Some of the best ideas I've heard yet regarding the auto industry came from Paul Ingrassia, former Washington Bureau Chief of the Wall Street Journal on Sunday morning's Meet The Press show.

Ingrassia opined that what the auto industry needs is someone who can impose, not negotiate, fundamental changes to the structure of the industry. He used examples of the difficulty the industry has with the UAW contract, the state-by-state contracts with dealers, etc.

Whether he meant the "auto czar" that has been mentiooned before or not, I don't know. It's hard to imagine how such a czar could be given the authority outside of bankruptcy court or the legal system to do things like invalidate contracts and override state laws. But ignoring those types of issues, that's probably exactly what's needed to begin to resolve the problems of the auto companies. If the "czar idea" doesn't gain traction, it would appear that the auto companies are headed for a bankruptcy court-imposed restructuring or even liquidation. I see no way how the parties at interest can ever successfully negotiate the needed changes.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Some of the best ideas I've heard yet regarding the auto industry came from Paul Ingrassia, former Washington Bureau Chief of the Wall Street Journal on Sunday morning's Meet The Press show.

Ingrassia opined that what the auto industry needs is someone who can impose, not negotiate, fundamental changes to the structure of the industry. He used examples of the difficulty the industry has with the UAW contract, the state-by-state contracts with dealers, etc.

Whether he meant the "auto czar" that has been mentioned before or not, I don't know. It's hard to imagine how such a czar could be given the authority outside of bankruptcy court or the legal system to do things like invalidate contracts and override state laws. But ignoring those types of issues, that's probably exactly what's needed to begin to resolve the problems of the auto companies. If the "czar idea" doesn't gain traction, it would appear that the auto companies are headed for a bankruptcy court-imposed restructuring or even liquidation. I see no way how the parties at interest can ever successfully negotiate the needed changes.

Then if they can't negotiate fixes to their problems, let them all die together.

As cruel as that may sound, that's capitalism versus the State nationalizing industries "for their own good." The last time I looked, General Motors consisted of Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, Pontiac and partial ownership of several other companies. Not long ago there was Oldsmobile as well, but that died due to evolving markets. There's not many around who still remember when there wasn't a GM, and all of those brand names were separate companies which got acquired and merged as the auto industry evolved.

A GM-Ford merger may be next in the evolution, but that's the industry evolving with the times and the business base.

I can't think of one time when "governmentalizing" has helped an industry. The last time it was done was in the establishment of the Department of Energy to shepherd us out of oil dependency. Boy, has that worked well! We have a "Drug Czar" and yet the problems associated with narcotic addiction, smuggling, violence et al has grown to epic proportions since that "leadership" position and supporting staff came onto the scene.

When will we ever learn that "more government" doesn't make things better and isn't the all-encompassing solution to every hiccup or problem. It just creates more jobs funded via taxation - jobs that just never seem to go away, and for some peculiar reason, the problems continue to mushroom.

Again Steve -- you're right on. It's the difference in thinking the government can solve all the nation's ills and free markets, accountability, etc.

The Constitution was written to protect the US citizen, not control them. The government's role is to keep us safe from foreign and domestic terrorism.

I can see this bailout/czar bill of goods being sold to our younger new voters, but come on -- haven't we lived long enough to see this turkey walking thru the door !!

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Then if they can't negotiate fixes to their problems, let them all die together.

As cruel as that may sound, that's capitalism versus the State nationalizing industries "for their own good." The last time I looked, General Motors consisted of Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, Pontiac and partial ownership of several other companies. Not long ago there was Oldsmobile as well, but that died due to evolving markets. There's not many around who still remember when there wasn't a GM, and all of those brand names were separate companies which got acquired and merged as the auto industry evolved.

A GM-Ford merger may be next in the evolution, but that's the industry evolving with the times and the business base.

I can't think of one time when "governmentalizing" has helped an industry. The last time it was done was in the establishment of the Department of Energy to shepherd us out of oil dependency. Boy, has that worked well! We have a "Drug Czar" and yet the problems associated with narcotic addiction, smuggling, violence et al has grown to epic proportions since that "leadership" position and supporting staff came onto the scene.

