No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for the 'Politics – National' Category

June 17, 2009

Obamaese

by @ 5:19. Filed under Miscellaneous, Politics - National.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed but President Obama and his administration have taken over the dictionary.  Well, not exactly the whole dictionary, yet, but they have given new meaning to a number of words and phrases that haven’t had a change in their meaning from the advent of the English language until now.  I haven’t been able compile the complete list of the New Obamaese Dictionary definitions but I have a few that you should be aware of.

Shovel Ready – Any project that rational taxpayers would vote a politician out of office for if they had voted to fund it during normal legislative processes.

Stimulus – A spending bill that contains “Shovel Ready” projects that is passed only with Democrat support

Uniquely Qualified – an individual who is either a tax cheat or has other ethical issues, such that they wouldn’t be hired for, and can only get a role through appointment to a Democrat Administration role.  (see Czar)

Czar – an individual who is given absolute power over a portion of the economy for which they have absolutely no working knowledge.  Czar’s are often “Uniquely Qualified.”

I don’t want to run – A phrase used immediately prior to a:  blaming one’s predecessor, b:  expressing surprise that the situation was much worse than you had thought and c:  making a claim that the actions you have taken will be “temporary.”  Typically, a Czar who is Uniquely Qualified is appointed to run the business that “I don’t want to run.”

As I have repeatedly said – A phrase used to point the listener to a specific one of the many positions the speaker has taken on a particular topic.  It is not used to dismiss the positions not addressed during the use of this phrase, only to make you think the speaker has actually made a final decision, at least until they next use of the phrase:  As I have repeatedly said…

I’m trying to keep a list of these.  If you have others, send them along.  Who knows, we may be able to give Webster a run for his money by the end of four years.

June 16, 2009

How Many to Make a Trend?

by @ 5:15. Filed under Economy, Health, Politics - National.

I’ve shared before about a General Manager that I worked for in wireless.  He used to tell us “Two does not make a trend.”  It was his way of telling us that we shouldn’t get too giddy about a couple of success, that we needed a string of successes before we could claim a winning idea.  I never heard exactly how many did make a trend.  However, I’m pretty sure that President Obama is noticing a trend.

Monday as President Obama shared his ideas for solving the high costs of health care with the AMA, he was booed.  He was booed because his plan didn’t contain the obvious need to include malpractice reform in his plan.

A couple of weeks back, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was laughed at by Chinese University students as he told them:  he stood for a “strong dollar,” but that China should let its currency appreciate relative to the dollar, which, of course, would mean a weaker dollar.  He simultaneously told China that their investments in US Treasury bonds were safe.

And early last year Obama was booed by the NAACP as he tried to warm to the crowd with stunning rhetoric like:

“I eat fried chicken, why sometimes I go to bed with a bucket of KFC, so I can eat it while I fall asleep, and again when I wake up in the morning.”

My point in this is not that Obama or his administration, gets booed or laughed at.   Rather, my point is that for all of the accolades about his speaking ability and intelligence, President Obama, whether with friendly, neutral or unfriendly audiences, continues to misread his audience. 

President Obama and his administration believes that just because they say it, it must be so.  They believe that audiences somehow leave their God given brains at home and pant like Pavlovian dogs at whatever Obama or his spokesperson says. 

Doubt me?

Obama is out pushing his medical insurance programs.  He claims that by implementing the new plan he will reduce costs.  Unfortunately for Obama, the CBO came out today and blasted his assumptions saying Obama’s plan will add an additional $1 Trillion to the deficit (remember, this is the deficit that Obama continues to claim he “inherited” and that he would cut in half) and that it will only cover an additional 16 to 17 million people.

Folks, if the net cost over 9 years to cover an average of 16.5 million people is $1 Trillion, that averages to over $6,700 per year, per person.  For the average family of four, that is almost $27,000 per year.   As a self employed individual I buy my family’s insurance so believe me I know how expensive health insurance is.  However, $6,700 per year for your average individual isn’t just covering the basics, that’s enough to cover with a gold plated plan.  It appears that once again, with government involved, costs don’t come down, they go up.

I think I hear the national health plan boo birds warming up in the wings!

June 15, 2009

I’m Back and Itchin’ For a Fight!

by @ 9:55. Filed under Economy, Politics - Minnesota, Politics - National.

I’m back!  I’ll tell you more about why I’ve been gone (if you care) at the end of the post.  First, on to the lie of the day:

Over the weekend Joe Biden started building the case of excuses for the Obama administrations inept handling of the economy.  In an interview Sunday Biden said:“everyone guessed wrong.”

Ummmm, excuse me Vice President Biden but not “everyone” guessed wrong. In fact, the very economists who you claim “guessed wrong” knew that what Obama advocated for would have a dismally ineffective impact on the economic situation.

At the risk of saying “I told you so” loudly enough so as to be heard over the cacophonous echoing that is the noise of an empty political head like Joe Biden, let me say “I told you so” and Christina Romer, one of the very economists that Biden refers to, told you so!

Please reread this post where I provide the link to Romer’s own research that showed that “stimulus” at best gets a 1X multiplier while tax cuts provide a 3X multiplier.  Also, please reread this post where I link to Romer’s own research that showed that stimulus packages don’t work because the government applies them to the wrong things and does so too late to have any effect.

Well, now that I think about it maybe I have to agree with Joe that everyone did “guess” wrong!  But isn’t that just the problem?  Regardless of the issue the Obama administration doesn’t want to be constrained by facts.  The Obama administration is more focused on what they want the world or the particular situation to be rather than the reality of it.  The result is that they continue to bumble and stumble their way around “guessing” at what they can do rather than using knowledge, facts and the information their very own people have, to deal with the issues they confront. 

Perhaps the greatest irony of this whole issue is that Obama claimed his administration would be one that really focused on the facts and not emotion as he stated in his inauguration speech:  “We will restore science to its rightful place.”   Stay tuned for a lot more problematic “guessing” as Obama tries to solve the health care “crisis” and the global warming “crisis.”

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Where have I been?  Well, if you must know (we must, we must (my homage to “Blazing Saddles”)), I have been working on an intraparty campaign in MN.  I worked for the Dave Thompson campaign as he ran for the State Party Chair of the Minnesota Republican Party.

Dave was a fantastic candidate who really connected with the grassroots of Minnesota.  He forced the entrenched machine candidate to commit to an open and inclusive party process, something the machine candidate has personally fought for years.

