The historic and controversial clean energy and global warming bill that very narrowly passed the House Friday afternoon is fraught with political perils and may have lasting effects for Democrats. Left-leaning environmental groups are saying the bill isn't strong enough, and Republicans, (who knew the political weight that was just dropped by Democrats and began cheering when the final vote was tallied) have been saying it will force many companies in an already struggling economy to lay off more workers and will force average Americans to pay more for electricity and heating oil.
The Fourth of July reccess, which also kicked off this weekend will see mounting political fronts flare up as Democrats from industrial swing districts will be forced to defend their votes to angry constituents worried about their jobs or the cost of energy while Republicans, who have yet to offer their own energy bill alternative, finally see an issue they can replay over and over again before the '10 midterms. The GOP also are hoping for a repeat of 1994, when after two years into his first term, Bill Clinton lost a huge number of congressional seats in a Republican takeover that succeeded on many of the same political arguments they're making now. For the record, Clinton had even more Democrats in the House of Representatives then Obama has now.
Most Democrats hailed Friday's vote as historic and groundbreaking, and the legislation is being lauded by more moderate conservation groups and proponents of alternative energy, who already received a boost of funding with the Federal Stimulus that was passed in February. Already though, analysts are saying that oil, petroleum, and coal companies, who have spent millions of dollars on ads and lobbying congress to try and blunt some of the effects of the bill say that their companies will have to spend billions more to become compliant on the new legislation and will be forced to pass those costs on to the consumer or lay off workers to avoid going under.
Doubts remain how the bill will do when the Senate takes it up in the fall, but right now it appears that many Democrats are out on a limb politically, and unless any of the new legislation starts showing glimmers of hope for an economy ravaged by wall street excess and mounting job losses, the Republicans, much to their delight, will have their '94 sequel.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Obama extends an olive branch to gay rights activists
Since Obama's election, one bloc of democratic supporters in particular have felt that he has given them cold shoulder. Gay groups have mounted increasing public pressure as Obama has yet to make good on his campaign promises to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Ace (DOMA). But just last week, Obama expanded some benefits to gay federal employees and this week he has invited gay rights advocates to the White House for a celebration next Monday commemorating the 40th anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall Rebellion, a demonstration that spurred the modern gay rights movement.
Obama seems to be sending a message to the gay rights community that their complaints over his inaction are not going unheard. I do wonder though what their reaction will be to this party invitation. I imagine that the impending references to "let them eat cake" are imminent.
Obama seems to be sending a message to the gay rights community that their complaints over his inaction are not going unheard. I do wonder though what their reaction will be to this party invitation. I imagine that the impending references to "let them eat cake" are imminent.
New poll shows maority support public health care option
As health care continues to dominate the legislative session on the hill, a fascinating poll released by CBS and the New York Times shows almost overwhelming support for the most controversial issues surrounding the health care debate: a government-run health insurance option to compete with private companies.
By almost 2 - 1, the American public wants the government to step in, and as many as 57% of those surveyed said they would even pay higher taxes to fund it. This curious statistic hasn't stopped a major opposition campaign by health providers and Republicans to keep any public option out of congressional proposals.
Of the 3 bills currently being debated in congress right now and making their way through committee, two of them have the so called "public option." The House bill released on Friday, which received wide support from the White House, contains it. The bill currently being debated in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, chaired by Ted Kennedy, but with his no. 2 Chris Dodd pinch hitting, also contains it. However, the bill making its way through the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Max Baucus, contains more compromises with Republicans and Conservative Democrats and doesn't contain it. Marrying the two bills in the Senate is crucial, and although the two chairmen have said that combining their two bills into a single vehicle will be seamless, it's becoming more apparent as time goes on that these two Senate committess are working on separate and conflicting tracks.
A further headache that all 3 bills are running into is how it's all going to be paid for. The public supports government-run care, but is also wary of growing budget deficits, and no plan pushed by either the white house or congress has a comprehensive revenue plan in place to fund what continues to be an astronomical figure that continues to climb as more and more work is done and more details are brought to light.