When will we ever learn that "more government" doesn't make things better and isn't the all-encompassing solution to every hiccup or problem. It just creates more jobs funded via taxation - jobs that just never seem to go away, and for some peculiar reason, the problems continue to mushroom.

Been learning a lot from you folks discussing this issue. I just want to include my voice in supporting capitalism over any kind of nationalistic(socialistic) behaviour. You are spot on !!!!

...those that are proposing some form of government support are far more interested in the serious and long-term damage to our economy that would result from the failure of the auto companies than a desire to nationalize a company or an industry.

Unfortunately, I hold little hope that the parties at interest in the auto situation will ever reach some sort of agreement on a new plan that would justify a government investment. Steve is right that if they don't, they should be permitted to suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs.

The problem is that the death of the dinosaurs will cost all of the rest of us a significant amount in both dollars as well as a long-term impact on our individual way of life. An increase in the unemployment rate to close to 10%, a severe deepenoing of the recession, a further collapse of the stock market, maybe even deflation are projected to result from the failure of the auto companies.

Personally, I would choose for that not to happen to me. But if that means that we would be required to simply give money to these companies with no strings, I'm against that. If there is a way to impose permanent and fundamental change to fix the ills of this industry, then I'd be in favor of some sort of bridge loan. But again, I don't think that's going to happen and I believe that the rest of us will suffer serious personal financial damage as the result of the incalcitrance of people like the company managements, the UAW, etc.

No one likes a 10% unemployment rate, but at the same time the paying of 95% wages plus fringes via bailout in lieu of unemployment insurance is a lousy deal for workers not benefited by a UAW contract but stuck with the tab.

The Executive Branch and Congress can impose all the terms and conditions they choose, but have no means to enforce them. Granted, they can sue if the other side breaches the contract, but that's after-the-fact and quite protracted. Only the Judiciary can "manage" the problem, and that's why the court, and not the legislative or the executive branches of government, controls bankruptcy proceedings.

There were concerns at Buick, Chevy etc. when GM acquired them. If someone acquires GM, or it gets into a protective merger - just like many airlines and other manufacturers (remember, Martin-Marietta, Lockheed, and many others) for survivability - what's wrong with that? Oh yeah, some executives and union officials may lose power and personal money.

Again, the aroma around this entire auto industry situation is pretty bad. It still smells like money/votes for more money.

This is a Congress which is concerned with the little guy? Who is kidding whom when they want to take from the little guy (or stick him with the bill) and give to the 7-figure-income guys (including the union officials).

Just wondering how many Czars does the White House have? Who are they? What do they oversee? Everytime I hear the word 'Czar' I think of the United States of America turning into the old Russia.

Everytime I hear the word 'Czar' I think of the United States of America turning into the old Russia.

You're not far off. Here's one of them.

Who Is Van Jones?

Originally Posted by dklassen

...You're not far off. Here's one of them...

I took a look at the video, but didn't research much farther. I have to admit, I don't have much interest in much of anything either Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh has to say, preferring to find a little more balance of views on current events. But if this guy really did pass the vetting process for a Presidential appointment, I'd be disappointed and amazed. To some extent, some of the lower level positions probably don't get as much attention in vetting than the more senior appointments--every new POTUS does have about 4,000 jobs to fill. But for someone that is apparently as conflicted as this guy appears to be, the White House personnel chief ought to get canned.

He's not the only one, there are plenty more where he came from. It's plain as day to see BO is seeding extreme radicles in our government. Just because it's from Glenn or Rush doesn't make it not true. Why is it so had for people to see the truth?

Originally Posted by dklassen

He's not the only one, there are plenty more where he came from. It's plain as day to see BO is seeding...

Nothing new here. Just recent memory of the Bush administration shows the placement of some pretty radical neocons in key positions. In the case of the Bush administration many of the more radical types can be traced back to Dick Cheney and the ultra-right Project For A New American Century group, but in the end the POTUS had to give his blessing.

