Opinion of the Obama Cabinet so far...

[angus]

The Obama Administration obviously values competency and showcases one of the basic reasons why I like the Democratic Party.  Republicans will tell you government doesn't work, get elected, place incompetent boobs and horse judges into important positions of power, fill the choose people to administrate a territory during an ongoing war based on their position on Roe, slash funding for vital programs, and create bureaucratic nightmares like the Department of Homeland Security, point to their results, and say, "See?  We told you government doesn't work."  Democrats roll up their sleeves, hire tough, smart, experienced people, and make government work. 

Gotta admire the objectivity in your post.

Well, I think some of his appointments come off as recycled Clinton people, which is often the way it's done.  But after all the talk about change, you'd think he might throw more than an already-chewed bone toward the swing vote that put him over fifty percent rather than giving all the appointments to predictable aparatchiks as is usually done.  Where's the "Hope?"  Where's the "Change?"

[angus]

How very naïve of me.

Well, I'll stipulate that Robert Gates should stay.  That's my one exception to the "change" rule.  Otherwise, I'd like to see lots of new faces. 

Daschle was a major disappointment, imho, and the more I read about Holder the less I like him.  Then again, I didn't much care for Ashcroft either.  I guess you're right, Beef.

[angus]

Frankly, I do have concerns about Obama's lack of experience.

As do most of us who voted for him, I suspect.  (Democrats excepted.  And they probably would too if they had enough sense.)

we don't know how competent he is at governing

coming out strong for the Detroit bailout.

Those two statements made in the same breath amount to an astonishing paradox!

We often hear about how we should only bail out GM if they agree to some structural changes.  Bollocks.  You come to me for a loan, and either I trust you or I don't.  If I trust you, I lend you money.  Sure, it's a risk, but I'll play the odds.  If I don't, I politely refuse.  But what I never should do is say, "well, here's the money, but only on the grounds that you go out and learn to do things you never have before." 

Past performance is the best indicator of future performance.  Harsh?  Yes.  True?  Alas.  If Obama comes out for a strong bailout of GM, I hope it is one with no strings attached.  If Obama decides it can't be done without government micromanagement, then I hope he simply steps out of the way and focuses on enforcing, rather than making, the law.  After all, he will surrender his seat in the national legislature in only two months.  But we will all have to live with the consequences of our legislature's decisions for a long time.

[angus]

Frankly, I do have concerns about Obama's lack of experience.

As do most of us who voted for him, I suspect.  (Democrats excepted.  And they probably would too if they had enough sense.)

we don't know how competent he is at governing

coming out strong for the Detroit bailout.

Those two statements made in the same breath amount to an astonishing paradox!

We often hear about how we should only bail out GM if they agree to some structural changes.  Bollocks.  You come to me for a loan, and either I trust you or I don't.  If I trust you, I lend you money.  Sure, it's a risk, but I'll play the odds.  If I don't, I politely refuse.  But what I never should do is say, "well, here's the money, but only on the grounds that you go out and learn to do things you never have before."

Why not? "I trust you" is clearly out the question. The automakers' business model is a money-losing proposition. They simply should not continue to operate as they are.

The alternative-- bankruptcy, would be as pointed out by economists, far different from a traditional bankruptcy. Because of the way the companies' supply chains are linked, a GM failure would also kill Ford and Chrysler. Furthermore, it would be forced to cease operation. It cannot simply restructure and reopen under new management like a K-Mart or an airline. Thirdly, the total regional impact in terms of jobs would be far larger than a retailer or airline-- we are talking millions. And fourthly, the impact on confidence on financial markets at this very delicate juncture would be extremely negative.

Given these facts, and the responsibility born by those at the top, I have a hard time believing they would say no; particularly if there can be a restructuring without bankruptcy that cuts the companies' costs enough to survive. However, it is true that bad brands should be dropped.

But the general point that we may disagree on the meaning of 'competence' is well taken. I guess we'll find out.

First, the three million jobs is something of an exaggeration.  About 900 thousand is a more realistic figure.  Those other two million can, and will, quickly retool in order to supply other, more efficient industries. 

Secondly, Obama is expected (by me and others) to make good on the New new deal.  The roads, bridges, and energy infrastructure that we so desperately need, will require millions of workers.  If undertaken with alacrity, those workers displaced in the current economy (not just auto workers, but all out-of-luck skilled and unskilled workers) will have good, government jobs in time. 

