Before continuing, it would only be fair to engage in full disclosure. I am not an Obama fan. Although I have tried to be objective in previous posts, I am sure that I gave myself away.
That being said, I was a strong Hillary supporter . I would have preferred that she had dropped Bill along the way, but I would imagine she was advised that would be committing political suicide. I wasn't always one of her advocates but following her during her run for the Dem. nomination and listening to her in the debates and on various interviews, my respect for her grew not only for her acumen as a politician, but as an individual. She was and has been a professional in every aspect of her recent life and especially in the public arena. She understands “Politics”.
Back in Jan 2009, after his first “100 Days”, I felt it premature to pass judgment. Obama truly inherited a mess, so, in all fairness, I deferred until now.
In his interview with Oprah in December, she asked him how he would grade his first year. It was obvious, that he knew the questions in advance of the interview. He gave himself a B+ , qualifying it by saying, “an A- if healthcare is passed” When Charlie Gibson of ABC was asked what he thought of Obama’s grade of himself, he responded. “…I would have given myself an incomplete…” Very astute of Charlie.
Regrettably, Obama came across to the nation and the world as an egocentric narcissist.
He did do a few things that I liked. Unfortunately, he did so much more that I didn’t.
What I liked:
• Engaged Hillary to be Secretary of State.
• Brought Paul Volcker in as an advisor on the economic council (even though he was shelved for a full year until last Thursday)
• Legislature that he instituted bringing down the fees that credit card companies were charging.
What I didn’t like:
• He allocated the same priority to everything, accomplishing little.
• His priorities didn’t mesh with the those of the people who elected him.
• It’s the economy S_____! Larry Summers shares the final grade.
• Please do not get me started on the GM/Chrysler/GMAC bailouts.
• He stressed bipartisanship in his campaign, yet made it too difficult for the Rep to participate.
• The deplorable administration of the TARP (Case in point AIG, bonuses etc)
• Did not address the housing crisis
• Allowed the creation of a 2,000 page healthcare bill full of pork and special interest give aways, that was too complicated and long to read.
• Showed his brilliance as an orator in Cairo, without any follow through.
• He promised transparency yet hid from C Span.
• Ineffectiveness of the stimulus- favouring more liberal union oriented projects and not creating long term employment
• Completely misunderstanding the concept of stimulus. Getting the money out ASAP to areas which would create the most jobs
• Adding over $1 trillion to the deficit
• Inability to comprehend the consequences and slowness in reacting to the Christmas Day Bomber
• Acts like a manager and not a leader being reactive in lieu of proactive
• Too dependant on Pelosi and Reid (who hopefully will be only a bad memory in November)
• Still blaming the Bush administration
I would like to be a fan of Obama. I wish he gave me just reason to be one. He went to Washington with an incredible agenda, a Dem. House and Senate and accomplished very little. He promised hope and change but did not follow through. The Audacity.
What I would like to see in the next year is tangible substance and not a pretty image.
With the above in mind, my grade for his first year is D-
I would really like to believe in President Obama, and overcome my cynicism but he has to prove to me that he is more than a proficient orator and demonstrate that his words translate into meaningful actions.
I am sincerely hopimg that next January, I have reason to raise his grade.
.
Showing posts with label Chrysler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chrysler. Show all posts
Monday, January 25, 2010
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
The Regenerated DuO in DetrOit
Will a marriage between labour and a Democratic gOvernment friendly to unions and financed by tax payers money be good for business in general?
What happens when labour and government become partners? At General MOtors, the shareholder structure would be as follows: gOvernment holdings approximately 50%, UAW 39% and bondholders 10%.
Fairness is already in question as the gOvernment will receive an equity interest of 50% to convert their loans of $10 billion, whereas the bondholders will receive only 10% for their $24 billion.
Within the context of the outline of the potential Chrysler proposal, due on Friday, the banks will write off close to $5 billion of secured loans. Some of those banks, Citi in particular, are recipients of TARP money. Recent chatter is that Citi will be requiring an additional infusion of cash, in the immediate future. In essence, the government will lend Citi additional funds, while they are taking a loss in a government imposed restructuring at Chrysler. Conflict of interest.
Even from a lay person’s perspective, there are serious questions which should be raised.
The Chrysler proposal would give the UAW a majority holding of 55%. Based on the performance of the UAW over the past decade or so, it would be difficult to foresee Fiat buying into a 35% minority shareholder position.
.
What happens when labour and government become partners? At General MOtors, the shareholder structure would be as follows: gOvernment holdings approximately 50%, UAW 39% and bondholders 10%.