By almost 2 - 1, the American public wants the government to step in, and as many as 57% of those surveyed said they would even pay higher taxes to fund it. This curious statistic hasn't stopped a major opposition campaign by health providers and Republicans to keep any public option out of congressional proposals.
Of the 3 bills currently being debated in congress right now and making their way through committee, two of them have the so called "public option." The House bill released on Friday, which received wide support from the White House, contains it. The bill currently being debated in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, chaired by Ted Kennedy, but with his no. 2 Chris Dodd pinch hitting, also contains it. However, the bill making its way through the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Max Baucus, contains more compromises with Republicans and Conservative Democrats and doesn't contain it. Marrying the two bills in the Senate is crucial, and although the two chairmen have said that combining their two bills into a single vehicle will be seamless, it's becoming more apparent as time goes on that these two Senate committess are working on separate and conflicting tracks.
A further headache that all 3 bills are running into is how it's all going to be paid for. The public supports government-run care, but is also wary of growing budget deficits, and no plan pushed by either the white house or congress has a comprehensive revenue plan in place to fund what continues to be an astronomical figure that continues to climb as more and more work is done and more details are brought to light.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Backlash Against Obamacare
Obama's healthcare agenda hit some snags this week as moderate democrats in congress continue to express concerns over the cost of the program, and discrepancies were discovered by the Congressional Budget Office over the number of Americans who would actually end up getting insurance coverage under Obama's plan. And to further fan the flames, business groups who had also seemed open to healthcare reform initially are now openly criticizing the plan. To make matters worse, or at least more interesting, Forbes Magazine ran an article today quoting Obama's own former doctor expressing concern over his healthcare plan.
Despite all the fighting going on in Washington right now, House Democrats managed to unveil their healthcare plan this afternoon. As reaction to the plan rolls in, I would expect that the argument over healthcare reform is only beginning to heat up.
Despite all the fighting going on in Washington right now, House Democrats managed to unveil their healthcare plan this afternoon. As reaction to the plan rolls in, I would expect that the argument over healthcare reform is only beginning to heat up.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
House passes war funding bill
It took almost all of the full political might of the White House, the Speaker, and the House Majority Leader to get it through, but the roughly $106 Billion appropriations bill that continues funding for the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan narrowly passed the house after being rejected outright last onth.
In a surprising turn of events, and also one that shows the difference of the political climate in Washington, was that it was the Republicans and liberal Democrats who voted together almost unanimously to reject the bill. The Republicans were voting against a $5 Billion supplement included in the bill that injects credit for impoverished nations into the International Monetary Fund. Although there were still 30 Democratic defections, it was down from 51 last month when the bill failed to pass, mostly because a provision was left out this time that easily passed the Senate, one that doesn't allow photographs of abused detainees to be released to the public; a contentious issue in the more left-leaning house.
In years past, bills like this were often the bane of Democrats, as Republicans would slip controversial projects into these bills at the behest of the White House and dare Democrats to vote against them, knowing they would be politically tarred for voting "against the troops." Five Years ago George Bush slammed his presidential opponent John Kerry for casting a no vote on a war supplemental, and although Kerry had been a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, Bush's accusations of Kerry being a hollow liberal with no love for his fellow soldiers all but sealed his doom.
More than any other vote that has hit the floor of this congress, this war bill proves that economic issues and populist sentiment over government spending and bailouts trumps the once dominant themes of homeland security and funding for American soldiers, something unthinkable even two years ago. Republicans, in a radical, albeit politically sensible shift, are banking that the backlash over the $5 Billion IMF funding will create a wedge for them in the 2010 midterm elections next year and are also hoping that no voter would actually think rank and file Republicans are weak on defense.
One thing the Democrats have up their sleeves in this bill, however, that may come back to haunt the GOP, is the Swine Flu vaccine funding that was also included in the bill to be used for next years flu season, which shows that a "no" vote on a war bill still carries political consequences, no matter what party is in charge of congress.