Time will tell how much effect, positive or ill, President Obama's appointees will have on the country. But it seems to me that they'll have to go a long way to beat the damage done to our country by the group of ultra-right neoconservatives that essentially controlled both military and foreign policy during the Bush years. Remember names like Donald Rumsfeld, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, etc.? These guys not only had their own agenda, but they were enabled by a strong and devious Vice President, a less than attentive POTUS, and a Congress who was more interested in spending money in ways that would assure their re-election than watching what the administration was doing. Have we ever gone to war with less discussion of why, how and when?

We get what we elect, nothing more, nothing less. I suppose we could expect middle-of-the-road appointees if we ever elect a moderate President. But we haven't had one of those in many years. American politics has gravitated to highly polarized ideological warfare. Until that changes, we can expect to get political administrations salted with those who embrace one side or the other--far right or far left.

So what's new?

radical neocons in key positions

Oh please, radicle? The BO crew makes those guys look like Boy Scouts. Let's keep things in perspective here.

So you're comparing Donald Rumsfeld and .... to a guy who's a Communist, Black Panther, radicle community organizer who said if he didn't live in the USA he probably would have joined a gorilla underground?

Hum... I think your rational is a little off kilter.

"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist." In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia.

These are the folks that BO are choosing to advise him on national policy.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I took a look at the video, but didn't research much farther. I have to admit, I don't have much interest in much of anything either Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh has to say, preferring to find a little more balance of views on current events. But if this guy really did pass the vetting process for a Presidential appointment, I'd be disappointed and amazed. To some extent, some of the lower level positions probably don't get as much attention in vetting than the more senior appointments--every new POTUS does have about 4,000 jobs to fill. But for someone that is apparently as conflicted as this guy appears to be, the White House personnel chief ought to get canned.

Why do you think this President is using the "czar" route and by passing the regular route of appointing folks that have to pass Senate confirmation process.

As of last I read NOT EVEN ONE HALF of those he should appoint and pass through congress had been appointed after 7 1/2 months !

It's beyond me why these czars don't scare the hell out of most people but yet they still castigate Rush, Glenn or any one in the old administration as if they were the devil personified.

Truth be known there are many in this current administration I consider pure evil and anti-American at the very least. Thank God there are still those who still clearly see the difference between good and evil.

It's one thing to be liberal or conservative and believe in your ideology but it's quite another to look evil in the eye and turn the other way or rationalize it away. I have plenty of liberal friends and they are all quality, hard working, honest, caring folks just like my conservative friends.

That is NOT what we have in our current government.

Take Bill Clinton for instance. Yep he's a lib for sure and pretty much of the standard garden variety just like the conservatives on the other side of the isle.

Now we have a government that's being hijacked by radicle nationalists who are hell bent on turing America inside out and upside down.

It's no longer about liberal or conservative it's about radicle nationalists who conned their way into the highest levels of our government.

People know it now and that's why BO's numbers are dropping faster than a California mud slide after a wild fire.

The definition of "radical" is one who favors drastic political, economic, or social reforms.

Clearly, the group that banded together to form the Project For A New American Century group that were given key positions in the Bush administration were "radicals". In their case, they were on the far right fringe of political and social thought. History has recorded what they accomplished in those eight years, in foreign policy and with the economy. We were all mislead by George Bush in his campaigning that he was a compassionate conservative, that he would dampen the political partisanship that existed when he took office, and that he was a fiscal conservative. Re-read his inaguration speech. He was none of those things. The country was mislead and we're paying the price.

Barack Obama can be similarly criticized. He campaigned as one on the left side of center. But in the first months of his first term, he's governing and permitting the liberal Congress to legislate on the far left fringe of the political spectrum. We may have been fooled again, maybe not quite as badly as with W, but mislead nonetheless. Time will tell whether the damage that the country may suffer will approximate that of the previous administration. I hope not.

But in my mind, both administrations operated near the radical fringe, both right and left. If you disagree and believe that one group were "good guys" and the other "bad guys", so be it. We already know the measurable effects that one group had on our country and in a few years we'll have a better idea on how the other group affected us. Then we can either agree that both groups were a bit radical, or possibly give their governance another name.