In the end, we didn’t prevail.  However, Dave’s message, charisma and candor reinvigorated a large number of folks who had nearly given up on the MNGOP.  We’ll now wait and see whether the new chair keeps to his campaign commitments and embraces all activists who believe in liberty and conservatism.  If not, we’ll see if he reverts to his previous exclusionary approach which will cause the MNGOP to fracture and allow a blue state that should be red to be permanently dyed blue.  Stay tuned, the state convention is in September, we’ll know then!

June 12, 2009

A junker of an idea

by @ 10:10. Filed under Politics - National.

The Detroit News reports that the House and Senate leadership have agreed on a $1 billion plan to get older cars off the roads, to be stuffed inside the $106 billion war supplemental (off-topic, I thought there wasn’t going to be “war supplementals” in the ObamiNation). The major details are the same as the version that passed the House on Tuesday:

  • Those who trade in a vehicle made after 1983 that has a combined (new) EPA mileage rating of less than 18 mpg can get $3,500 in a government voucher if the new passenger car has a combined EPA mileage rating of at least 22 mpg and is at least 4 mpg greater than the previous vehicle’s combined (new) EPA mileage rating, or the new light truck has a combined EPA mileage rating of at least 18 mpg and is at least 2 mpg greater than the previous vehicle’s combined (new) EPA mileage rating.
  • That amount increases to $4,500 if the new passenger car’s combined EPA mileage rating is at least 10 mpg greater than the previous vehicle’s combined (new) EPA mileage rating or if the new light trick’s combined EPA mileage rating is at least 5 mpg greater than the previous vehicle’s combined (new) EPA mileage rating.
  • Since the old car will be crushed or shredded, that voucher will take the place of any trade-in value.

Exit question part 1 – how long before this becomes mandatory, with the only eligible cars made by either UAW Motors or Government Motors? Exit question part 2 – will this be any more successful than the “gun buyback” programs?

Revisions/extensions (9:08 am 6/14/2009) – I somehow missed the requirement that the old vehicle can’t have higher than a combined 18 mpg.

June 10, 2009

Conference call with Sen. Lamar Alexander re. govt. car cos.

by @ 12:10. Tags:
Filed under Business, Politics - National.

Thanks to Sean Hackbarth, I was part of a conference call with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), discussing his plan to distribute the Treasury-held common stock in Chrysler and GM directly to the taxpayers within a year and his new Car Czar award. Since I managed to have my digital voice recorder working, I was actually able to grab a few notes from that. Of course, partly because of my natural quietness, and partially because of a heavy-hitter lineup on the call so experienced that even Fausta didn’t get to ask questions, all I can offer is a writeup.

  • The Auto Stock for Every Taxpayer Act (S. 1198, no text available yet from THOMAS) would require the Treasury to distribute all of the common stock to the 120 million or so Americans who pay individual income taxes within a year of GM leaving bankruptcy (side note; Chrysler has now closed its “sale” to Fiat/UAW/US and Canadian governments and will henceforth be called UAW Motors on this blog).
  • Sen. Alexander describes it as the fastest way to get the stock out of the hands of government, and brought up the example of the Green Bay Packers and its community-owned structure (Sean’s influence at work).
  • The most-important thing is to stop the political meddling that results from government ownership, citing the White House-ordered firing of Rick Wagoner as CEO of GM, “suggestions” on where the HQ of GM ought to be, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) pressuring GM to keep a Massachusetts distribution center open, clamors from Congress on what models to make (do I hear Iowahawk’s Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition?), the pay czar to “fix” the price of labor.
  • The rationale to the taxpayers is, “You paid for it, you should own it”.
  • As part of that, the Car Czar award, first given to Rep. Frank on Monday, will become a regular feature.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a conference call without questions. As I said, we had some heavy hitters.

  • Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters started up with a two-parter: How will the inevitable calls from the Democrats to include non-taxpayers be addressed, and will the stock distribution will be based on population or percentage of taxes paid? Sen. Alexander hasn’t heard much from the Dems yet, but the principle is that we should give the shares back to those who actually paid for them. As for the distribution percentage, he acknowledges that a percentage-based would be better, but the population-based split would “give the little guy a break” and be “simpler and cleaner”.

    Side note – the Treasury would have roughly 310,000,000 common shares in “new GM”, and an unspecified number of shares equaling 8% of the membership stake (all non-voting) in UAW Motors, so a population-based split would be “simpler and cleaner”.

  • Jennifer Rubin of Commentary Magazine and Pajamas Media wondered if the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies have changed the rule of law regarding private property owners. Sen. Alexander said that we’ve damaged the rule of law and the rights of private property owners. He pointed out that, in the future, private entities will be slower to lend money to enterprises and rely on contracts to pay the money back, and asserted that our system won’t “function very well” in that scenario.
  • Travis Griffith at CarGurus.com asked about stock dumping by those that would get the distribution. Sen. Alexander notes that stock distributions happen all the time. The alternative would be for the Treasury to slowly divest over 5-7 years, and he expects the government to run both right into the ground before they can fully divest themselves.

    Side notes – I’d expect each invidiual 3-share stake in GM to be worth somewhere around $30 at the close (based on the $1 billion in VEBA funding the UAW is giving up for 17.5% of the common shares) and each individual membership stake in UAW Motors to be worth somewhere between $4 and $7 as of a couple hours ago (depending on which valuation method one uses). At the same time, the UAW will be looking to dump significant chunks of its holdings, which will depress the estimated values and limit the dumping.

  • Stephanie Davis from RFC Radio wondered whether the political meddling would be extended to Ford. Sen. Alexander hopes not, and the faster the stock gets out of the Treasury, the less likely it is that Ford will be meddled with. He read off a long list of enterprises government has been meddling in over the last 9 months.
  • Noel Sheppard asked about Sen. Alexander’s thoughts on the European rejection of their leftist leaders. Sen. Alexander pointed out he has been around a while, and he’s seen things change quickly. Europe has been at points in the past a leading political indicator of trends in the US, especially in right turns. Takeaway quote; “(T)he more the Obama administration practices politics of Washington takeover, the more wary Americans are going to be of one-party control in Washington, which is what we have today.”
  • Somebody from RedState (interference on my DVR prevented me from catching his name) asked about the politicization of the Chrysler dealership closings (which took effect at the close of business yesterday). Sen. Alexander noted that the mere odor of politicization is reason enough to end the “incestuous relationship” of the government owning the car companies.
  • Travis Griffith asked how often we can expect a Car Czar award. Sen. Alexander expects a couple a week because we’re in a target-rich environment. As part of previous answer, he mentioned that he might have to give one to himself for urging that the Spring Hill, Tennessee GM plant stay open.
  • Missed who asked this one, but someone asked whether Sen. Alexander had any confidence that the government control of GM will be transparent. He’s hopeful that the demand for transparency will make GM the most-public private company in America, and that the pressure will get the Obama administration to get the government out of GM.