In a surprising turn of events, and also one that shows the difference of the political climate in Washington, was that it was the Republicans and liberal Democrats who voted together almost unanimously to reject the bill. The Republicans were voting against a $5 Billion supplement included in the bill that injects credit for impoverished nations into the International Monetary Fund. Although there were still 30 Democratic defections, it was down from 51 last month when the bill failed to pass, mostly because a provision was left out this time that easily passed the Senate, one that doesn't allow photographs of abused detainees to be released to the public; a contentious issue in the more left-leaning house.
In years past, bills like this were often the bane of Democrats, as Republicans would slip controversial projects into these bills at the behest of the White House and dare Democrats to vote against them, knowing they would be politically tarred for voting "against the troops." Five Years ago George Bush slammed his presidential opponent John Kerry for casting a no vote on a war supplemental, and although Kerry had been a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, Bush's accusations of Kerry being a hollow liberal with no love for his fellow soldiers all but sealed his doom.
More than any other vote that has hit the floor of this congress, this war bill proves that economic issues and populist sentiment over government spending and bailouts trumps the once dominant themes of homeland security and funding for American soldiers, something unthinkable even two years ago. Republicans, in a radical, albeit politically sensible shift, are banking that the backlash over the $5 Billion IMF funding will create a wedge for them in the 2010 midterm elections next year and are also hoping that no voter would actually think rank and file Republicans are weak on defense.
One thing the Democrats have up their sleeves in this bill, however, that may come back to haunt the GOP, is the Swine Flu vaccine funding that was also included in the bill to be used for next years flu season, which shows that a "no" vote on a war bill still carries political consequences, no matter what party is in charge of congress.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Obama on healthcare
President Obama delivered a major speech today to the American Medical Association (AMA)in which he deplored the current state of America's healthcare system and made a pitch for his healthcare reform plan.
While congress has been working on their version of the plan in recent weeks, Obama repeated many of the reform issues that were on his wish list during the campaign: a push for computerized healthcare records, a focus on health outcomes rather than government imbursements for individual medical procedures, a push for more emphasis on preventative medicine, a mandate to do away with insurance companies discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, and a federal plan that would help cover the nations uninsured or anyone who wants to switch healthcare plans. And unlike Obama's campaign platform, he mentioned providing waivers on health insurance for extremely poor people and some small business.
One issue that Obama went the distance to stress was that the government health insurance option was NOT a move toward an eventual single-payer healthcare system. He emphasized this point in his speech about six times and went as far as to call anyone who made this claim a liar.
Obama has a lot riding on his shoulders with healthcare reform. As he mentioned in his speech, efforts to re-make America's healthcare system have always failed in the past. As criticism over Obama's massive public spending initiatives have mounted in the last few weeks, he has the enormous take of not only reforming the healthcare system, but he also has to prove to the public that this investment is worth the money during these harsh economic times.
While congress has been working on their version of the plan in recent weeks, Obama repeated many of the reform issues that were on his wish list during the campaign: a push for computerized healthcare records, a focus on health outcomes rather than government imbursements for individual medical procedures, a push for more emphasis on preventative medicine, a mandate to do away with insurance companies discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, and a federal plan that would help cover the nations uninsured or anyone who wants to switch healthcare plans. And unlike Obama's campaign platform, he mentioned providing waivers on health insurance for extremely poor people and some small business.
One issue that Obama went the distance to stress was that the government health insurance option was NOT a move toward an eventual single-payer healthcare system. He emphasized this point in his speech about six times and went as far as to call anyone who made this claim a liar.
Obama has a lot riding on his shoulders with healthcare reform. As he mentioned in his speech, efforts to re-make America's healthcare system have always failed in the past. As criticism over Obama's massive public spending initiatives have mounted in the last few weeks, he has the enormous take of not only reforming the healthcare system, but he also has to prove to the public that this investment is worth the money during these harsh economic times.
