Capitalist Victory Over Unions, Obama, Bush, Detroit, Democrats and Media on Bailout

Despite strong support among Democrats in Congress and the media, Republicans led by Senators Corker and Shelby won a key vote Thursday evening, with support for capitalism showing renewed strength in the against the socialist forces led by lame duck President George Bush, former Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and Harry Reid (D-NV) in the Senate.

Both the United Auto Workers (UAW) labor union and the Detroit auto makers supported a plan by Mr. Bush and the Democrats to loan approximately $15 billion to the failing Detroit auto industry. The plan would have called for bankruptcy-like changes for the troubled companies, as well as the appointment of a government ombudsman or "car tzar" to approve all major decisions for the companies accepting the money.

Negotiations failed when the labor union, whose workers receive over $70 per hour in benefits, refused to take a pay cut to allow the plan to go forward.

The public was overall against the plan, despite intense support from the news media. Media reports portrayed the total collapse of the American automotive industry as the alternative to this plan.

Former Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D-Chicago), who resigned last month amid the corruption scandal which has so far resulted in an indictment against his close allies Antoin "Tony" Rezko and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-Chicago) was not directly involved in the negotiations.

Sphere: Related Content

Big Three Bailout Options

Mary Katherine Ham follows the usual logic of the false dilemma as she writes:

For the auto industry to completely collapse would be a disaster in this kind of environment, not just for individual families but the repercussions across the economy would be dire. So it's my belief that we need to provide assistance to the auto industry. But I think that it can't be a blank check.

Filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection allows a company to continue its operations under some framework approved or managed by a court. It should be distinguished from Chapter 7, which forces a company to dissolve (or in Ham's phrasing, to completely collapse). Chapter 11 forces a business to admit the failure of its business model, restructuring it to become a going concern.

In particular, GM needs to renegotiate its labor contracts.

It would be very helpful if GM could decide what kind of cars to make, as well. But that won't happen, since it can't renegotiate the CAFE standards with Congress.

I've predicted that if GM were to get bailout money, there would be nothing stopping them from entering bankruptcy protection anyway. That's right, Madam Speaker-In-Law, they could take the money you want to give to your union thug pals and declare a fat dividend followed by bankruptcy. In fact, the board would be fiduciarily remiss not to do so.

But in the NY Times, Harvard economist Edward L. Glaeser has another suggestion.

There is a middle path between bailout billions and car company catastrophe: the possibility of limited government aid after automobile companies have entered Chapter 11.

I don't think he's right. There is no need for a bailout, and if one comes it will worsen the losses.

But if we have to accept one, it would sure be nice if GM could admit the failure of its business model before getting it.

Sphere: Related Content

Socialist Democrats Feud With Marxist Democrats Over Power

News outlets are reporting a vicious fight in the wake of Democrats seizing power over Republicans in the recent US elections. The socialist wing of the party, led by the aging Steny Hoyer (D-MD), vows to defeat the marxist faction led by former homosexual pimp Barney Frank (D-MA) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in order to keep the radicals from destroying the nation too quickly.

Hoyer, remaining alert at the twilight of his career, still boasted of his hold on the majority of newly elected Congressmen. Voters are more interested in implementing the ideas of Karl Marx in a practical way than in finding enlightenment through ideological purity, Hoyer noted. "The 33 new Members of Congress coming to Washington to swell our side of the aisle are pragmatic, not dogmatic."

It is not yet clear if Hoyer retains the ability or the will to stand up to Pelosi and powerful incoming Executive branch official Barack Obama (D-IL). During the campaign, Pelosi and Hoyer squabbled over the role superdelegates should play in selecting the Democrat nominee for Obama's position. The Hoyer camp eventually won out. As Hoyer urged, the superdelegates disregarded the popular vote to select Obama over defeated socialist wing candidate Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

Speaker Pelosi argued during the campaign that after being vital to his selection for office, she and her marxists would be more bipartisan and ally with the more conservative socialist wing in support of Obama.

Sphere: Related Content

It's Going to be Barry and the Pelosicrats

The Hill is reporting that Congressional Democrats are backing off leadership challenges. The Congress will be able to deliver Pelosi-Reid leadership we've come to expect.

God help the nation, but for bloggers it's going to be a target-rich environment.

Sphere: Related Content

Move Over, Chuck Norris

There's a new demigod in town:

Barack Obama is so manly that he once got a haircut and passed on the talcum powder.

Barack Obama once scuffed his shoe and walked around with it like that all day -- on purpose.

Barack Obama once bowled his age.

Barack Obama is in his wife's Five.

Barack Obama once bit the head off a Tootsie Roll almost all at once.

Very Barry, puddin' n' pie, kissed a girl and made himself cry.

Barack Obama doesn't take money from lobbyists -- he hires them.

Barack Obama is so patriotic that he votes in almost every Senate session.

Barack Obama can file his own fingernails.

The American Flag is so patriotic it doesn't have to wear an Obama lapel pin.