Sean said he would get a recording out to those of us who participated later, so I won’t inflict you with my very-low-quality version.

Revisions/extensions (12:49 pm 6/10/2009) – Ask, and ye shall receive. Sean came through with audio.

I haven’t completed my thoughts on the bill, but it definitely sounds intriguing. One item I haven’t seen addressed yet – the preferred shares that the Treasury will be holding.

June 9, 2009

Tuesday Hot Read – Lou Pritchett’s “You Scare Me”

by @ 12:13. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – Charlie Sykes)

Lou Pritchett is a former vice president at Procter & Gamble. According to Snopes, which confirmed Lou’s authorship of the following letter, he originally submitted this to the New York Times, which refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter and refused to publish it. Unlike my usual Hot Reads, I will republish the letter in its entirety:

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t understand it at its core..

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America’ crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

Since one of the liberal apologists over at Charlie’s site failed Reading Comprehension 101, I’ll list the 13 Presidents that Lou has lived under:

  • Barack Obama
  • George W. Bush
  • Bill Clinton
  • George H.W. Bush
  • Ronald Reagan
  • Jimmy Carter
  • Gerald Ford
  • Richard Nixon
  • Lyndon Johnson
  • John Kennedy
  • Dwight Eisenhower
  • Harry Truman
  • Franklin Roosevelt

While Lou has but childhood first-hand memories of FDR, he has also lived as an adult under some very liberal Presidents.

Do also note that those with recent experience with what Obama wants to do and is doing have rejected the kindred spirits to Obama in EU parliamentary elections. Can you say, “The warning bells are ringing!”?

June 8, 2009

Oh so close

by @ 15:26. Filed under Politics - National.

A couple months ago, Shoebox had a poll up on when Rasmussen’s Presidential Approval Index (the percentage of those who strongly approve less the percentage of those who strongly disapprove in Rasmussen’s 3-day-rolling-average daily Presidential tracking poll) would go negative. On June 5, which reflects June 2, June 3, and June 4, it was zero, with 34% strongly approving and 34% strongly disapproving. Meanwhile, the overall approval was 54%, tied for second-lowest (right behind the June 6 results) and overall disapproval was 46%, tied for second-highest (again, right behind the June 6 results).

May 29, 2009

Pre-vacation auto upates

by @ 23:32. Tags:
Filed under Business, Politics - National.

Yes, there are a couple items, but not the big one that was expected today.

  • The UAW ratified the revised deal that will make it take modest concessions and a $10 billion reduction of a scheduled $20 billion cash payment into the VEBA retiree health-care fund it will run in exchange for 17.5% of the common stock in the new Government Motors, $585 million per year in dividends from prefered stock worth $6.5 billion, and a $2.5 billion promissory note with scheduled payments of $1.38 billion in 2013, 2015 and 2017. What is really telling are some quotes from UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger:

    “I’m regretful that we had to do anything, and I think it’s a disgrace that we had to do anything,” he added.

    Gettelfinger declined to comment on criticism from other GM creditors that the restructuring will favor the union. “This is negotiations. You go in and you do the best job that you can,” he said.

    I would comment, but I don’t want to leave a profanity-laced tirade for my guest-bloggers.

  • Speaking of the UAW, they’re getting a GM plant previously scheduled to close retooled and taken off the axe list so GM can build subcompacts here. Early reports were that they would be the next generation of the Geo Metr…er, overseas-only Chevrolet Matiz (renamed the Spark, with an 84-hp 1.2L engine replacing the 64-hp 1.0L engine), but others suggest the next-generation Chevrolet Aveo would also be part of the mix. If you think that, between the Aveo and the Metr…er, Spark, they’ll hit 160,000 sales per year, you’ve never driven either an Aveo or a Geo Metro. While I missed out on the Aveo, I did drive a Geo Metro once. To Chicago. With my younger sister and her boyfriend-at-the-time (it was his piece of crap). Talk about a frightening experience. I will never, EVER do that again.
  • The bankruptcy judge is taking his sweet-natured time to approve the $2 billion sale of Chrysler to Fiat (with all proceeds going to senior secured creditors, who would get 29 cents on the dollar), with the US and Canadian governments seizing 75% of the new company and awarding a 55% stake to the UAW. That will be delayed until Monday, which will leave 15 days for the expected challenges to be resolved before Fiat walks away from that deal.

I won’t be here to find out whether that mythical percentage of bondholders fall for the bait-and-switch, or the actual terms of the 363 “sale” of GM to the government. I left instructions to the rest of the gang to try to keep up with that.

Right Wing News’ Rightosphere Temperature Check – May 2009 edition

by @ 18:01. Filed under Politics - National.

Once again, John Hawkins ran a blogger poll on the state of the blogosphere. I don’t know whether Shoebox either got an invite or was able to participate, but several friends of the blog, including Sister Toldjah, who will be filling in while I’m out catching walleyes, and Josh Schroeder were among the participants.

I will make you head over there for the results, but I’ll explain my votes:

  1. Do you think the GOP will gain or lose seats in the House in 2010? Gain. The post-election anti-Democrat tide is more-noticeable on a local level than it is on a statewide level, and the NRCC, by its absence in the moderate-v-conservative fight, is better positioned to take advantage than the NRSC.
  2. Do you think the GOP will gain or lose seats in the Senate in 2010? Lose. NRSC head John Cornyn still doesn’t get it, and despite the fact that at least nominally both parties have the same number of seats to defend, the Republicans have more open seats to defend.
  3. Colin Powell said the following, “Americans do want to pay taxes for services. Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.” Do you agree? No. Over 8,000 who showed up in Madison on 4/15 (the largest non-anti-Vietnam War protest in the history of the Capitol), close to 3,000 who shoed up in Appleton, and hundreds of thousands nationwide who rallied against ever-higher taxes and ever-larger government in the middle of the week tend to send that message.
  4. Whose views do you think are more representative of your personal opinion: David Frum, Meghan McCain, John McCain, & Colin Powell or Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Tom Coburn, & Newt Gingrich? The Rush/Mark/Tom/Newt gang. Do I really need to pull out all the thousands of posts for you, or do I trust you to go through the archives yourself?
  5. Do you support the NRSC’s decision to endorse Charlie Crist in Florida’s Republican primary? No. If there had been a “Oh HELL NO!” option, I would have taken it.
  6. Do you think Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or elsewhere? Hawaii. That doesn’t change the fact that he’s pretty much a Communist.
  7. Do you think that Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed? Yes. Even if the Pubbie Senators had the votes, they don’t have the balls to do what the ‘Rats did to Robert Bork and Miguel Estrada.

