the end of his speech:

That’s why I’m calling on all Americans – Democrats and Republicans – to put good ideas ahead of the old ideological battles; a sense of common purpose above the same narrow partisanship; and insist that the first question each of us asks isn’t "What’s good for me?" but "What’s good for the country my children will inherit?"

Six months ago it is unlikely that many of us had ever used the word “Trillion” in a conversation without it meaning some astronomical amount that it was not credible; it was a charicature of a real number.   Today, the folks in Washington talk about trillions of dollars of debt in an off hand manner, as if there  were no repercussions or consequences to adding debt in multiples of trillions.  

It doesn’t matter who or what your are, an individual, a family, a business or even the government, there are consequences to excessive debt.   Unfortunately, the folks in Washington have learned nothing from the sub prime bust and see no problem with dramatically increasing the governments debt.   But, I do.

What Barack Obama doesn’t understand is that if we really did make this decision based upon what was good for our children, rather than what was good for us, we would not move forward with his stimulus plan.   This stimulus plan is focused on removing some rather minimal and at worst, inconvenient pain from us and loading a great big debt load, along with further government interference on the lives of the Shoelets.  

“It’s for the children” may make a good tag line if your campaigning to add a pool to the local high school.   In this case, if it’s really for the children, then don’t do it, they’ll do much better without it.

Dear President elect Obama,

Before you charge head long into this:

Obama Warns of Irreversible Economic Decline Without Action

Or this:

Obama predicts $1 trillion deficit ‘for years to come’

You may want to read, and seriously consider the implications of this:

U.S. debt is losing its appeal in  China

And this:

MAJOR FOREIGN HOLDERS OF TREASURY SECURITIES

Sincerely,

Concerned Taxpayer

Here’s the boil down folks:

As of the end of October, before the really BIG debt sales, the US had increased it’s borrowings from foreign countries by 32% or $743B.   Of that increase, China took 26%, The United Kingdom took 28%, Caribbean banking centers took 14% and the remainder was spread throughout the world including $46 B to countries noted as “oil exporting countries.”

Do you see anyone in the current list of buyers that looks like their economy is doing well?

Do you see anyone in the current list that you would expect to be able to not only maintain their current debt purchases, but with softening economies, double or triple their purchases of US debt?

If China, who currently buys 26% of our debt, decides to cut back, do you see anyone ready, willing and able to not only increase their current purchases but pick up China’s part?

Obama and his administration have become solely focused on “stimulating the economy” and have gone so far as to say that they are not concerned about the consequences.   Somehow they would have us believe that they will find a magic pill to deal with those consequences when they come up.   The problem with this thinking is that it is the exact thinking that got us into this situation.

When Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke kept interest rates abnormally low from a historical to fuel growth for the past 10 years they didn’t worry about consequences.   Frankly, they didn’t think there were consequences.   Turns out they were wrong.   Now we know there will be consequences and we’re  choosing to ignore them.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice….

President Elect Barack Obama gave an extended interview to CNBC today.   Much of the interview focused on the economy and the stimulus package.   The full transcript is here.   The size of the stimulus package was discussed in this exchange:

HARWOOD: It looks like it’s going to be at the high end of your range, around $775 billion.

Pres.-elect OBAMA: That’s correct.

HARWOOD: If it’s correct that, as your aides have said, the danger is doing too little rather than doing too much…

Pres.-elect OBAMA: Right.

HARWOOD: …why stop at $775 billion? Why not go to the $1.2 trillion that some economists have recommended? …

Pres.-elect OBAMA: Well, first of all I think it’s important to note that every economist, conservative or liberal, at this point agrees that we have to have a substantial recovery plan that helps to jump-start the economy, that short term it’s going to be expensive, but it would be much more expensive to see the economy continue in the tailspin that it’s been going in. We’ve seen ranges from 800 to 1.3 trillion and our attitude was that given the legislative process, if we start towards the low end of that, we’ll see how it develops. We are concerned…

HARWOOD: It’s going to get bigger.

