The shocking state of GM and Chrysler is paralleled in Obama’s America
Written by Thomas Berry | | opinion@toledofreep.comIn an article published Oct. 21 on Fortune Magazine’s Web site, former “car czar” Steven Rattner shares a revealing story of his adventures as head of the Obama administration’s auto task force. Fortune calls what he discusses “a defining moment of capitalism”; more accurately, it is a redefining moment of capitalism.
But what is most revealing is not so much what he discusses, but rather how what he criticizes so closely parallels what is happening to the United States under President Obama and a statist Congress. All quotations are from Rattner.
Parallel No. 1: The ruling class’ isolation from the masses.
Rattner writes, “the administration was surprised by the reaction from the heartland” to its plans for Chrysler and GM, and describes the “cultural deficiencies” of GM: “At GM’s Renaissance Center headquarters, the top brass were sequestered on the uppermost floor, behind locked and guarded glass doors. Executives housed on that floor had elevator cards that allowed them to descend to their private garage without stopping at any of the intervening floors (no mixing with the drones).”
Leaders who elevate, as it were, themselves above those whom they lead are discredited leaders. Washington is rife with such, including: Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, who totally ignores communications from her constituents; Senator Sherrod Brown, who dictates to his constituents his will for health care reform; and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who, last December, complained about the odor of tourists in the Capitol.
Parallel No. 2: Colossal financial mismanagement.
“We were shocked, even beyond our low expectations, by the poor state of both GM and Chrysler,” and, “ . . . as we surveyed the interconnected web of finance companies, suppliers, and related businesses, the potential impact of the likely alternative — liquidation — stunned us. We imagined that the collapse of the automakers could devastate the Midwest beyond imagination.”
Oxymorons notwithstanding, he also professed shock at GM’s poor management: “ . . . perhaps the weakest finance operation any of us had ever seen in a major company,” and, “ . . . we were appalled by the absence of sound analysis provided to justify (major) expenditures.”
Washington is spending trillions of dollars in the midst of declining revenues and the worst recession in decades while offering, like GM, little or no “sound analysis” to justify it. Indeed, the statists reject sound analysis opposing their actions!
And what of the devastating impact to the “interconnected web” of individuals, families, businesses and the government when this fiscal irresponsibility bankrupts the country?
The parallel is drawn into sharp focus by Rattner’s description of Chrysler as “larded up with debt (and) hollowed out by years of mismanagement.” The mismanagement in Washington is “larding” future generations with debt and hollowing out America’s prosperity and dominance.
Parallel No. 3: Denial of reality.
“. . . GM and Chrysler were in a state of denial. Both companies needed gigantic reductions in their costs and liabilities.”
The federal government’s costs and liabilities are spiraling out of control. But its management is not only in denial, it wants to spend even more.
Parallel No. 4: Excessive costs.
“And their labor costs were out of line with those of their most direct competitors, the Japanese ‘transplants’ manufacturing in the South.”
Many government services can be provided by private enterprise, at far less cost. Yet Washington seeks to either control outright the private sector, or punitively increase its costs.
Parallel No. 5: Send the Buck Elsewhere.
“Certainly (GM Chairman and CEO Wagoner) and his team seemed to believe that virtually all of their problems could be laid at the feet of some combination of the financial crisis, oil prices, the yen-dollar exchange rate, and the UAW. “
President Obama blames his problems, including those of his own making, on his predecessor.
Parallel No. 6: Need for Change.
“Meanwhile, if ever a board of directors needed shuffling, it was GM’s, which had been utterly docile in the face of mounting evidence of looming disaster,” and, “I was stunned by the suggestion that the government, GM’s only source of fresh capital, was somehow out of bounds for asking for the resignation of a CEO who had lost $13 billion of taxpayer money in three months and was now asking for more.”
No more compelling argument can be made for a comprehensive housecleaning in Washington come election time. If it is proper for the government, having infused GM with capital, to demand the removal of its CEO due to fiscal irresponsibility, is it not then entirely logical that we, who infuse the government with capital in the form of our tax dollars, should remove by election a President and Congress whose fiscal irresponsibility with our capital leaves us facing “looming disaster?”
Thomas Berry claims after one year in office that Washington needs to be cleansed because of fiscal responsibility. Yet President Obama’s predecessor, President Bush, created two of the biggest financial drains on our economy, the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. This is nothing more than a person who tries to draw a comparison between two totally unrelated situation. The context of both situation deems an outside look at what created them. President Obama had no control coming into office what inane situations the Bush administration tried to do. To just toss it aside like the previous administration has nothing to do with the fiduciary situation we find ourselves in is oversight at best and downright idiocy at its worst. Private sector running things is not the answer. How it costs less to privatize is even more of a mystery? Apparently Mr. Berry has not read anything about the Blackwater/private security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have made record profits since 2003, when Bush allowed them to take over in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe things in some cases are politics as usual, but I think that Thomas Berry’s future opinion pieces need to be cleansed from the pages of the Free Press.
This comment was posted on November 5th, 2009 at 4:17 pmWe sing 1,2,3,4 what are we fighting for, don’t ask me I don’t give a damn, next stop is Afghanistan!
“If President Obama decides to send the 40,000 additional forces to Afghanistan as requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a rough estimate by the Pentagon projects the cost could be an additional $20 billion a year, according to a senior Pentagon official.
The official said the Defense Department comptrollers office has told Congress that based on rough estimates, the total cost of keeping an individual service member in the war zone is now about $500,000 a year.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/30/afghanistan.costs/index.html
This comment was posted on November 5th, 2009 at 9:56 pmJohn, conveniently leaves out the OVERWHELMING votes at the U. N. and in the U.S. Senate, to use FORCE on the two terrorist enclaves. Pesky things those FACTS !!! 98- 0 in the Senate itself to use FORCE … whose wars are they again?!
This comment was posted on November 6th, 2009 at 12:16 pmJohn, thanks for your comments, but do you really want to try that approach? It falls short on nearly every point I make concerning Obama:
Isolation from the masses: I didn’t get into this concerning Obama specifically, but now that you mention it, Obama has proven himself to be as elitist as they come. Consider his appallingly cavalier joking on TV following the Fort Hood massacre. Only someone who is utterly oblivious to the sensitivities of ordinary people would do that. Bush, for all his failings, at least had the ability to relate to people – including families of war casualties – in time of loss.
Financial mismanagement: Obama still complains about inheriting a deficit – that he has more than doubled through reckless spending in a time of declining incomes. Under Bush, the deficit was being paid off ahead of schedule until the recession began. Obama and the other statists are all for raising taxes, even though any honest research will show that tax increases prolong recession, kill jobs and reduce tax revenues. Bush cut taxes, and the recession early in his first term ended as jobs were created and tax revenues soared thanks to increased earnings in the private sector.
Denial of reality: My cynicism about politicians in general will give you this one concerning certain aspects of the war.
Excessive costs: The only handy reference I have on this concerning Bush is that he joined his predecessor, Bill Clinton, in calling for the privatization of Social Security – a concept that was roundly opposed by Clinton’s fellow liberals who didn’t want to lose their ability to loot it.
Send the buck elsewhere: Challenge to you: Give me one honest, in-context quote in which George W. Bush, after taking office, ever blamed Bill Clinton for any problem on his watch.
Need for change: If Bush’s performance was grounds for sweeping change in Washington, then how much more compelling is the case for change now that Obama and company have more than doubled the federal deficit and are on the brink of destroying the nation’s health care?
So, rather than sending the beck elsewhere by complaining about a former president, what have you to say in defense of the one who, from every indication, is far worse?
This comment was posted on November 8th, 2009 at 2:40 am