Point/Counterpoint – John Cornyn v. me on the Florida NRSC endorsement

by @ 17:27. Filed under Politics - National.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), head of the National Republican Senate Committee, accepted an invitation from RedState to explain why the NRSC decided to endorse Florida governor Charlie Crist over Florida Rep. Marco Rubio, who was Speaker of the House between 2006 and 2008, literally 15 minutes after Crist decided to enter the race. Without further delay, it’s time for the Point/Counterpoint:

Two and a half years ago, the Republican Party suffered a major blow in the 2006 midterm elections as the Democrats regained control of Congress and began laying the groundwork to take back the White House in 2008.

As a Party, we were stunned. Having failed to anticipate shifting national dynamics and the growing appetite for change in America, we lost critical voting constituencies including independents, Hispanics, and young voters nationwide. And with Barack Obama’s overwhelming victory in 2008, the Democrats acquired an even broader and stronger majority in Congress, leaving Republicans with very little power in Washington to fight against wasteful spending as our nation spiraled into an economic crisis.

You forgot “governmental conservatives” and “fiscal conservatives” in that, Senator. Those voters that were left, when faced with two parties that advocated ever-growing government, decided to go with the party with institutional experience in growing government over the Johnny-Come-Lately Party.

Specifically regarding Hispanics, how did the push for amnesty work out? Not so good.

Many rightfully wondered where our Party would turn to regain the ground we lost.

At the national level, I’m still wondering.

With an almost filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid at the helm in Washington, the Democrats have already successfully used their majority to grow our nation’s debt to more than $11 trillion in just four months. They’ve promised to wage a battle on card check, healthcare, and energy. And they may attempt to ram through the President’s new Supreme Court nominee before Republicans are given adequate time to review her record. After Senator Specter’s party switch earlier this month, the Democrats effectively control everything in Washington, leaving us with little power to push back on their liberal agenda.

There were no less than 17 times the Republicans could have stopped elements of this. Except on a couple minor points, they failed because “Republicans” like Arlen Specter (before he returned to his true party), Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins voted with Harry Reid and company.

If he becomes a Senator, Crist, with his less-than-conservative fiscal and governmental record, will be one of those allowing more of those failures to stop the Democrats in the next Congress. Specifically, he touted the stimulus package that kicked in close to $1 trillion of that $11 trillion deficit, and said that he would have voted for it if he had been Senator.

While this political environment appears dire and presents short-term setbacks for Republicans, I believe that it also provides us with a real opportunity for 2010. Next November could be a turning point for the future of our Party – but only if we unite and take advantage of this critical opportunity. That means holding the Democrats accountable for their records, providing real solutions, reaching out to new constituencies, and fielding candidates who can win in states where Republicans have traditionally failed to wage competitive races.

To get to 51 “Republican” Senators, they would not only need to hold onto all 18 seats they currently have (including 5-6 retirements), but get 11 of the 18 Democratic seats up for election. Specifically with regard to Florida, the “failed to wage competitive races” canard is not germaine because the seat is currently held by a “Republican”, and conservatives have won statewide races in Florida in the recent past.

Some believe that we should be a monolithic Party; I disagree. While we all might wish for a Party comprised only of people who agree with us 100 percent of the time, this is a pipedream. Each Party is fundamentally a coalition of individuals rallying around core principles with some variations along the way. My job as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee is to recruit candidates who have the best chance of winning and holding seats – and to do so in as many states as possible. Earlier this month, two Republicans candidates emerged for the open Senate seat being vacated by Mel Martinez in the Sunshine State: Marco Rubio, the young and talented Hispanic former Speaker of the state House, and Charlie Crist, the state’s popular Governor.

Judging by the actions of the NRSC over the last 5 years, the Party that is being built has many of the same core principles as the Democrats, if in a slightly-lower degree. Indeed, I’ve called it the bipartisan Party-In-Government, where the growth of government under “Republican” rule is used as an excuse by the Democrats to exponentially grow government.

That sure looks like an attempt to create a monolithic party.

There is no doubt both of these candidates have a bright future in the Republican Party. But with his record of leadership and astronomical approval ratings, including strong numbers among Republicans, Democrats and Independents, Charlie Crist represents the best chance for Republicans to hold this seat in Florida. That is why I endorsed Governor Crist for the U.S. Senate. That is also why Governor Crist was endorsed by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, outgoing Florida U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, U.S. Senator John McCain, and other leaders within the Republican Party.

Actually, it’s because Crist meshes well with the current “Democrat-Lite” attitude prevalent among the Senate Republicans.

The NRSC’s endorsement is not a reflection on Marco Rubio; it is a realistic assessment of both the 2010 Florida Senate race and the national map. With the Democrats standing on the precipice of a filibuster-proof majority, we cannot afford to lose this seat in 2010. Endorsing Charlie Crist will save the NRSC precious resources that can be used to fight in other states. It will also ensure that the strongest Republican candidate maintains control of this seat, and build our numbers with the resulting opportunity to shape policy.

As both my co-blogger Shoebox and I have said before, the Democrats got a filibuster-proof majority the moment the first countings of ballots back in November were over. Specifically with respect to this election, I assert that Crist will join the Democrats on filibuster-busting missions more often than the retiring Mel Martinez has.

While Rubio is certainly an up-and-comer in Florida, a recent Mason Dixon poll showed that he only has a 44 percent name ID among Republicans, which will ultimately force him to spend a lot more money introducing himself to Floridians. Govenor Crist, in contrast, has a 100 percent name ID among Republicans, according to the same poll. In a general election match-up with Democrat Congressman Kendrick Meek, Charlie Crist wins handily 55 percent to 24 percent.

Could someone tell me how far back Barack Obama was at this point in 2007? I seem to recall similar numbers.

We have a chance to field competitive candidates in Connecticut, Illinois, Nevada, California, Arkansas, and Colorado in 2010. But in order to succeed, we need candidates who fit their states. Winning back the majority requires not only that we hold the Democrats accountable, but also that we embrace the vast number of issues upon which Republicans agree. Failing to do so will hand the Democrats yet another victory in 2010, and deny the American people a check on Democrat-controlled government.

California in play? Surely you can’t be serious.

Seriously, again, this is not exactly germaine to Florida. Both moderates and conservatives have won statewide elections in Florida. This is just an excuse to recast the Republican Party in a Democrat-Lite mold.