Pres.-elect OBAMA: Well, we don’t know yet. But what we are concerned about is making sure that the money is spent wisely, that there’s oversight, that there’s transparency…   (emphasis mine)

Transparency and oversight are great but what’s this nonsense about starting at the low end and negotiating up?   Didn’t Obama just yesterday say:

“he will not allow Congress to attach any of those earmarks — lawmaker’s pet projects — to the stimulus bill.”

If no “pork,” “pet projects” or “earmarks” are added to the bill, and Barack has done his homework, how would the stimulus bill grow by up to 80% from what Obama is proposing?   Maybe Obama is taking Harry Reid to heart when he was quoted as saying:

I will tell him. "¦ I do not work for Barack Obama.

Providing the first insight about his views on fiscal responsibility, Barack Obama today told reporters that:

the nation could face “trillion-dollar deficits for years to come.”

How can that be?   I mean, I knew that this year was a complete write off but “for years to come?”

The last budget forecast from the Congressional Budget Office showed that we were going to run about a $455 B deficit for FY ’08.   Of course this was before the CBO understood how quickly revenues were decreasing.   It was also before the CBO, or the rest of us, knew that Hank and company were going to get their hands on $700 B to spend helping their friends.

After taking into account the most recent realities, the CBO will provide new projections with an expectation that it will now be $1T.   The $1T is before any of of the latest, proposed stimulus package but would include at least the initial tranche of Hank’s play money.

OK, so let’s walk this back…

The difference between the new $1T deficit and the old $455 B deficit is $555B.   It’s probably safe to say that the first part of  of Hanks play money, say $350B, is included in the new deficit.   That leaves revenue reductions of about $200B.

If we attempted to “normalize” the new deficit to Barack’s world, we would take the $1T, back out Hank’s “one time” spending spree of $350B and back down the $300B per year of spending in Iraq that we’re doing because we should have all troops back stateside or in the cost free combat zone of Afghanistan, by the end of January.   That would suggest that even if the economy never improved and we just rolled forward, Barack’s normalized annual deficit should be about $350B.   Of course if the economy does come back some we could expect that other $200B and perhaps even some of the original $455B deficit to come back bringing us closer and closer to a balanced budget.

So where’s the other $650B + each year coming from to make the ongoing deficit become $1T?

It’s not taxes.   Remember that Barack kept telling us throughout the campaign that while he was going to be decreasing taxes on the “middle class”, he was going to increase them on the “rich.”   We’re were told that the net result would be that 95% of the people would get a “tax break” but that overall taxes would stay the same.  

I guess that means that if revenue – expenses = deficit and revenue is the same or improving, the only way to increase a deficit is to increase expenses and if the $650B number is accurate, by a dramatic amount as our current federal budget is only about $3.2 T!

But wait, wasn’t Barack the candidate who told us:

Q: This year’s deficit will reach $455 billion. Won’t some programs you are proposing have to be eliminated?

OBAMA: Every dollar I’ve proposed, I’ve proposed an additional cut that it matches. To give an example, we spend $15 billion a year on subsidies to insurance companies. It doesn’t help seniors get better. It’s a giveaway. I want to go through the federal budget line by line, programs that don’t work, we cut. Programs we need, we should make them work better.

I can’t say that I really liked the tax and spend liberals much but at least they understood economics enough to know that you couldn’t borrow yourself to prosperity.   The new Democrats having been educated with the new math, no longer carry any pretense of balancing a budget, they go straight to “Spend!”

It looks like President elect Obama will carry one characteristic from his campaign to his Presidency, promises with expiration dates.

With just a few days left in the year, this is the time when numerous publications put out “Top 10” lists of events and other notoriety from the year that is about to finish.   In this article from the UK Telegraph, Oxford University puts out its top 10  most irritating  phrases for the year.   “At the end of the day,” “24/7” and “it’s not rocket science” are three of their most offensive phrases.