Fairness is already in question as the gOvernment will receive an equity interest of 50% to convert their loans of $10 billion, whereas the bondholders will receive only 10% for their $24 billion.
Within the context of the outline of the potential Chrysler proposal, due on Friday, the banks will write off close to $5 billion of secured loans. Some of those banks, Citi in particular, are recipients of TARP money. Recent chatter is that Citi will be requiring an additional infusion of cash, in the immediate future. In essence, the government will lend Citi additional funds, while they are taking a loss in a government imposed restructuring at Chrysler. Conflict of interest.
Even from a lay person’s perspective, there are serious questions which should be raised.
The Chrysler proposal would give the UAW a majority holding of 55%. Based on the performance of the UAW over the past decade or so, it would be difficult to foresee Fiat buying into a 35% minority shareholder position.
On Friday, as Chrysler will be presenting it's proposal to the gOvernment, the results of car and truck sales will be released.
The next few weeks should prove to be very interesting. Perhaps, the main stream media will start asking questions..
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Transparency
As time moves forward and additional information is made available, one must seriously question what is going on in Washington.
Between the TARP bank rescue package initiated by Paulson and Bernanke and the GM, Chrysler and GMAC bailouts promoted by Congress, tax payers have to start asking questions and insisting on answers.
The lack of transparency and oversight on the part of the government is unacceptable.
Obama has said on multiple occassions that he would like to have the stimulus package on his desk, for signing, the day he takes office. Yet, listening to the Sunday political shows, several comments have been made insinuating not only that there will not be sufficient time for both parties to read through the entire bill but that the Republican voice has not been heard.
Obama's platform had been based on change and transparency. Let the transparency show through and post the stimulus package on the Internet for all to see before pushing it through the house and commons. There is little question that there will be dissenting opinions by many but after the past 3 months it is imperative that we know how and where the money will be allocated.
Knowledge is a powerful tool. The elected officials answer to their public.
There is talk that this stimulus will be in the vicinity of $1,000,000,000,000, an incredible amount of money to spend. Will there be pork barrel spending?
..
Between the TARP bank rescue package initiated by Paulson and Bernanke and the GM, Chrysler and GMAC bailouts promoted by Congress, tax payers have to start asking questions and insisting on answers.
The lack of transparency and oversight on the part of the government is unacceptable.
Obama has said on multiple occassions that he would like to have the stimulus package on his desk, for signing, the day he takes office. Yet, listening to the Sunday political shows, several comments have been made insinuating not only that there will not be sufficient time for both parties to read through the entire bill but that the Republican voice has not been heard.
Obama's platform had been based on change and transparency. Let the transparency show through and post the stimulus package on the Internet for all to see before pushing it through the house and commons. There is little question that there will be dissenting opinions by many but after the past 3 months it is imperative that we know how and where the money will be allocated.
Knowledge is a powerful tool. The elected officials answer to their public.
There is talk that this stimulus will be in the vicinity of $1,000,000,000,000, an incredible amount of money to spend. Will there be pork barrel spending?
..
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Where is the Leadership?
The Canadian public learned a new word in early December, “prorogue” which means to suspend or end a legislative session.
This was precipitated by the justifiable fear of a modern day coup. Had the Conservative Canadian Prime Minister not suspended parliament on December 5th, there would have been a vote of non confidence, bringing down the government.
A coalition of the absurd was formed by the three remaining Canadian parties, the national center left liberals, the national socialist NDP and the regional Quebec Bloc separatists.
Imagine inviting a regional separatist party into a national coalition.
The Canadian government is now on hiatus until January 26th , at which time, this coalition can still initiate for a non confidence vote.
In summary, a coalition is formed by separatist, liberal and socialist parties with the sole purpose to bring down a government which was duly elected by the country six weeks before. The new PM, would be the humiliated ex- leader of the liberal party, who lost in a crushing defeat to the present PM, Stephen Harper.
Where is the leadership?
In September, Republican Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake, initiated a $700 billion bank “rescue” plan. Initially, its primary objective was to purchase the toxic mortgages held by the financial institutions. The bill was passed with reticence by both Republicans and Democrats.
In essence, it would “detoxify” the balance sheet therefore encouraging financial institutions to commence lending to one another again. This, in turn, would enable the commercial banks to start lending to credit worthy businesses and consumers, ultimately easing the credit crunch. Unfortunately, to date, based on media rhetoric, (actual statistics are not available) there is little evidence of this happening.