Thirdly, a disappearance of the major auto industries will add additional motivation for the restructuring of the so-called "health care crisis" which is costing upwards of 16% of our nation's aggregate GDP by now.

Fourthly, if the Big Three go, so does the UAW.  Enough said about that.

Fifthly, US cars haven't been competitive with foreign brands for a long time.  And for good reason.  In 2004, GM had 27 recalls.  In that same year Toyota had three.  Look, I know the Republican in you (and in me!) wants to see the brand that invented the car stay in business. Henry Ford's an American icon, by the way.  Not unlike Mom, hot dogs, and apple pie.  But guess what?  Apple pie gives me heartburn, hot dogs raise my cholesterol, and Mom never really approved of most of what I did anyway.  Sometimes you just gotta move on.  Don't put ideology ahead of practicality.  I said before that this was an essential part of the Obamania appeal.  And whatever US car company rises from the ashes will be competitive.  It will have to be.  Social Darwinism.  Wouldn't you want an American luxury car that really can compete with Lexus and Mercedes?  Wouldn't you want an American econocar that can compete with Honda and Toyota?  I would. 

Yes, my stocks tanked today.  I accept that, but I also understand that we can't keep "throwing good money after bad."  That's the operative cliché, I believe.

I think it's time to let some of these employers learn to sink or swim on their own.  Those who survive, survive to see a stronger, and maybe a bit more nationalized, economomy started from scratch.  At least that's how I see it.

[angus]

Heartless and cold.

You are willing to let people lose their jobs which they will never get back - all in order to please some long held political views.

Sadly, the republicans don't care about the folks because they would love nothing more then things to tank.  This way President Obama and the democrats can be to blame much like the left did McCain/Bush.
Its political ping pong and iam not falling for it.

Heartless, one hopes, but not cold.  It was 8 degrees Fahrenheit when I left for work today, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone else.  Government policy should be heartless, since it is not the job of government to legislate values.  At least it has been my long-held view that the government should not legislate values.  When we start down that slippery slope, we get into mandatory-sentencing laws and three-strikes laws which ultimately overcrowd our prisons with nonviolent offenders, and we get into political correctness and the oppression of free speech, hate crimes legislation, FCC fines for showing T&A on television, and a million other horrible consequences.  Admittedly, we are already legislating values, but I don't think it's a good idea, and I wouldn't try to encourage it.

I do understand that among the government's specific charges is the promotion of the general welfare.  I can see that you do as well.  Where I think we disagree is how one might go about doing this.  Just as I, and a few others, were against the 700 billion dollar banking bailout because it will only serve to deepen our federal budget deficits and make our society even more reliant on living beyond our means than we already are, I think this is a bad scheme as well.  Ultimately, all our citizens will bear the burden of propping up failing business models.

You can label me what you will, if it makes you feel better, and we can devolve into name-calling if you think it adds substance to this debate, but I will not pretend to support a bad idea in order to win your approval.  Nor will I admit to having no sympathy for the under-insured, the unemployed, and the hungry.  In fact, I have seen no evidence to suggest that I have any less sympathy for them than you do.  As I have stated many times, I am not against public welfare programs, unemployment benefits funded by the general revenue, and nationalization of certain natural monopolies, such as mass transit.  I am not a libertarian.  Moreover, I have suggested that if we commit to the priorities that Obama championed in his speeches--mass transit, ecologically-sound energy policy, and a re-evaluation of tax codes which encourage American companies to operate in distant lands--then we will create the very jobs that you claim will be lost under my ideal vision, and the vision of Obama's campaign.

And do not, directly or indirectly, accuse me of being so stubborn or maniacal as to vote for a man for President, and then hope for his failure just so I can blame his party.  That is a position that you cannot possibly intelligently defend.  Moreover, Democrats and Republicans are guilty of much corruption and largess, and I am capable of blaming democrats and republicans for their failures without resorting to such bizarre conspiracies.  I voted for Obama in good faith, and I have supported his candidacy for approximately two years now, and I do not wish for his failure any more than I would ever have wished for Bush's failure. 
 

[angus]

Why on earth would anyone retool something when it can be done by slave labour elsewhere? 

For war, for example.  One of the reasons that the US was so quickly able to react to the kamikaze attacks on Pearl Harbor was because of the size and complexity of the US auto industry.  This, in fact, is one of the primary examples often given as a reason to bail out the automotive industry.  I don't use this fact as a justification for GM's bailout, since I don't support the bailout, but I'm a little surprised that you don't understand this.