I’m not very good at year end top 10 lists. I find that my memory doesn’t retain enough items to make a successful list. In fact, most times when I see a top 10 list I’ll read it and go “oh yeah, I’d forgotten about those 3 or 4 items.” Yet, I still feel the need to participate in these year end remembrances so I’ve found a way to use my limited memory to best use; I’ll create a list for the year that is coming up.

So, without further ado, my sole entry for most hated phrase of 2009 is:

Shovel Ready

“Shovel Ready” is not a new term, it’s been around for a while.   It has typically been used in property development and meant a piece of real estate that had been through all of the proper approvals, planning  and zoning and was ready to begin construction immediately.   In 2009 “Shovel Ready” will be certainly used to describe a project for which a quick start could be had but it will also be used in other ways.

President elect Obama continues to ponder the mother of all stimulus bills.   He’s asked Governors, Congress persons and others to submit lists of “Shovel Ready” projects that are being held up due to a lack of funding.   The theory is that by having the Federal government spend money on projects it will stimulate employment and get infrastructure built that would otherwise sit on the drawing board.  

Unfortunately, with the only criteria for submission being “shovel ready,” we’re already seeing that “shovel ready” does not equate “needed,” “cost effective,” or “smart.”   According to the Star and Tribune, included in “shovel ready” projects are:

$4.8 million for a polar bear exhibit in Rhode Island and $1.5 million for a water slide in Florida.

And, in the district of King porker himself, Minnesota Democrat Jim Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, we see the requests for the following:

$2 million for a lake-walk extension at Beacon Point and $6 million for snowmaking and maintenance facilities at Spirit Mountain.

Can anyone explain to me how leaving these four projects, and I’m sure many more like them, on the drawing board would hurt our chances of economic recovery?

Each of Oxford list of irritating phrases was originally used   within their true purpose.   However, in time and through over use, the phrases became perverted to mean something other than their original intent.   The same will happen to “Shovel Ready.”   By the end of 2009, “Shovel Ready,” rather than a project that can quickly be initiated, will come to mean anything that couldn’t pass economic muster by well thinking people but got shoved down the public’s throat for the benefit of some minority constituency, anyway.

Come to think of it, “shovel ready” will likely have one other meaning in 2009.   Anytime you hear that something is “shovel ready” you can easily assume that what will be shoveled near term isn’t any dirt, but a lot of manure as the person selling their project tries to get common sense pushed aside and political graft inserted.

In an Oped piece in the Washington Post  yesterday, one of Barack Obama’s economic advisers, Lawrence Summers attempted to lay out the reasons for the next, still growing, stimulus package.   The stimulus package was originally discussed to be in the $600 billion range.   However, as Obama gets closer to his first attempt at sitting in the driver’s seat the numbers have continued to rise.   Lately, the  range  discussed has been as high as  $1 trillion.

Summers takes a typical liberal approach to spending lots of money that has no profit or benefit on the near term horizon; we’re investing in our future:

The Obama plan represents not new public works but, rather, investments that will work for the American public. Investments to build the classrooms, laboratories and libraries our children need to meet 21st-century educational challenges. Investments to help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by spurring renewable energy initiatives (many of which are on hold because of the credit crunch). Investments to put millions of Americans back to work rebuilding our roads, bridges and public transit systems. Investments to modernize our health-care system, which is necessary to improve care in the short term and key to driving down costs across the board.

Funny, I seem to remember a lot of chatter from the portion of the “15th Century, here we come” Left that told us that drilling for oil on our shores wasn’t worth doing because it would take years before we would see the benefit.   Now we have the left telling us that “investments” that will take years to pay off are the right thing to do….anyone else confused?

Along with “investing for the future,” Summers uses the “it’s all about jobs” argument for spending billions of dollars we don’t have:

A key pillar of the Obama plan is job creation. In the face of deteriorating economic forecasts, Obama has revised his goal upward, to 3 million. For one thing, significantly fewer positions would be created in the absence of any recovery plan. Second, more than 80 percent of these 3 million jobs will be in the private sector, including emerging sectors such as environmental technology. This is a bold goal. But economists across the political spectrum recognize that it is far less risky to stand firmly against the forces propelling our economy downward than to be timid in the face of a mounting crisis.