Paulson, Bernake and the congress let down the American tax payer. Once the funds were disbursed, it was the banks prerogative to distribute the funds as they deemed appropriate. What Paulson and Bernake failed to do. nor were they mandated by the congress, was to implement realistic policies with pre-determined individualized conditions and accountability for each of the TARP borrowers.
What was surprising was that the CEOs and board of directors of these companies, who were responsible for the financial armagedon, remained in their positions. To date, the government has not put one of their own representatives on any of the boards.
As of today, the Treasury has not disclosed a list of the beneficiaries who received approximately $335 billion of TARP funding. The logic for this lack of transparency stems from the potential for panic should the public know which of the financial institutions the government was bailing out.
This lack of transparency does not help to encourage confidence in the average American. The perception is that the financial situation is much worse.
Where is the leadership?
Taking the above into consideration, it wasn’t surprising when, in mid November, CEOs from General Motors, Chrysler and Ford flew into Washington asking for a $25 billion lifeline.
The Democratic Speaker of the House along with the Democratic Senate Majority Leader didn’t request that the Big 3 prepare plans and projections, along with concessions that they would be initiating to obtain this money.
As the government hadn’t required accountability or performed a due diligence on the recipients of the TARP funds, it was not surprising the Big 3 came empty handed. Perhaps they expected it to be a slam dunk.
They returned to Washington in early December increasing their request to $34 billion. After all, perhaps they justified the increase of $9 billion because they brought a written report.
In todays world, corporations applying for financing are required to submit both quantitative and qualitative information and bonifide projections to the lender in support of the loan request.
Where is the leadership?
Last week, the $34 billion request was reduced to $14 billion and subsequently refused by the senate. There appeared to be a impasse between the senate republicans and Gettelfinger, the President of the UAW.
This past week, Gettelfinger appeared on several television news shows, voicing the position of the UAW. He stated the UAW have made considerable concessions in their most recent agreement (2007). What he did not elabourate on, what the original amounts of the benefits prior to these concession were. In his opinion, their part was completed and it was now time for the other classes of creditors and shareholders to do the same. In itself, this was not wrong, but it resulted in the bill not being passed.
In the 2007 agreement, UAW workers average 42 paid days off per year, comprised of approximately 5 weeks vacation and 17 paid holidays. Was that the result of prior concessions?
Job banks - If the tax payers were cognizant of what a job bank was and how it was funded, not only would they be up in arms but it could seriously impact their future purchases of a Big 3 car.
Gettelfinger alludes to the great sacrifice the UAW workers have made these past years but as the President of the union, his sights appear to be short term.
They were so close to an agreement on Thursday. Gettelfinger played his bluff. The republican White House had stated, in advance of this session that they wanted this loan to pass. Perhaps, the White House feel that since there is question as to the success of the bank bailout, they do not want to be the government in power who was responsible for the fall of the Big 3.
In approximately one month there will be a Democratic President who is union friendly. Does Gettelfinger know that the UAW will fare better or was he bluffing?
Winning this battle could be the first step to losing the war.
Hours later, GM announced they will be closing 20 factories throughout North American thereby reducing their production by approximately 250,000 vehicles. Will these laid off workers benefit from the job bank?
Where is the leadership?
Subsequent to the election, President elect Obama (democrat) stated there is only one President and stepped back.
President Bush (republican), has been giving exit interviews to the media and saying his goodbyes. Due to his ineffectiveness, his urging to senate to pass the bailout bill for the Big 3, has been to no avail.
Neither the President or President elect appear to have a sense of urgency with respect to the dilemma in the automobile industry. Something definitive has to be done and quickly.
Everyday that goes by fewer and fewer of the Big 3 cars are being purchased. The prospect of a Chapter 11 isn’t what is frightening the public. The fact that absolutely nothing tangible has been accomplished since the middle of November when the Big 3 first came to Washington, is what is absolutely terrifying them.
WHERE IS THE LEADERSHIP?
…
This was precipitated by the justifiable fear of a modern day coup. Had the Conservative Canadian Prime Minister not suspended parliament on December 5th, there would have been a vote of non confidence, bringing down the government.
A coalition of the absurd was formed by the three remaining Canadian parties, the national center left liberals, the national socialist NDP and the regional Quebec Bloc separatists.
Imagine inviting a regional separatist party into a national coalition.
The Canadian government is now on hiatus until January 26th , at which time, this coalition can still initiate for a non confidence vote.
In summary, a coalition is formed by separatist, liberal and socialist parties with the sole purpose to bring down a government which was duly elected by the country six weeks before. The new PM, would be the humiliated ex- leader of the liberal party, who lost in a crushing defeat to the present PM, Stephen Harper.