Barack Obama is so centrist that he is friendly with people who believe the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

Barack Obama is happy that the Red Sox beat the curse and won the Super Bowl.

Barack Obama is so bipartisan that he may give Cabinet spots to Hillary supporters.

Sphere: Related Content

100 Years in Iraq

There is a giant disconnect in the political discussion of the war in Iraq, especially over how long we stay. John McCain says we have an open-ended commitment. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both say we should get out now.

They're all three lying.

Senator McCain says we could have troops based in Iraq the same as in Germany, Japan or Korea. But that doesn't mean those troops stationed on bases in some future peaceful Iraq won't be in any danger. Just as the troops in Germany were for decades the target Russian missiles, and there is still hostility between North and South Korea, any troops stationed overseas are under threat, and all the more so in the historically unstable Middle East.

So why is Senator McCain saying we will be there if they want us? The primary reason is that we must deny our enemies hope. It is naive lunacy to say that we're leaving until we actually do. And we won't leave until Iraq is self-sufficient, unless some naive lunatic gets elected and pulls troops out before the job is done, leaving a power vacuum in Iraq.

We've seen power vacuums before, such as when the British pulled out of Basra, and when the United States pulled out of Viet Nam. When political weakness dictates military strategy, no good results.

I don't think Hillary Clinton, if elected, would pull troops out right away. She would say she was doing that, but would do so slowly, and with much fanfare, while continuing with normal troop rotations.

Senator Obama says that if elected he would try to defy the lessons of history and the laws of human nature, allowing a mess we created to turn into a victory for our foes. I don't think he means it. He'd start pulling troops out, whereupon lo and behold, Al Qaeda would suddenly appear, forcing him to redeploy. And it would be a giant mess, because he has no clue about the world outside the South Side of Chicago.

So I really don't believe any of them. I do like Senator McCain's bravado better than the simperion of the other two, however.

Sphere: Related Content

In which I agree with Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and really bad economist, has one thing right. China is our enemy.

When Bill Clinton arranged for China to get Most Favored Nation trading status, he said trading with them would encourage them on the road to democracy. Nancy opposed him, saying we should not trade with wicked nations. In 1991, while Bill Clinton was seeking to pay back his Chinese masters, Pelosi went to China, as well, and found her way to Tiananmen Square:

Along with two other members of Congress, Pelosi unwrapped a banner that read, "To those who died for democracy in China." The decidedly undiplomatic delegation was immediately surrounded by police and Chinese "tourists" who pulled walkie-talkies from their backpacks.

Pelosi continues her fight against the state of affairs in China. While the Chinese Communists are calling for 'stepped up "patriotic campaigns"' in Tibet, which yearns for freedom:

Unrest among Tibet's Buddhist clergy has been blamed in part on compulsory "patriotic education" classes, widely reviled by monks for cutting into religious study and forcing them to make ritual denouncements of the Dalai Lama, who fled to India in 1959 after a failed uprising against Chinese rule.

Freedom of thought, religion, and speech are non-negotiable. I encourage athletes all over the world to reject the Chinese demand for their complicit silence during the Games.

While I disagree with Speaker Pelosi on a wide range of topics, this is not one of them.

Sphere: Related Content

The Dork-Nothing Congress

It's really too much fun. Congress can't even dork things up properly.

The Democrats swept to power promising clean government, a change of course in Iraq, no more wiretaps, and a chicken in every pot.

But the fun started before the Congress even too their oaths of office, when Nancy Pelosi, elected Speaker by her peers, was unable to get her own choice for right-hand-man. She wanted Okinawa Jack Murtha, but almost no one else in her party did. Jack would have really dorked things up, not being the shiniest penny in the roll, but Nancy failed to bring him into her leadership coven. She promised, but couldn't deliver.

And now, seven months into the Congressional term, what has this Congress delivered?

What they delivered was the stupid minimum wage claptrap, William Jefferson, (D-LA), more troops in Iraq, more wiretaps, and ... left the Bush economy to successfully handle the chicken:pot ratio.

Don't get me wrong: I think the troop levels in Iraq, having by all reports sent the terrorist running home to Mommy, are a good thing. And I'm not worried at all about the government snooping in on the zero calls I make to Terroristan. I worry even less about journalists being unable to get good quotes from terrorists afraid the US Government might be eavesdropping.

A new and better warrantless search? Shout it from the rooftops: Democrats complicit in awarding Bush the dictatorship he's been wanting for so long. [/snark]

I don't want our country to be dorked up by Democrats. It's just that I stand slack-jawed in wonder at the level of up that the Democrats haven't been dorking.

Not that they haven't tried dorking things up, or rather they have given the appearance of wanting to dork things up, but have dorked up their mission to dork things up.

Brutal irony, isn't it?

Sphere: Related Content

Alll She is Saying ... Is Give Fleece a Chance

It appears that Pennsylvania Democrat (and also Congressman) Jack Murtha's problem with the war is it's in Iraq, not in Pennsylvania.