The creation of 3 million jobs is a new target.   Obama’s original plan was a modest 2.5 million but as the economy has continued to soften Obama has stepped up his replacement plan.   The extra jobs is part of the reason why the amount of stimulus has increased.

A commentary by Caroline Baum uses comments by Paul O’Neill to show how inefficient the stimulus will be in terms of creating jobs:

O’Neill did the math so you don’t have to. Each job "will cost $250,000, which doesn’t suggest much labor intensity for the dollars spent," he said. "It makes me wonder if any of the planners or commentators are good at arithmetic."

Well of course they’re not but that’s beside the point.  

The real question in this is whether Obama’sstimulus plan can actually create 3 million jobs?   If he can, how will he and what silver bullet of economic development does he know that mere mortals in economics don’t?   The answer is found hidden, but accessible with a little work, smack in the middle of Summers’ oped:

A key pillar of the Obama plan is job creation. In the face of deteriorating economic forecasts, Obama has revised his goal upward, to 3 million. For one thing, significantly fewer positions would be created in the absence of any recovery plan. Second, more than 80 percent of these 3 million jobs will be in the private sector, including emerging sectors such as environmental technology. This is a bold goal. But economists across the political spectrum recognize that it is far less risky to stand firmly against the forces propelling our economy downward than to be timid in the face of a mounting crisis.   (emphasis mine)

At first blush that statement doesn’t really seem like much; 80% in the private sector sounds good.   However, that leaves 20% in the public/government sector.   Again, doesn’t sound too bad, at first blush.   According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there are approximately 144 million people employed.   Of that, just under 2 million are employed by the federal government. State and local governments employ another 8 Million for a total government employment of about 10 million.

If 3 million jobs get created and they break down 80% private and 20% public, that would mean that 2.4 million jobs are created for private enterprise and 600,000 are added to the government ranks.   2.4 million jobs on top of the 134 million private sector jobs means that Obama’s plan will increase the private sector by 1.8%.   In contrast, adding 600,000 jobs to the existing 10 million government jobs means that Obama’s plan will grow the government sector by 6%, more than 3X what he plans to do for the private sector.  

Just to keep the “it’s for the children” crowd happy, I’ll do the math assuming that Obama really means the 20% to include education.   There are approximately 8 million public school employees.   Taking those from the private and adding them to the public still leaves the private sector getting less than 60% of the growth that Obama has slated for the public sector.

Lest you think I’m one of those folks that thinks government employees are a complete waste of time, I’m not.   Like cats, there are some useful purposes for them.   Also like cats, good etiquette keeps me from describing on a public forum, what  most of those useful purposes are.

Here’s the point, increasing employment by adding government employees is easy.   How tough is it to hire a bunch of people to do nothing particularly useful beyond increasing the rolls of union paying members?   The trick in this is how is Obama going to pay for those jobs long term?   Adding jobs to government when you are about to inherit an  $11 trillion debt and an annual deficit under the best circumstances that will be $500 billion, is the same as the folks who took out the 110% home equity loans but found that they couldn’t afford the payments when the interest rates went up.

It’s ironic that to justify this massive government spending, Summers is willing to discount and downplay near term benefits claiming that this is being done for our future.   I wish he was just as concerned about the future implications of the debt and bureaucracy that will be created.   Again, like the folks who bet on ever increasing home valuations and income streams, I wonder if we’ll be able to afford the payments?

As the bail out of The Big 3 has been discussed the past few weeks, much has been made about the unsustainable cost structures that they have.   Depending upon the report you see, Detroit’s automakers pay  somewhere around  60% more  per labor hour than their domesticated foreign competitors.   The UAW President, Ron Give-U-the-finger, will quickly contend that Detroit is only paying a dollar or so more than their competitors.   The truth is that both statistics are accurate.   How can that be?