If we succeed in electing Republican Senators in 2010, issues like relocating Gitmo detainees to the United States, socializing healthcare, and eliminating workers’ secret ballots may never reach the floor of the United States Senate. But we have to work together to make that a reality. The tides are turning, and Republicans have an opportunity in 2010. However, we cannot win if we are focused on tearing each other down.

Again, I point out that Crist is more likely than Martinez has (not) been to join the Democrats on several of those issues. Thus, the argument sort of rings hollow.

As for the teardown argument, by picking this fight, you and the NRSC are engaged in tearing those that want actual differences between the Republicans and the Democrats out of the Republican Party.

We have a chance in 2010 to unite around our common goal to rebuild the Republican Party and fight against the Democrats’ agenda. I hope that all Republicans will join me in that fight.

Question – if Rubio does beat Crist in the primary, will the NRSC step into Florida, or will it abandon it like it abandoned Wisconsin in 2004 when Tim Michels upset Russ Darrow in the primary here?

If you prefer, I could quote Ed Morrissey’s exit question – “If Crist has such soaring support, then he doesn’t need the NRSC to throw around its weight in the primary on his behalf. Why not let Florida decide who should represent them in the general election, and have the NRSC do its job at that point?”

May 28, 2009

New bondholder plan from Government Motors

by @ 18:06. Tags:
Filed under Business, Politics - National.

Fox Business reports that, in the wake of the failed bonds-for-stock swap attempted by GM, they and their Treasury masters have made a second offer that cannot be refused. If and only if a sufficient number of bondholders agree to not oppose a federal/UAW takeover of GM in bankruptcy court by 5 pm Eastern Saturday, the Treasury will reward them and the current stockholders with an initial 10% stake in Government Motors and an pair of warrants to ultimately increase that stake to 25%. The US Treasury will begin with a 72.5% stake, and the UAW with a 17.5% stake, so those of you still holding GM stock will likely be wiped out entirely.

Fox Business also reports that currently, 20% of the bondholders have swallowed the pill whole. Quoting a group of bondholders that apparently are at least part of that 20%: “Since the initial offer was made on April 27th, circumstances have materially changed that make today’s offer more attractive.” Could that be related to the utter thrashing that Chrysler’s secured creditors have taken?

Summarizing from the SEC filing:

  • The transfer of assets from General Motors (“Old GM”) to Government Motors (“New GM”), which will not include the $27.2 billion in bonds or most of the unsecured claims, will happen under Section 363 of the bankrupcy code.
  • All but $8 billion of whatever funding the US Treasury, and possibly the Ontario and Canadian governments, has or will pour into both Old GM overall (including the $20 billion in TARP bailouts) and New GM in relation to the bankruptcy proceeding will never be paid back.
  • Related to that, it is anticipated that Debtor-In-Possession financing provide by the Treasury will be in excess of $50 billion.
  • In addition to the $8 billion in debt the New GM will owe to the federal government, they will owe the UAW’s VEBA $2.5 billion and “other debtors” (presumably the secured creditors) $6.5 billion.
  • In addition to the 72.5% common-stock stake that the Treasury will have, they will also receive $2.5 billion in perpetual prefered stock with a 9% dividend per annum (or $225 million per year). If the Canadians participate in the DIP financing, they will get a portion of this.
  • In addition to the 17.5% initial common-stock stake that the UAW’s VEBA will have, they will also receive $6.5 billion in perpetual prefered stock with a 9% dividend per annum (or $585 million per year). They will also receive a warrant to purchase an additional 2.5% (as of 12/31/2009) any time before 12/31/2015 at a cost of $1.875 billion.
  • If and only if a sufficient number of bondholders, unspecified in the filing, agree to not oppose this, “Old GM” will get a 10% common-stock stake in “New GM”. If that number is not reached, the Treasury will reduce or eliminate that stake, presumably with the percentages of Treasury and UAW ownership in New GM increasing accordingly to 80.6% Treasury and 19.4% UAW in the event of a outright elimination.
  • Again if and only if an unspecified number of bondholders agree to not oppose this, they will recieve a pair of warrants: one to purchase an additional 7.5% stake of New GM any time in the next 7 years for $1.125 billion and one to purchase an additional 7.5% stake any time in the next 10 years for $2.25 billion. Again, if that number is not reached, the Treasury will reduce or eliminate this program.

Revisions/extensions (6:31 pm 5/28/2009) – I might be missing something here, but there is nothing in the SEC Form 8-K linked to above that says that the bondholders themselves will get anything. The 10% initial stake in “New GM” and the pair of 7.5%-stake warrants in same go to the owners of “Old GM”.

Previously:
– GM shuts down the bondholder buyout plan
– As the wheels turn, automaker edition

If it moves, tax it, e-commerce edition

by @ 7:32. Filed under Business, Politics - National, Taxes.

(H/T – Allahpundit)

Brett Joshpe wrote on The American Spectator site how sales on the internet are about to become a lot more expensive. Let’s go through the Cliff’s Notes timeline:

– In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in Quill v. North Dakota that a retailer must have a “physical presence” in a state in order for that state to require the retailer to collect and remit that state’s sales tax. Do note that does not prohibit states from demanding their pound (in the case of Wisconsin, 5%-5.85%) of flesh from the purchaser; indeed, most states do demand their cut.

– Because of mass disobedience of that mandate, last year, New York required any online retailer who so much has an affiliate advertiser in that state to collect and remit the New York sales tax. In plain English, if a site like overstock.com advertised on, say the New York Times’ site or A Blog for All, it would be forced to collect New York sales tax on purchases made by New York residents.

– In response to that, overstock.com terminated its affiliate relationships with close to 3,400 entities.

– Meanwhile, the tax-and-spend-and-tax-and-spend-and (you get the idea) folks are trying to shove through Congress, under the guise of “streamlined” sales tax, a requirement to make all online retailers collect all state/local sales taxes.

Back in the dawn of e-commerce, I was involved in a small e-commerce project. Even if somehow a standard list of items subject to a sales tax were created (a pipe dream because the T&S&T&S&T&Sers in places like Madison and Albany will always want to tax more items than those in other state capitals), the myriad of different rates, both at the state and local level, which tend to not remain constant, would be a nightmare to keep up with.

Twitter history contest from Rep. Issa

by @ 6:37. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is running a “Twitter history” contest. The rules are simple – channel Alexander Hamilton and comment on what the Geithner Cabal is doing to the economy, using Hamilton’s own words (Issa suggests the Federalist Papers and Hamilton’s national bank plan of 1791 for starters). The contest does close at 5 pm Eastern.

Since I don’t want to appear to be better than I am, you’re going to have to reply directly to @DarrellIssa on Twitter instead of leaving your quotes here.