According to the Washington Times (w/t Powerline), Murtha is willing to break House rules to get military pork sent to his district:

During a series of House votes Thursday, Murtha walked to the chamber's Republican side to confront Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., a 43-year-old former FBI agent. Earlier this month, Rogers had tried unsuccessfully to strike a Murtha earmark from an intelligence spending bill. The item would restore $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center, a facility in Murtha's Pennsylvania district that some Republicans say is unneeded.

According to Rogers' account, which Murtha did not dispute, the Democrat angrily told Rogers he should never seek earmarks of his own because "you're not going to get any, now or forever."

Speaker-In-Law™ Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) defended Murtha, saying she had

"[N]o idea what actually happened" during a noisy exchange in the House chamber last week between Reps. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and Mike Rogers, R-Mich.

"What I do know is that Congressman Murtha has — enjoys — an excellent reputation in the Congress on both sides of the aisle," said Pelosi in a broadcast interview taped Friday and aired Sunday.

"He writes the defense appropriation bill in a bipartisan way each year and with the complete involvement of the Republicans as to who gets what on the Republican side," she said.

Democrats are doing everything they can "ethically" do to avoid funding the actual mission of the Department of Defense, but when it comes to pork for their top sloppers, it's no holds barred. And the defense she gives for larding up the Defense appropriation is that Murtha slops both ends of the trough, so what's the complaint here?

According to Democrats, we should not fund the war in Iraq, which has a direct benefit for the security of the nation. Don't fund the war in Iraq, because the troops in the field need to know where our priorities are. Don't fund the war in Iraq, since that would interfere with funding projects in Murtha's district. And don't complain about wasteful spending, or we won't slop your end of the trough any more.

So the Speaker-in-Law is not defending Jack Murtha, really. She doesn't know whether he has broken any rules, after all. All she is saying, is give fleece a chance.

Sphere: Related Content

How can I Compare the Speaker-In-Law?

To the Nation's Mother-in-Law, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, whose strategy for moving the country forward has thus far failed to generate any actual new laws, to the Speaker-in-Law whose effort to move the country forward has thus far failed because: President Bush dares give voice to his opinion after signing (or as is becoming blessedly more common, not signing) the legislation she has finally finished reading.

The Speaker-in-Law™ is like that guy in the TV commercial flipping a light switch off, on, off, on ... "Honey, what's this doing?" She tells him it's not doing anything. Meanwhile, the garage door opener is whacking away at the neighbor's car.

The Speaker-in-Law is like a kid who finds an old tarnished oil lamp, and takes it to the junk dealer to trade it for some nice marbles. The junk dealer rubs the lamp, and out comes the genie.

The Speaker-in-Law is like an octogenarian driving to bridge club in one of these:
.

The Speaker-in-Law is like the Molecule Man, before he figured out that his power to control the molecules in everything around him meant he could control the molecules in everything around him.

The Speaker-in-Law is like a person with the power to read minds who finds no better use of that power than to win at Bingo ... and never figures out that Bingo is not a game of skill.

The Speaker-in-Law is like a game show contestant who disovers that the game is harder before a live studio audience than in the home version.

The Speaker-in-Law is like a baseball player who toughs it out in the minors for many, many years, and when he finally gets his chance at the Show, really is "just happy to be in the big leagues".

The Speaker-in-Law has more power than all but about 3 people on the planet, and trapped in the cramped quarters of her own mental prison, she has no idea what to do with it.

Sphere: Related Content

Hey Pelosi and Reid

We are worth more than peanuts.

Sphere: Related Content

Nancy Pelosi Must Resign

For negotiating with a foreign government against the expressed wishes of the President.

Sphere: Related Content

Why Elections Matter

Via Volokh Conspiracy:

Supreme Court Decides "Global Warming" Case: The Supreme Court handed down its decision in the "global warming" case, Massachusetts v. EPA, and it looks like a significant victory for environmental interests. Stevens managed to keep Kennedy on board, so it was a 5-4 ruling that will make the EPA go back and reconsider the petition to regulate greenhouse gases.

So now the full power of the EPA will be unleashed on greenhouse gas emissions. Hopefully the Administration has still can supply some rational influence on the bureaucracy.

Speaker-In-Law Nancy Pelosi is off to Syria, to negotiate with the terrorist regime there. Then again, at least we know that when all the cards are on the table, she won't blink.

Before she left on the trip, the Speaker-in-Law put through a pointless piece of legislation, "The Code Pink Appeasement, Pork, Peanut, and Spinach Salad Act of 2006". The Act ties funding for the Iraq war to both a timetable for withdrawal and various welfare handouts to farmers and their Congressional panderers. The bill is pointless, since the President announced that he would veto it. Nevertheless, she rushed it through before she left. Now funding for the troops will have to wait while Aunt Nancy pretends to be relevant while prostrating herself before the Syrians. Probably the sensitive and caring meat handlers will decide whe wouldn't bring much at auction, and will send her back.

November 4, 2008 cannot arrive soon enough.

Sphere: Related Content