Jennifer Granholm

According to an article in the Detroit Free Press Jennifer Granholm wants to stay in Michigan and will not pursue a position in the Obama Administration. This is yet another good sign for Obama and the US.
The fact that she was in the running was quite disconcerting, and still is, because she obviously has a voice within the Obama Administration. However, if she stays in Michigan, maybe she won't be able to inflict the same damage on the entire US as easily as she did on her state.
Gov. Granholm's state has the second-highest unemployment rate in the country and the fifth-highest taxes, and she somehow thinks that if they raise the taxes, more jobs will be created. Michigan has the fifth-highest rate of foreclosure starts and the lowest rate of attracting new residents. Over the past decade, while the rest of the US economy was growing, Michigan's was declining with high rates of layoffs and taxes, and the state economy has lost about 300,000 jobs on Granholm's watch.
During a recent debate with Mit Romney on Meet the Press, Granholm tried to make the point that the reason the Big 3 can't compete is because foreign countries pay for healthcare and the US puts that on business. An interesting point, but moot being that the Big 3 can't compete with the cars being made by foreign companies inside the United States. I may not know everything about how the car industry works, but I'm pretty sure that Japan isn't subsidizing healthcare for workers in the United States, even if they do work for a Japanese company.
Then, on the radio this week, I heard her saying that she doesn't understand why the banks got a huge bailout with no strings and the car makers "have to come on bended knee." Again, Granholm proved that she just doesn't get it. How can she not look and see what happened with the banking bailout? She didn't see that the money was not used as intended? Did she not see the AIG execs taking spa weekends, etc.? How is it that she can't learn the what the rest of us did from the first round of bailouts? We don't want to give out another pile of money without a good plan in place.
No, Granholm staying in Michigan (or better yet, going back to Canada) is what's best for the country -- unless Obama is going to appoint a Secretary of What Not to Do.

Change as usual?

All through the campaign, I heard as President-elect Obama preached that he will bring change to Washington. Yet, now that he's won the election, I along with a number of Democrats that I know are wondering, "Where's the change?"
As the appointments come down from on the mount, it would appear that this will be the third term of the Clinton administration. One of the things that Bush 43 was criticized for when he took office was that he went through and appointed members of 41's administration. Now, here is Obama with the majority of his appointments coming from the Clinton administration. How is that change?
Now, another appointment indicates yet another lack of the promised change. Yesterday, the Politico reports that the White House Office of Political Affairs will be manned by Patrick Gaspard, a New Yorker and longtime labor operative. This appointment obviously means that Obama will not close the office which he and the Democrats, as well as many Republicans derided through the campaign. John McCain even vowed to close the office if he were elected. By keeping the office, Obama takes yet another step toward business as usual in Washington, which during the election, he dubbed "the perpetual campaign."
So, as I watch the transition work its way through and the appointments of Washington insiders come down, I have to ask, being that it doesn't appear that Obama is moving away from Washington politics as usual, what was the change we needed?

My Bipartisan Moment

It's the coldest November that I can remember in quite awhile here in Northwest Ohio. Today I think I found out why. It would seem that Hell has frozen over. How do I know? I know because today, November 20, 2008, I agreed with something Nancy Pelosi said. It's just unthinkable!!

Today, Nancy Pelosi said that before they receive any bailout money, the Big 3 need to show a plan of how they're going to navigate their way out of this mess. I saw that on t.v. and actually found myself saying "Damn right, Nancy!" After watching how the banking bailout went, I'm glad to see that maybe the government is giving some thought to how things are going to work before they go pouring money down a hole.

Wednesday, the execs of the Big Three showed up in Washington to make their case for being bailed out-- via private jets. Apparently they went to the same school of being bailed out as the execs of AIG. I'm sure that they get the gravity of the situation, but it would be a much better appearance if we saw some effort like flying commercial rather than taking their private jets. To me it would show that they're willing to move toward getting rid of the old habits that got them into this mess.

Dont' get me wrong. I still think the Big 3 should not get a bailout. I think the best thing for them is to go for bankruptcy protection and reorganize so that they can come out stronger.

Unfortunately, it seems that this bailout is going to happen one way or another. So, before I see the government thowing my money down the hole that is the Big 3 automakers, I'd like to see a few things...

1) This is a loan. It is only a loan and it will be paid back. With interest. The government will be the lender and will not be a shareholder in any of the companies.

2) Bonuses, golden parachutes, and huge salaries are out the window. If you're steering the ship when it runs aground, you don't get a big bonus for your performance.

3) The execs show their plan to get out of this, including how they're going to sell off foreign properties, and work the assets (such as selling off unnecessary things like private jets) that they have to raise some of their own bailout funds, as well as what changes they're going to make in their lines to be more competitive.

4) When the Big 3 execs come back to Washington in December to make their case, they fly commercial and Ron Gettelfinger comes with them. He gets to testify about the UAW's role in this mess and tell what concessions they are going to make to help turn this around. If he thinks that the UAW doesn't have a part in this and doesn't need to be a part of the changes, he first needs to read my earlier blog about the cost of labor for the Big 3 and look the investigative piece that WDIV in Detroit did on how two of the UAW leaders are ripping off the companies for thousands of hours of overtime. You can check it out here.

Given that the Democrats owe so much to the unions, I'm sure that they'll never make that demand. I'm also sure that they won't allow the bankruptcy that so needs to happen. Quite simply, if they do, the UAW will lose a large chunk of the Working Man's Golden Parachute that is their deal with the Big 3.

So, while it probably won't happen yet this year, this bailout will probably happen, and it won't happen with concessions from the UAW. Which means that the companies will not be able achieve a competitive hourly cost, which will doom this bailout to eventual failure.