Get Ready!

by @ 5:13. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

Bonds: Treasury prices fell, with the yield on the benchmark 10-year bond rising to 3.71% – it’s highest since mid-November. It stood at 3.51% late Tuesday. Treasury prices and yields move in opposite directions.

Revisions/extensions (6:49 am 5/28/2009, steveegg) – I presume Shoebox ran out of time to explain why a high yield/low price on Treasuries is not exactly a good thing, so you’re left with the economic understudy to do the explaining. The CNNMoney blurb actually does a fair job of at least touching on that:

– The appetite for short-term (specifically in this case, 5-year) notes represents a lessening demand for longer-term notes (which explains the nearly-failed auction of 30-year notes the other week).

– Mortgage rates are tied to the 10-year yield, and rising interest rates could stifle any “recovery” in the housing market.

– The record amounts of debt coming to market could overwhelm it. Indeed, the Federal Reserve already is soaking up a lot of Treasury securities because there just isn’t enough money out there to buy it all.

May 27, 2009

Wednesday (or is it Thursday?) Hot Read – MKH’s “Are You Ready for a VAT?”

by @ 23:56. Filed under Politics - National, Taxes.

Those who know me know that I have a crush on Mary Katharine Ham. That I find her very attractive does not diminish in the least the brilliance of this tour de force on the onrushing VAT to supposedly pay for health care. Let’s take a few paragraphs from the middle:

Remain extremely skeptical, folks. No matter how much lovely alliteration Obama uses to describe this plan, it’s just another pathway into your wallet for the federal government. It’s just another source to tap for revenue when they’re unwilling to make “tough choices.” It will go up and up, and the relief the nation sees on the corporate income tax or the income tax as a trade-off will be precious little in the Congress we’ve got now.

It should also be noted that the VAT costs $3 billion just to collect in Canada, according to the National Post, on top of the added cost to every single item you buy, every day.

Luckily, because the VAT is a highly visible tax and disproportionately affects the poor, constituents and even their tax-happy Democrat representatives are likely to be wary about enacting one. Heck, even the floating of one might be enough to earn Republicans a few points on the generic ballot.

I hate to have to quibble on a point, but I must. As Charlie Sykes said in his post on this, “Don’t count on it. Just ask smokers.” In fact, depending on the labeling requirements, it can be very easy to hide this (no, I will not say any more; even though I realize that anything I can think of the tax-and-spend-and-tax-and-spend-and-tax-and-spenders can, I’m not in the business of making their jobs easier).

With that out of the way, the fact that every level of production sees a sales tax which is based on the difference of the purchase price of the product (or raw material) and the sale price of the product is a massive drain on the producer. Even a “simple” product like Mountain Dew has 16 different components the bottler has to keep track of.

Related to that, it is impossible to claim that a VAT of X% will not cost more than a end-user sales tax of the same X%. That is becasue not every raw material involved in the manufacture of, say, Mountain Dew has the same number of steps between the individual raw materials and final consumption.

While I won’t steal more of Mary’s content, I do have to comment on another aspect she brought up – the Left’s proposed dual-mode tax scheme. The existence of two different stages of taxation (in this case, wealth-acquisition and wealth-expenditure) makes it easier for government to raise first one stage, then the other. The older among us in Wisconsin remember when the sales tax was a “mere” 4%, and then “temporarily” raised to 5%. In a couple weeks, depending on one’s locale and choice of expenditure, that will be as high as 6.85%. Meanwhile, there’s a new, higher top income tax bracket in that same budget that will hike Milwaukee County’s sales tax rate by a percentage point.

So, what are you still doing here (other than wondering why The Weekly Standard doesn’t offer comments)? Go. Read! NOW!

First, and maybe last, post on Justice-designee Sonia Sotomayor

by @ 22:11. Filed under Lawgivers-In-Black, Politics - National.

Between focusing on the government/UAW takeover of 2/3rds of the Not-So-Big Three, keeping an eye on what the Spendocrats who run the Joint Finance Committee are throwing on the funeral pyre known as the FY2010-FY2011 Wisconsin budget, and preparing for my annual spring walleye hunt, I haven’t exactly been keeping an eye on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter. Fortunately, Karl Rove is better-able to handle multitasking. He wrote in tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal regarding the Sotomayor nomination, and what the Senate Republicans can and should do:

The Sotomayor nomination also provides Republicans with some advantages. They can stress their support for judges who strictly interpret the Constitution and apply the law as written. A majority of the public is with the GOP on opposing liberal activist judges. There is something in our political DNA that wants impartial umpires who apply the rules, regardless of who thereby wins or loses.

Mr. Obama understands the danger of heralding Judge Sotomayor as the liberal activist she is, so his spinners are intent on selling her as a moderate. The problem is that she described herself as liberal before becoming a judge, and fair-minded observers find her on the left of the federal bench….

Nonetheless, Republicans must treat her with far more care than Democrats treated John Roberts or Samuel Alito and avoid angry speeches like Sen. Ted Kennedy’s tirade against Robert Bork. The GOP must make measured arguments against her views and philosophy, using her own words and actions.

Indeed, those are wise words for the rest of us right-of-center, words that are echoed by Fox News’ Brit Hume (H/T – Mike)…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDZa2QmezPE[/youtube]

Of course, I expect Shoebox (if he manages to come up for air long enough to comment on this) and the co-bloggers to make further comments about the nomination. Somehow I expect to see that she was confirmed by the time I get back from vacation next week Saturday.

Union battle over Chrysler – revisited

by @ 18:00. Tags:
Filed under Business, Politics - National.

Earlier, I brought you news of three Indiana government trust funds (two pension funds and a construction fund) holding senior secured Chrysler debt that had sued (unsuccessfully, at least at this point) to stop the “sale” of Chrysler to the UAW, the American and Canadian governments, and Fiat because they would get far less consideration than the junior creditor UAW. While reading through the comments at a Hot Air post on the shutdown of GM’s stock-for-bonds offer), what is happening between the UAW’s retiree health-care fund (VEBA) plan and the various pension funds (mostly for the benefit of unionized government workers) hit me like a freight train.

It’s not exactly a battle between the UAW and the government unions. Since VEBAs are not defined-benefit plans, they are not covered by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Worse, at least from the UAW’s, and thus the Democrats’, point of view, the VEBA obligations are junior in stature.

Since GM and Chrysler are utterly incapable of meeting their full obligations to the VEBAs ($20 billion and $10.6 billion respectively), even in the event of liquidation, a pair of complicated schemes to make the UAW whole came about. In both cases, the UAW was given preferential treatment over other creditors, including creditors senior to it. What is left unreported is that many of those creditors are the aforementioned pension funds, which would be made substantially-whole by the PBGC.