Where is the leadership?
In September, Republican Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake, initiated a $700 billion bank “rescue” plan. Initially, its primary objective was to purchase the toxic mortgages held by the financial institutions. The bill was passed with reticence by both Republicans and Democrats.
In essence, it would “detoxify” the balance sheet therefore encouraging financial institutions to commence lending to one another again. This, in turn, would enable the commercial banks to start lending to credit worthy businesses and consumers, ultimately easing the credit crunch. Unfortunately, to date, based on media rhetoric, (actual statistics are not available) there is little evidence of this happening.
Paulson, Bernake and the congress let down the American tax payer. Once the funds were disbursed, it was the banks prerogative to distribute the funds as they deemed appropriate. What Paulson and Bernake failed to do. nor were they mandated by the congress, was to implement realistic policies with pre-determined individualized conditions and accountability for each of the TARP borrowers.
What was surprising was that the CEOs and board of directors of these companies, who were responsible for the financial armagedon, remained in their positions. To date, the government has not put one of their own representatives on any of the boards.
As of today, the Treasury has not disclosed a list of the beneficiaries who received approximately $335 billion of TARP funding. The logic for this lack of transparency stems from the potential for panic should the public know which of the financial institutions the government was bailing out.
This lack of transparency does not help to encourage confidence in the average American. The perception is that the financial situation is much worse.
Where is the leadership?
Taking the above into consideration, it wasn’t surprising when, in mid November, CEOs from General Motors, Chrysler and Ford flew into Washington asking for a $25 billion lifeline.
The Democratic Speaker of the House along with the Democratic Senate Majority Leader didn’t request that the Big 3 prepare plans and projections, along with concessions that they would be initiating to obtain this money.
As the government hadn’t required accountability or performed a due diligence on the recipients of the TARP funds, it was not surprising the Big 3 came empty handed. Perhaps they expected it to be a slam dunk.
They returned to Washington in early December increasing their request to $34 billion. After all, perhaps they justified the increase of $9 billion because they brought a written report.
In todays world, corporations applying for financing are required to submit both quantitative and qualitative information and bonifide projections to the lender in support of the loan request.
Where is the leadership?
Last week, the $34 billion request was reduced to $14 billion and subsequently refused by the senate. There appeared to be a impasse between the senate republicans and Gettelfinger, the President of the UAW.
This past week, Gettelfinger appeared on several television news shows, voicing the position of the UAW. He stated the UAW have made considerable concessions in their most recent agreement (2007). What he did not elabourate on, what the original amounts of the benefits prior to these concession were. In his opinion, their part was completed and it was now time for the other classes of creditors and shareholders to do the same. In itself, this was not wrong, but it resulted in the bill not being passed.
In the 2007 agreement, UAW workers average 42 paid days off per year, comprised of approximately 5 weeks vacation and 17 paid holidays. Was that the result of prior concessions?
Job banks - If the tax payers were cognizant of what a job bank was and how it was funded, not only would they be up in arms but it could seriously impact their future purchases of a Big 3 car.
Gettelfinger alludes to the great sacrifice the UAW workers have made these past years but as the President of the union, his sights appear to be short term.
They were so close to an agreement on Thursday. Gettelfinger played his bluff. The republican White House had stated, in advance of this session that they wanted this loan to pass. Perhaps, the White House feel that since there is question as to the success of the bank bailout, they do not want to be the government in power who was responsible for the fall of the Big 3.
In approximately one month there will be a Democratic President who is union friendly. Does Gettelfinger know that the UAW will fare better or was he bluffing?
Winning this battle could be the first step to losing the war.
Hours later, GM announced they will be closing 20 factories throughout North American thereby reducing their production by approximately 250,000 vehicles. Will these laid off workers benefit from the job bank?
Where is the leadership?
Subsequent to the election, President elect Obama (democrat) stated there is only one President and stepped back.
President Bush (republican), has been giving exit interviews to the media and saying his goodbyes. Due to his ineffectiveness, his urging to senate to pass the bailout bill for the Big 3, has been to no avail.
Neither the President or President elect appear to have a sense of urgency with respect to the dilemma in the automobile industry. Something definitive has to be done and quickly.
Everyday that goes by fewer and fewer of the Big 3 cars are being purchased. The prospect of a Chapter 11 isn’t what is frightening the public. The fact that absolutely nothing tangible has been accomplished since the middle of November when the Big 3 first came to Washington, is what is absolutely terrifying them.
WHERE IS THE LEADERSHIP?
…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