Fallout from the Iranian Presidential elections
Although the American television media was largely silent over the weekend, there has been a strong international reaction, as well as in the print media which were running non-stop stories this weekend about the unrest in Iran following the election.
One thing that may have been swallowed up by the elections' massive coverage was that the new/former Prime Minister of Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu, himself gave a foreign policy address yesterday aimed at Palestinians and is in many ways a rebuttal to the Cairo speech that Obama delivered a couple weeks ago. In the speech he called Iran the "greatest threat" in the middle east, but made no mention of the continuing violence there, or whether he sided with the opposition party in Iran, lead by former Prime Minister Hossein Nouravi.
Initial American response has been cautious, with the State Department and the White House offering only measured condemnation of the elections, with Vice President Biden saying on Meet the Press yesterday there were an awful lot of "questions" about how the election was won and said there was some "real doubt."
Republicans are going to pressure Obama to engage Iran more harshly now, pointing to dubious election results as a reason that they cannot be trusted and maybe seeing this, especially if the violence and unrest continues, as a possible embarrassment to the Iranian government that should be exploited.
Obama definitely has an opening now, but may be limited by his own pledges of persuing diplomacy, from making any forceful statements of condemnation or trying to fuel the fire of the opposition in hopes of destabilizing a hostile government.
One thing that may have been swallowed up by the elections' massive coverage was that the new/former Prime Minister of Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu, himself gave a foreign policy address yesterday aimed at Palestinians and is in many ways a rebuttal to the Cairo speech that Obama delivered a couple weeks ago. In the speech he called Iran the "greatest threat" in the middle east, but made no mention of the continuing violence there, or whether he sided with the opposition party in Iran, lead by former Prime Minister Hossein Nouravi.
Initial American response has been cautious, with the State Department and the White House offering only measured condemnation of the elections, with Vice President Biden saying on Meet the Press yesterday there were an awful lot of "questions" about how the election was won and said there was some "real doubt."
Republicans are going to pressure Obama to engage Iran more harshly now, pointing to dubious election results as a reason that they cannot be trusted and maybe seeing this, especially if the violence and unrest continues, as a possible embarrassment to the Iranian government that should be exploited.
Obama definitely has an opening now, but may be limited by his own pledges of persuing diplomacy, from making any forceful statements of condemnation or trying to fuel the fire of the opposition in hopes of destabilizing a hostile government.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Macker gets crushed in VA Governor's primary
Those who are familiar with the Democratic Presidential Primary campaign of 2008 (which wrapped up one year ago this week with Hillary Clinton's concession speech) will remember one of the most odd personalities of now Secretary Clinton's old campaign team was former DNC chairman and Clinton family friend Terry Mcauliffe. He was the one in the Hawaiian shirts on CNN talking about his "optimism" for Clinton's campaign when it was way past it's last throes, and frequently introduced her as "the next President of the United States," even after it was clear she could no longer win the delegates neccesary to carry the nomination at the party's convention in Denver.
Last year Mcauliffe announced that he would run for governor of Virginia, despite that besides being chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2001-2005 and a national co-chair for Hillary Clinton's failed presidential run, he hadn't had any other political experience-- a fact that the other candidates in the race, Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran, -- would capitalize on.
State Senator Creigh Deeds ended up winning the primary handily by almost 2-1, taking over 50% of the vote in the 3 way race (less than 5% of the states eligible voters turned out for the election). McAuliffe had been the early favorite, with most of the states party establishment behind him, as well as having raised the most money. Deeds saw a late surge in his numbers, however, with both a Washington Post endorsement, and a slew of ads against McAuliffe that tarred him as an out of touch carpetbagger who had not paid his dues and would be unelectable against the Republican opponent, State Attorney General Bob McDonnell.