As I termed it in the comments, it’s the Chicago Double-Tap. Step 1 was to screw everybody to make whole the suddenly-politically-powerful UAW. Step 2 is to make the traditionally-politically-powerful government unions that were screwed whole. Other funds, like Indiana’s road construction fund, and the various 401(k)/403(b)/IRA plans, would still be left hung out to dry. Somehow, I doubt that is an unplanned coincidence.

May 26, 2009

As the wheels turn, automaker edition

by @ 21:42. Tags:
Filed under Business, Politics - National.

The first stop is at UAW Motors (formerly known as Chrysler). Reuters reports (H/T – Gabriel Malor) that a District Court case brought by three Indiana trust funds (the teachers’ union retirement fund, the police retirement fund, and a road construction fund) has been rejected, which means the sale of Chrysler to the UAW/Fiat/US government/Canadian government (technically a hearing on that sale in bankruptcy court) will go on as scheduled tomorrow. The trust funds have been arguing that the federal government does not have any authority to give funds to Chrysler to facilitate the sale, which Judge Thomas Griesa sidestepped in his denial of the motion.

The next stop is Govern…er, General Motors, and their agreement with the UAW. Reuters has a comprehensive summary of that. The Cliff’s Notes version (which assumes that GM doesn’t go into bankruptcy; more on that in a bit):

  • In exchange for a $10 billion payment into the VEBA (the retiree health care fund that GM was scheduled to pay $20 billion), the UAW would get a 17.5% common-share stake (with warrants to increase it to 20%), a $6.5 billion, 9% dividend (or $585 million/year) prefered-share stake, and a $2.5 billion note (with an effective APR of 11.1%, and scheduled payments of $1.38 billion in 2013, 2015 and 2017). Previously, GM had offered a 39% common-share stake to the UAW.
  • GM reacquires 5 Delphi plants in Michigan, New York and Indiana.
  • GM will make its small cars at an idled UAW plant, and will reopen 3 additional assembly and 1 stamping plant if sales “beat expectations”.
  • GM will offer buyouts to all its UAW-represented employees.

The $1 billion-17.5% common-share UAW stake would make the common shares worth just over $5.7 billion at issuance of that stake. Reuters notes in that summary that other creditors and the government would get the rest of the common-share stake (more on that in a bit), with no mention of the fate of the current stock. The prior reorganization plan had the government getting 55%, UAW getting 39% in exchange for the $10 billion VEBA liability, unsecured bondholders getting 10%, and the current stockholders getting 1%, with the common shares worth $25.65 billion at issuance assuming the $10 billion-39% common-share UAW stake ratio).

Assuming that the current stockholders would still get 1% of the company, their current $873.1 million net investment (down from $1.25 billion when the previous reorganization plan was announced last month) would dip to $57 million (down from $256 million in the previous reorganization plan, which was rather inflated).

Stop number three is Governme…er, General Motors and the bondholders. Reuters has the interest in the aforementioned $27 billion for 10% stake offer, which expires in a couple hours and requires a 90% acceptance level to stave off bankruptcy, at well under 10%. Meanwhile, Fox Business says that the process could run all the way through the end of the weekend and up to the June 1 GM drop-dead deadline set by the Obama administration.

The final stop is Government (screw it, it’s no longer General) Motors and the government. The New York Times reports that the new deal envisions the federal government taking 70% of the common stock, with another $70 billion-$90 billion in taxpayer money on top of the $20 billion in TARP money already “loaned” anticipated to get GM through the bankruptcy process. Remember that UAW Motors will not be paying back either the $4.3 billion in TARP money that Chrysler received or the $3.2 billion in interim government bankruptcy financing, but will be expected to pay back the $6.2 billion in post-bankruptcy taxpayer money loaned to it. Using that ratio, it looks like there’s $60 billion, give or take $10 billion, down the hole in exchange for $4 billion in Government Motors stock.

Revisions/extensions (10:15 pm 5/26/2009) – DrewM. points us to an interesting quote in The News Organization That Cannot Be Quoted’s™ story from Kip Penniman, analyst for KDP Investment Advisors:

If GM announced they got low single-digit participation, it would be a slap to GM and the absolute response to the Treasury-mandated offer. … A cynical person would say that the offer was set up to ensure GM would go into Chapter 11 and provide the government a scapegoat.

That story also notes that those bondholders with credit default swaps could make up to $2.33 billion in the event of a GM bankruptcy filing. It does not specify what percentage of bondholders has credit default swaps, but under the prior, highly-inflated plan, the at-issuance worth of the bondholders’ equity stake would have been $2.56 billion, and under the current plan (assuming they still get 10% of the equity), the at-issuance worth of that stake would be $570 million. Do remember that the paper value of those bonds is $27 billion.

Further, The Wall Street Journal reports that, unlike the Chrysler offering, the government is going to pay off the secured creditors in full, to the tune of $6 billion.

ObamiNation turning on its master?

by @ 11:32. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – Rob Port)

Rasmussen reports that, as part of their daily tracking polls, the Presidential Approval Index (the “strongly approve” minus the “strongly disapprove”) dropped to its lowest number yet for President Obama, a +1 (31% strongly approve, 30% strongly disapprove). Of note, the 31% strongly approve is a new low.

We’re not quite at the overall low differential of +8 (on 4/22) yet, but with total approval at 55% and total disapproval at 44%, we’re close.

I’m Sorry

by @ 5:26. Filed under Economy, Politics - National, Taxes.

First, a little music to set the mood:

This week Drudge ran the headline:

Obama Says We’re Out of Money

Oh yeah, big fat surprise that is!  While the headline is a bit out of context in that Obama was discussing health care, the overall take is correct.  Obama recognizes that he has spent more than he has, by a long shot, and realizes that he must find a way to cut costs or increase revenue or leave office with most Americans longing for another Carter term because in comparison, it was nirvana!  The problem Obama has though is that he has no clue how big the hole is that he has dug for himself and the nation.

Back when Obama released his fairy tale titled “A budget proposal,”  I laid out the many problems with his budget and why he would never come close to closing the gaps on the deficits that he has created.  In this post I pointed out several issues that would cause his budget to fail.  As of today we have enough information to conclude that Obama’s budget assumptions have failed on two key issues.