When UAW Ron gives you a labor rate, he wants to talk only about the wages that are actually paid to workers that are assembling cars today.   While that is a labor rate, it’s not the one that is used by accountants in determining costs.   The labor that is 60% higher includes not only the costs of the people on the line today but also includes the costs of providing retirement benefits for folks who worked that line year and year ago.

Mark Steyn provides some information of how challenging the Big 3’s labor issue is in a column from Friday:

General Motors, like the other two geezers of the Old Three, is a vast retirement home with a small money-losing auto subsidiary. The UAW is AARP in an Edsel: It has three times as many retirees and widows as “workers” (I use the term loosely). GM has 96,000 employees but provides health benefits to a million people.

Holy upside down, Batman!   It’s not hard to understand why the Big 3 have profitability issues when they are paying for 10 employees for every 1 they have working!

Now to be fair, GM, Ford and Chrysler each negotiated contracts that provided for this level of benefit.   The UAW retirees are getting no more or less than what was agreed to in those contracts.   My point here is not to argue what should be done about those agreements, just to let you know they are there.

In 1960 there were 5 workers for every individual who was receiving  Social Security.   Today, that ratio is around 3.3 to 1.   Most analysis of the solvency of Social Security suggest that in the future we will see 2 workers supporting 1 retiree.   Anyone noticing a trend?

Many people are upset with the Detroit Big 3.   They are upset about the bail out.   They are upset that the auto makers have had an unsustainable cost structure for years and have either moved slowly or done nothing about it.  

It’s funny how many in Congress and the general public are quick to point to the Big 3 executives and brow beat them for not anticipating their problems and dealing with them.   Yes, many people willing to point the finger at someone else but when it comes to dealing with a similar problem that they control or are impacted by…..say Social Security, they are perfectly willing to turn their head and look the other way.

If you think the bail out of Detroit’s retiree’s is a problem, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

Obama Expands Recovery Plan, Aims for 3 Million Jobs

 As this story lays out, President elect Obama believes that the economic down draft is more serious than he first thought.   As a result, his original goal of creating 2.5 million jobs appears inadequate.   He now wants to target creating 3 million jobs.

Lest you think Obama’s is the “Gang who can’t shoot straight” and will charge in without a plan, put your worries to rest:

Obama representatives met this week with congressional staffers to discuss a plan estimated between $675 billion to $775 billion, the aide said, though earlier this week another aide said Obama may ask Congress to approve as much as $850 billion. Obama hasn’t specified a figure.

Those figures are all before Hank Paulson, or his successor, go to Congress to get the remainder of their $750 billion “mad money” pool.

Further, wanting to appear the adult in this new regime, Barack has told “the kids” not to have any parties with the tuition money:

Obama during the meeting told his advisers that spending proposals can’t include lawmakers’ pet spending projects; that funds should be directed toward already approved projects so jobs can be created quickly; and that government should help facilitate private ventures by removing bureaucratic red tape.   (emphasis mine)

Does anyone really believe that the government can spend $850 billion without funding “pet projects?”   Is anyone so naive to believe that, unless you’re one of those favored vassals like Hank Paulson, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or ACORN, for whom accountability is not a prerequisite, that the government could infuse $850 billion into projects with out increasing red tape, let alone, decrease red tape?

In the movie “Mr. Mom,” Jack (Michael Keaton) takes the role of “domestic engineer” after he is laid off and his wife, played by Teri Garr, lands a role as an advertising executive.   Jack’s role as domestic engineer is not his dream role and part of the plot focuses on the challenges he has  reconciling his new responsibilities with his personal definition of masculinity.   At one point in the movie, Garr’s new boss picks her up at the family home.   While waiting for Garr to get ready for a business trip they are taking, her boss makes small talk with Jack.   As the boss is unable to relate to Jack as the domestic engineer, he asks about Jack’s home remodeling project that he has undertaken.   He asks Jack whether he’ll be wiring 220 electrical service with the remodeling.   Not knowing anything about wiring, but wanting to ensure that he portrays that he hasn’t lost an ounce of masculinity, Jack answers “220, 221.   Whatever it takes!”  