Deeds and McDonnell have squared off before, actually, in a race for state Attorney General 4 years ago that saw Deeds lose by only 323 votes. Deeds is a moderate rural Democrat (he has a donkey named Harry S Truman), and his pro-gun, pro-business stances may make it harder for Republicans to tar him as out of step with Virginia's generally more conservative voters. Especially since the state GOP had expected to run against McAuliffe
The Virginia governor's race will be heavily scrutinized this year, a red-turning-purplish state, it has sent two Democrats to the US Senate in as many years and has also elected two Democratic governors in their last cycles, as well as supporting President Obama in the 2008 election. Both parties will see it as a bellweather as to what their chances may be in the 2010 midterm elections and whether there will be a strong backlash against the Obama Administrations new spending policies and domestic agenda.
Last year Mcauliffe announced that he would run for governor of Virginia, despite that besides being chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2001-2005 and a national co-chair for Hillary Clinton's failed presidential run, he hadn't had any other political experience-- a fact that the other candidates in the race, Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran, -- would capitalize on.
State Senator Creigh Deeds ended up winning the primary handily by almost 2-1, taking over 50% of the vote in the 3 way race (less than 5% of the states eligible voters turned out for the election). McAuliffe had been the early favorite, with most of the states party establishment behind him, as well as having raised the most money. Deeds saw a late surge in his numbers, however, with both a Washington Post endorsement, and a slew of ads against McAuliffe that tarred him as an out of touch carpetbagger who had not paid his dues and would be unelectable against the Republican opponent, State Attorney General Bob McDonnell.
Deeds and McDonnell have squared off before, actually, in a race for state Attorney General 4 years ago that saw Deeds lose by only 323 votes. Deeds is a moderate rural Democrat (he has a donkey named Harry S Truman), and his pro-gun, pro-business stances may make it harder for Republicans to tar him as out of step with Virginia's generally more conservative voters. Especially since the state GOP had expected to run against McAuliffe
The Virginia governor's race will be heavily scrutinized this year, a red-turning-purplish state, it has sent two Democrats to the US Senate in as many years and has also elected two Democratic governors in their last cycles, as well as supporting President Obama in the 2008 election. Both parties will see it as a bellweather as to what their chances may be in the 2010 midterm elections and whether there will be a strong backlash against the Obama Administrations new spending policies and domestic agenda.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Economy criticism creeping up on Obama?
The Obama administration is facing some criticism lately over the number of jobs the Labor and Treasury Departments claim to have created or saved by way of the federal stimulus plan. The Labor Department is trying to account for a job creation ripple effect that boils down to the idea that one new job created can also create or save several other jobs... but in an only semi-measurable way.
In the WSJ article cited above, the author calls out the media in particular for not scrutinizing these claims further. While Obama's administration certainly isn't the first to trot out the fuzzy math in a tough situation, it does seem like the press is accepting these statistics without a lot of questions. However, if Obama's public approval rating on his handling of the economy continues to decline I would expect to see more news coverage criticizing these job statistics.
In a similar vein of criticism, the GOP seems to be formulating a strategy to leverage the national deficit against Obama and democrats during the 2010 and 2012 elections. In an article today published in Politico, some GOP leaders are pointing to the idea that the deficit could be Obama's achilles heel. If the stimulus package fails to deliver, they might have a pretty clear line of attack here.
In the WSJ article cited above, the author calls out the media in particular for not scrutinizing these claims further. While Obama's administration certainly isn't the first to trot out the fuzzy math in a tough situation, it does seem like the press is accepting these statistics without a lot of questions. However, if Obama's public approval rating on his handling of the economy continues to decline I would expect to see more news coverage criticizing these job statistics.
In a similar vein of criticism, the GOP seems to be formulating a strategy to leverage the national deficit against Obama and democrats during the 2010 and 2012 elections. In an article today published in Politico, some GOP leaders are pointing to the idea that the deficit could be Obama's achilles heel. If the stimulus package fails to deliver, they might have a pretty clear line of attack here.
Health Care debate rages on
Democrats have been dreaming of universal health care since Truman, and they're now entering a critical phase of what is largely believed to be a one-shot opportunity to make it happen.