More nonsense.  Socialism has nothing to do with 'values' any more than does capitalism.  Both are about power.  Government policy will always reflect what those with power want it to reflect - i.e. their interests.  Anyway everyone's 'value' is gimme and screw you.

I do not think that everyone's value is "gimme and screw you."  I think you are projecting your values on everyone else.  Most of us don't buy into that.  You and I have argued before about self actualization and the need to feel one has contributed to one's society, and I know you don't buy into that, so there's no reason we need to argue about it again here, but I'd venture that most of the posters here actually feel that they have something of value to contribute to society, and that it is in the interest of society to exploit their intrinsic desire to self actualize.  This is the essence of the free market state.  This has been successfully exploited for the benefit of those with the means to finance great ideas, and the net result of that exploitation has been a benefit to mankind.  Sure, we have made some mistakes along the way, mostly ecological, but we are learning to rectify those mistakes.  Or at least some of us are.  Again, I know from previous arguments with you that you have no concern for the welfare of the ecosystem either, but I submit that there are many who support both the exploitation of man's labor in a way that benefits both the financier and humanity, while at the same time being a sober steward of the environment.  Obama's plan will work.  You didn't think he'd win because he was black, and you project your own racism on the rest of the general public.  But you were wrong.  We won.  And you will be proven wrong again.  At least I hope you will.  Don't be such a cynic.  We will find a means to continue with a free market economy without endangering our own health and our own national interests.

But we must not make the mistake of incurring even larger deficits for the sake of living beyond our means, or in the name of nostalgia.  GM must either sink or swim on its own.

[angus]

Why on earth would anyone retool something when it can be done by slave labour elsewhere? 

For war, for example.  One of the reasons that the US was so quickly able to react to the kamikaze attacks on Pearl Harbor was because of the size and complexity of the US auto industry.  This, in fact, is one of the primary examples often given as a reason to bail out the automotive industry.  I don't use this fact as a justification for GM's bailout, since I don't support the bailout, but I'm a little surprised that you don't understand this.

Obviously I understand this, and obviously I was taking an ironic stance.

I do not think that everyone's value is "gimme and screw you."  I think you are projecting your values on everyone else.  Most of us don't buy into that.  You and I have argued before about self actualization and the need to feel one has contributed to one's society, and I know you don't buy into that, so there's no reason we need to argue about it again here, but I'd venture that most of the posters here actually feel that they have something of value to contribute to society, and that it is in the interest of society to exploit their intrinsic desire to self actualize.

That's all very well and good to try to convince yourself, but in practice this is not how people behave.

This is the essence of the free market state.  This has been successfully exploited for the benefit of those with the means to finance great ideas, and the net result of that exploitation has been a benefit to mankind.  Sure, we have made some mistakes along the way, mostly ecological, but we are learning to rectify those mistakes.  Or at least some of us are.

Um, no, the free market state is about preventing self-actualization of all except the tiny elite that receive power and material benefits.  How does the worker gain 'self actualization' from capitalism?   

Again, I know from previous arguments with you that you have no concern for the welfare of the ecosystem either, but I submit that there are many who support both the exploitation of man's labor in a way that benefits both the financier and humanity, while at the same time being a sober steward of the environment.  Obama's plan will work.  You didn't think he'd win because he was black, and you project your own racism on the rest of the general public.  But you were wrong.  We won.  And you will be proven wrong again.  At least I hope you will.  Don't be such a cynic.  We will find a means to continue with a free market economy without endangering our own health and our own national interests.

What the hell?  I was only proposing bailing out GM and instituting good old fashioned Keynesian redistribution, not destroying the environment or upending society.

But we must not make the mistake of incurring even larger deficits for the sake of living beyond our means, or in the name of nostalgia.  GM must either sink or swim on its own.

Oh, ok, I see your point.  But GM's sinking will increase the deficit enormously more than bailing it out (or even nationalizing it) would do.  Well, unless you want all its employees and all its supplier's employees and all the employees of all the localities in which its economic imprint is felt to 'sink or swim on their own' as well.  In other words die in the breadline.  And why not.

I don't know what to think any more.  All the reporting is agenda-driven.  It has been been this way for a very long time, and getting worse, but during the bailout periods it's downright normative, with every newsanchor, press columnist, and talking head is out there screaming "we must do something!"  And I'm not paraphrasing or exaggerating.

As Nixon observed in 1971, "We are all Keynesians now."

What's it like there?  You speak the language well enough to make any sense of the reporting?