Obama’s budget assumes a dramatic improvement in unemployment rates.  This improvement is key on two fronts.  First, it reduces the outflows of expenses in unemployment compensation.  This is a huge budget item at both the Federal and State level.  Second, when people go back to work, income taxes get paid thus increasing the tax revenue.  Obama’s budget assumptions had the 2009 unemployment rate at 8.1% with 2010 improving to 7.9%.  Of course, the same team that put this budget together was also the team who never saw total unemployment exceeding 8.0% with the enactment of a stimulus package so we know that numbers aren’t really their thing.  The CBOs most recent survey of private sector forecasts of unemployment now shows that the most optimistic assessments have the unemployment rate averaging 8.8% for 2009 and increasing to 9.0% in 2010.

Second, I warned you that Obama’s budget had a wildly optimistic long term interest rate assumptions.  For 2009 the Obama budget assumed the 10 Yr. treasury would be at 2.8%, for 2010 the assumption was 4.0%  Well, get ready, that bubble is about to burst as well. 

This week the Financial Times is reporting that sales of debt for private businesses is again increasing.  While that is good and it shows a data point of improvement in the economy, it’s bad for Obama.  As private enterprise increases its desire for debt, at the same time that the government is having to finance huge amounts of additional debt, the overall demand will cause all interest rates to increase.  Already the 10 yr Treasury which was running  under 3% at the end of April has increased to over 3.4%.  That’s a 20% increase in rates over Obama’s assumptions and we’re barely three months past the date of the assumption issuance.

For the past two years Senator, PEBO and now President Obama has been running from one corner of the globe to another apologizing for what he believes, have been heinous actions by the US. You know, actions like freeing oppressed people, calling evil evil and using our economic tools to encourage dictators (hello Fidel!) to broaden involvement in governments and economies that have created the greatest gulfs between “haves” and “have nots” through the use of government intervention. I watch Obama’s groveling around the world and wonder: “When will he apologize to the American people?”  I doubt his teleprompter will ever allow that to happen!

May 22, 2009

Union battle over Chrysler

by @ 8:53. Tags:
Filed under Business, Politics - National.

(H/T – Alamo City Pundit)

The AP reports that, fresh from a denial by bankruptcy judge Arthur Gonzalez to delay the expedited sale of portions of Chrysler to Fiat, the US and Canadian governments, and the UAW, three Indiana trust funds that held senior secured debt in Chrysler, the Indiana Major Moves Construction Fund, Indiana State Police Pension Trust (both managed by Indiana’s Treasurer, Richard Mourdock), and the Indiana State Teachers Retirement Fund will be appealing to district court to try to stop the sale and the 29-cents-on-the-dollar return for the senior secured creditors.

The Louisville Courier-Journal puts the losses suffered by the teachers’ fund at $4,600,000, the police fund at $147,000, and the road-construction fund at $896,000. The NEA, which just took over operation of the largest teachers’ union in Indiana after possible fraud committed by the union’s insurance arm, can’t be happy about that.

As a result, Treasurer Mourdock has instructed the funds run by his office to not buy any more secured debt from companies receiving federal bailout money. I guess we can now add state/local public capital to the list of capital no longer flowing to bailed-out companies.

The descent to France continues

by @ 7:37. Filed under Business, Politics - National.

(H/T – Rob Port)

Politico found a stupid Florida Dem, Rep. Alan Grayson, wondering how to make Disney World even more crowded. His solution? In the middle of a major recession, demand that companies with more than 100 employees immediately start offering both full-time and part-time employees with at least a year on the job a week of paid vacation, then 3 years after that goes into effect, bump that up to 2 weeks and require companies with 50 or more employees offer both full-time and part-time employees with at least a year on the job a week of paid vacation.

Somebody better ask Milwaukee how that 9-day paid-“sick”-leave deal is going. Last I checked, that wasn’t going so well.

What else should one expect from a Congress that gives itself almost as much vacation time as teachers? Speaking of that, the story finds Sen. Lisa Murkowski (“R”-AK) whining that isn’t enough. I may not have a quarter to give, and even if I did, I wouldn’t give her it, but I can still say, “Call someone who cares.”

May 21, 2009

War on corporations holding back economic recovery – part 2

by @ 19:44. Tags:
Filed under Business, Politics - National.

(H/T – Hot Air Headlines via Flip)

Remember what I relayed from Dad29 in what turned out to be Part 1 of what seems to be an ongoing series? Bloomberg reports that fund managers are now wary of lending money to unionized companies with unfunded pension liabilities because of what happened at Chrysler. Quoting George Schultze, head of Schultze Asset Management, one of the last Chrysler holdouts:

Lenders will have to figure out how to price this risk. The obvious one is: Don’t lend to a company with big legacy liabilities or demand a much higher rate of interest because you may be leapfrogged in a bankruptcy….

It’s terrible precedent. The sad thing is it impacts the manufacturing sector and the companies that have legacy liabilities directly. It will be nearly impossible, or much more expensive, to get secured financing for these type of companies.

I do want you to read the entire article. However, I can’t let the closing paragraph escape notice:

“People are starting to think ‘This is a very activist administration, even more than we counted on,’” said Martin Fridson, CEO of money manager Fridson Investment Advisors in New York. “If it comes down to the interest of creditors or labor unions, the administration is going to override what you thought you could do.”

What’s left of private capital for at-risk companies is about to exit stage left.

How long is that Porkulus supposed to last again?

by @ 16:22. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – Mary Katharine Ham)

Buried at the end of a Washington Post story on the failures of the government version of the Porkulus “watchdog” web presence is a telling quote from Earl E. Devaney, the Interior Department inspector general who has been placed in charge of stimulus oversight:

“We have four and a half years to turn this thing into its final product. My intent is not to have people come once and never come back. I want it to be good enough that the citizens who look at this site become the eyes and ears for the [inspector generals] and see things that normally an IG would have to stumble across.”

And here I thought the money was supposed to be spent this year and next.

Obama’s speech – more questions than answers – UPDATE – And straw men a-plenty

by @ 13:51. Filed under Politics - National, War on Terror.

Fausta has a few questions after President Obama’s speech this morning:

So, does this mean the “war on terror” should be called “the war on al Qaeda”?

And the specific statement, “like other prisoners of war”, raises the issue whether the Obama administration is considering changing the detainees’ status to that of POWs….

Closing Gitmo? Where’s the plan?
Supermax prisons taking Gitmo detainees? Which ones?
“New legal regime to detain terrorists”? Where’s the plan?

Very interesting questions. Do read the entire post.

Revisions/extensions (2:06 pm 5/21/2009) – Karl Rove found 5 different straw men in that speech, which he added to his longer list of 2009 Obama Straw Man Watch. My favorite from today:

“And we will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue. Listening to the recent debate, I’ve heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country.”

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]