Unfortunately for Democrats, their chief champion of reform, as well as universal coverage, Ted Kennedy, has yet to reach full strength and is still absent from key Washington debates. Also, Robert Byrd, the aging senior senator from West Virginia, is also incapacitated with a staph infection. Then there's also of course, the Minnesota recount court trial going on right now, which is keeping Al Franken off the floor. 57 may seem like a pretty robust number for a Senate majority, but with a public health care option being seriously discussed, Republicans (who are not really at the table for this discussion anyway) are fleeing en masse and the shaky relationship that has been built with private health care companies recently is in jeopardy of falling apart.
President Obama sent a letter to key Democratic senators outlining exactly what he wanted without boxing them or himself in. He reiterated his goals not to have this issue slow-walked in the Senate, let it be known that the public option is on the table, and that there has to be a way to pay for this without deepening the deficit.
Obama and top Democrats have said that "the stars are aligned" to get health care reform passed this year, and are doing anything within their power not to fall into the same pitfalls that derailed Bill Clinton's attempts at health care reform in 1993. Including letting loose a legislative army from the White House and making sure that the popular new president is out and visible, taking the lead, so that Republicans can't hang the health care albatross -- should it fail -- around the necks of rank and file dems in the House and Senate next year when the midterm elections come.
Unfortunately for Democrats, their chief champion of reform, as well as universal coverage, Ted Kennedy, has yet to reach full strength and is still absent from key Washington debates. Also, Robert Byrd, the aging senior senator from West Virginia, is also incapacitated with a staph infection. Then there's also of course, the Minnesota recount court trial going on right now, which is keeping Al Franken off the floor. 57 may seem like a pretty robust number for a Senate majority, but with a public health care option being seriously discussed, Republicans (who are not really at the table for this discussion anyway) are fleeing en masse and the shaky relationship that has been built with private health care companies recently is in jeopardy of falling apart.
President Obama sent a letter to key Democratic senators outlining exactly what he wanted without boxing them or himself in. He reiterated his goals not to have this issue slow-walked in the Senate, let it be known that the public option is on the table, and that there has to be a way to pay for this without deepening the deficit.
Obama and top Democrats have said that "the stars are aligned" to get health care reform passed this year, and are doing anything within their power not to fall into the same pitfalls that derailed Bill Clinton's attempts at health care reform in 1993. Including letting loose a legislative army from the White House and making sure that the popular new president is out and visible, taking the lead, so that Republicans can't hang the health care albatross -- should it fail -- around the necks of rank and file dems in the House and Senate next year when the midterm elections come.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Obama's Middle East Tour
President Obama began his 5 day tour of the Middle East today. Right now the president is in Saudi Arabia and tomorrow he is set to give a major speech from Cairo, Egypt to address the Muslim World. The tour is intended as a way for Obama to push for progress on the longstanding Arab-Israeli conflict and also as an opportunity for the president to try to repair the United States' image in the Middle East.
Although the president has barely arrived in Saudi Arabia, the op-ed mill has been abuzz with what Obama should say and do (including these 7 opinions published today in the NYTimes). Also just in time for Obama's steps off the plane, a new audio message attributed to Osama bin Laden was broadcast on Al-Jazeera. The message focused mainly on Obama's increased effort to go after the Taliban forces in Pakistan, but also criticized the president for following in the footsteps of George Bush and increasing international animosity towards muslims.
In the wake of a new president and what many people across the globe perceive as a new era in american politics, I wonder how bin Laden's view of Obama will be perceived? George Bush was notoriously unpopular throughout the world, which was a boon to terrorist recruiters like the Taliban, but will bin Laden's criticism of Obama just come across as terribly off-base?
Although the president has barely arrived in Saudi Arabia, the op-ed mill has been abuzz with what Obama should say and do (including these 7 opinions published today in the NYTimes). Also just in time for Obama's steps off the plane, a new audio message attributed to Osama bin Laden was broadcast on Al-Jazeera. The message focused mainly on Obama's increased effort to go after the Taliban forces in Pakistan, but also criticized the president for following in the footsteps of George Bush and increasing international animosity towards muslims.