When it comes to job creation and printing of inflationary dollars to cause it, Barack Obama is using the same false Machismo that we saw from Jack in “Mr. Mom,”   2.5, 3 million, whatever you need.   $675, $850 billion, $1 trillion, whatever it takes.

The Whitehouse continues to try and find a way to funnel money to the automakers.   They continue to focus on using Tarp funds, an approach that some claim may be illegal/unconstitutional.   In the meantime, the war of words about whether or not to save Detroit, and why, continues to escalate.

In  the far corner, we have an  Op Ed piece in the Washington Post, Harold Meyerson claims that the UAW is the cornerstone of the liberal movement and middle class America.   For this, he claims, Republicans are out to destroy the group and are willing to sink the country into a depression to sate their political bloodlust:

Over the past several weeks, it has become clear that the Republican right hates the UAW so much that it would prefer to plunge the nation into a depression rather than craft a bridge loan that doesn’t single out the auto industry’s unionized workers for punishment.

In the near corner we have an editorial in the Investor’s Business Daily.   IBD not only refutes Meyerson’s claim that UAW is responsible for the existence of the US middle class, but identifies not only why the UAW’s position is unsustainable but unknowingly, why the Detroit as a whole is unworkable:

History teaches a couple of lessons here. One is that, as the labor movement boasts, wages and benefits did indeed rise in the late 1940s and 1950s, when private-sector unions were at their maximum strength.

No fact makes this point better than the UAW’s own dramatic shrinkage, from 1.5 million members in 1979 to fewer than half a million today. Such is the downside to a strategy of raising wages through collective muscle. When labor gets priced to a point where a machine can do a job more cheaply than a worker, the worker is out of a job.

But another lesson is that American industry had unusual advantages during that time, when Europe and Japan were still rebuilding and offered no serious competition. It was a phase that could not last, and unions could not stem the drain of jobs out of the U.S. manufacturing sector.

Like the star high school quarterback, both the UAW and the Big 3 are unable to look at today’s reality and adjust to it.   Rather, they look to their glory days of old and pull out the home town paper’s articles of their game winning touchdown throws, thrusting it in front of us as evidence that because they were once stars, they can be stars again.   Unfortunately, few high school quarterbacks find that a winning touchdown pass defines their success 20 years after the fact.

Both the UAW and auto executives are to blame for the situation the Big 3 are in.   Neither have been forward looking enough.   The UAW believes that they can hold on to wages and work conditions that worked in times of lower competition and management has failed to adjust the business model to reflect the same reality.

I’ve ranted a fair amount about all the things I don’t like about the auto bailout.   However, I don’t think it’s fair to just be anti everything.   As Conservatives we need to be more about answers not Monday morning quarterbacking.   So here’s my answer to the bailout.

Fronting the Big 3 a bridge loan and “hoping” that things will change is the definition of insanity.   Once money is provided and the government is on the hook there will be all kinds of political reasons to “look the other way” and as a result, end up making the auto industry look like Amtrak and providing unending subsidies.   Rather, the Big 3 need to enter a prepackaged bankruptcy.  

Contrary to some chicken little pundits, bankruptcy will not drive consumers away from the Big 3.   Indeed, where else would someone go to buy a light truck?   By going to bankruptcy, all interested parties get tossed into the same pot i.e. all contracts are null and we renegotiate from the facts of today.   This puts management, bondholders, vendors and the union on the same level field.   I would also be in favor of the government providing debtor in possession guarantees to allow the bankruptcy procedure to transpire.

My solution will cause some to banish me from the Conservative parade as a non purist.   Maybe so.   However, not everything in life is black and white and this is particularily so in politics.   There are times where pragmatism i.e. the Dems are going to put this money in Detroit’s pocket…do you want no say or to try to find the best possibility of success, needs to be taken into account.  

It seems like the bail out is going to continue to roil in Washington politics.   It’s hard to see how it will end.   One thing I’ve become fairly certain of is that regardless of how this moves forward, the winner will be no one.