In the wake of a new president and what many people across the globe perceive as a new era in american politics, I wonder how bin Laden's view of Obama will be perceived? George Bush was notoriously unpopular throughout the world, which was a boon to terrorist recruiters like the Taliban, but will bin Laden's criticism of Obama just come across as terribly off-base?
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
GM Bankruptcy fallout
The fallout from the announced bankruptcy of GM and a plan by the federal government to take up to a 60% ownership stake, as well as funnel as much as 50 billion additional dollars into the struggling automaker has received very dismal reviews from an American Public tired of government intervention. However, just like the wall street and bank bailouts, as well as the original auto company infusions last year, the newest act has been defended by the administration as neccessary to stave off a complete breakdown in the American economy.
In addition to the thousands of jobs at General Motors itself there are also many other tens of thousands of jobs all over the country that depend on the faltering auto giant such as suppliers, vendors, and dealers who are mercilessly tied to whatever decisions are made in regards to the company.
David Brooks, a long skeptic of government intervention in the private sector, and who has written extensively on the subject of Detroit's money woes, penned a scathing op-ed in today's New York times that wacks the company from the top down. Most of the points made show a company that has an embedded and doomed corporate culture blind to ever changing consumer demands and a fraternal pecking order that squelches quality talent. He also criticizes the politically powerful UAW, the bloated workers union that now also owns a stake in the company and who's past and present practices are not representative of the fundamental change needed to get the company back on it's feet.
One point that's also been brought up in opposition is that it may be difficult for the company to succeed if it is serving two masters. One being it's new majority shareholder, the US government, which has just laid down new tough rules on emissions, rules that could hamstring the company as it struggles to rebrand itself. The other being the market itself, which needs to be convinced their cars are of better quality than the smaller, more affordable Japanese and German cars that have dominated the market over the past few years, all at the same time meeting the environmental standards of it's new boss.
The GM issue could also become political poison for Democrats as Republicans will be poised next year to point to the GM example as just more and more out of control spending that yields no new jobs, lethargic economic growth, and more and more debt for future generations to pay for.
Other comparisons have also been made to GM as a model of where the US itself may be heading. As more and more debt piles on, and more and more companies are labeled as "too big to fail," where will the US government itself go when the burden of propping up these companies becomes too much?
In addition to the thousands of jobs at General Motors itself there are also many other tens of thousands of jobs all over the country that depend on the faltering auto giant such as suppliers, vendors, and dealers who are mercilessly tied to whatever decisions are made in regards to the company.
David Brooks, a long skeptic of government intervention in the private sector, and who has written extensively on the subject of Detroit's money woes, penned a scathing op-ed in today's New York times that wacks the company from the top down. Most of the points made show a company that has an embedded and doomed corporate culture blind to ever changing consumer demands and a fraternal pecking order that squelches quality talent. He also criticizes the politically powerful UAW, the bloated workers union that now also owns a stake in the company and who's past and present practices are not representative of the fundamental change needed to get the company back on it's feet.
One point that's also been brought up in opposition is that it may be difficult for the company to succeed if it is serving two masters. One being it's new majority shareholder, the US government, which has just laid down new tough rules on emissions, rules that could hamstring the company as it struggles to rebrand itself. The other being the market itself, which needs to be convinced their cars are of better quality than the smaller, more affordable Japanese and German cars that have dominated the market over the past few years, all at the same time meeting the environmental standards of it's new boss.
The GM issue could also become political poison for Democrats as Republicans will be poised next year to point to the GM example as just more and more out of control spending that yields no new jobs, lethargic economic growth, and more and more debt for future generations to pay for.
Other comparisons have also been made to GM as a model of where the US itself may be heading. As more and more debt piles on, and more and more companies are labeled as "too big to fail," where will the US government itself go when the burden of propping up these companies becomes too much?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
