ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

After advocating death for AIG executives, Krauthammer rips Obama for ‘demanding’ GM CEO’s ‘head on a pike.’

Earlier this month, after the AIG bonuses controversy broke, Charles Krauthammer advocated unusual capital punishment for AIG executives, suggesting “an exemplary hanging or two” in Times Square and even a guillotine “party.” But today, after President Obama compelled GM CEO Rick Wagoner to resign, Krauthammer regained his sense of civility, criticizing the administration for “demanding” Wagoner’s “head on a pike”:

KRAUTHAMMER: What this is is the President giving in to populist pressure, demanding a head on a pike, which is the titular head of the company, whether or not it makes any economic sense at all. And that makes you worry.

Watch it:

Like many other Fox pundits who have been railing against unions today, Krauthammer added that organized labor has “utterly destroyed the auto companies.”

Media

Fox News Blames Unions For Auto Companies’ Demise, Suggests Firing UAW Head

When Detroit’s Big Three auto companies first came to Washington last fall to ask for bailout funds, conservatives immediately insisted the companies’ woes were the fault of the United Auto Workers (UAW). Even though the Senate Republicans effectively blocked a fair bailout deal, they pointed the finger at the UAW, falsely claiming it was “willing to make no concessions — zero.”

Today, President Obama announced that the government will recommit to providing assistance to General Motors and Chrysler — but only if the companies presented restructured plans, including the firing of GM CEO Rick Wagoner. Fox News and Fox Business was apoplectic, insisting that the UAW had never been forced to make concessions (a false claim) and that the union’s leader, Ron Gettelfinger, should be fired instead:

– GRETCHEN CARLSON: Where’s the union in all of this? … Not one mention of the union possibly making concessions in this whole thing.

– BILL HEMMER: If you can fire the CEO, why can’t you fire the head of the union?

– STUART VARNEY: The union and General Motors have not agreed on how to take care of these legacy costs — that is, the health and pension benefits for retired UAW workers. That is what is breaking the bank at General Motors.

– SEAN HANNITY: I didn’t see any union reps get told that they had to get out in this endeavor, because Barack Obama wouldn’t anger his political base.

Watch a compilation:

It’s no surprise that Fox’s immediate instinct is to blame the UAW; the network has a history of animus toward organized labor. Just weeks ago, ThinkProgress tracked Fox’s misleading attacks on the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make unionization easier.

Unlike Fox News hosts, President Obama recognized that restoring the auto industry to health will require a shared sacrifice from everyone involved in the industry — including but certainly not limited to the union:

What we are asking is difficult. It will require hard choices by companies. It will require unions and workers who have already made painful concessions to make even more. It will require creditors to recognize that they cannot hold out for the prospect of endless government bailouts. [...]

Let there be no doubt, it will take an unprecedented effort on all our parts — from the halls of Congress to the boardroom, from the union hall to the factory floor — to see the auto industry through these difficult times.

It’s clear that the Fox hosts’ anti-UAW rhetoric has nothing to do with the specifics of the auto industry’s woes and everything to do perusing their own favorite pastime: union busting.

Economy

Wagoner Heads Out, As Banking Executives Stay Put

ap060626042950.jpgToday, President Barack Obama issued an ultimatum to the American auto industry, “laying out strict standards that the carmakers must meet to get more government aid.”

This comes one day after General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner resigned at the White House’s request. As the Washington Post reported, “the administration effectively rejected as untenable the business plans that GM and Chrysler had submitted to restructure their companies,”a failure for which Wagoner was the casualty.

Wagoner’s ouster does bring up an interesting question, though: why is the administration okay with dismissing the head of an auto company, while going to great lengths not to get involved with personnel decisions at federally bailed-out financial institutions (aside from AIG)? As Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) put it, “when will the Wall Street CEOs receiving [bailout] funds summon the honor to resign? Will this White House ever bother to raise the issue? I doubt it.”

There does seem to be a bit of a double standard when it comes to the respective rescues of the financial system and the auto industry, even beyond management decisions. Ali Frick at ThinkProgress noted that during the AIG bonus debacle, AIG’s contracts were considered sacrosanct, while United Auto Workers has repeatedly agreed to “make major concessions in its contracts,” in an attempt to make the auto companies viable.

So what’s the difference? Tim Fernholz posited that “it’s not a problem of political clout that allows bankers to be more insulated from political pressure, it’s a problem of knowledge“:

Though the auto industry has a lot of problems that will be difficult to solve, those problems are easier to understand and chart, because at the end of the day, manufacturing is a comprehensible industry. Meanwhile, the banks aren’t making anything but bets, and they’re making insanely complicated bets that are not clearly understood.

Fernholz added that he believes that “the administration is much more likely to make bolder moves” once the banks’ stress tests are complete. And maybe this will be true, if the stress tests confirm that the banks are in far worse shape than previously thought.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the government has expected the auto companies to profoundly change the way in which they do business, while not asking for the same level of change from the financial giants. Even within AIG, executives called the Credit Risk Committee, who “oversaw some of the company’s biggest bets,” are still plying their trade.

So as Paul Kedrosky put it, if you want to make catastrophic mistakes and keep your job, “you need to do it in a place where your errors nearly take down global capitalism.” Otherwise, “keep your resume up-to-date.”

Update

The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein notes that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs struggled to contrast the auto and Wall St. bailouts today.

Yglesias

The Obama Auto Plan

1967mustangcoupe1_1.jpg

It’s taken me all the way until the end of the day to actually digest the day’s big story—the Obama administration’s new auto industry plan. The first thing to say about this is that unlike a lot of other things that have raised the cry of “socialism!” this really sort of is socialism. You have the President of the United States firing the CEO of General Motors, and simultaneously ordering Chrysler to pursue a process of selling itself to Fiat. The administration is wisely trying to avoid an extended period of state-directed management of industrial firms producing consumer goods, but that’s certainly the situation they’re in at the moment and it’s something we ought to try to bring to an end as soon as possible.

My understanding of the Chrysler portion of the deal is basically that if Chrysler and Fiat can’t come to terms within 30 days, then Chrysler is going to enter into a Chapter 7 liquidation process at which point Fiat could buy whatever it wants. Consequently, Fiat is likely to be able to extract favorable terms on whatever deal they reach. General Motors, meanwhile, is in effect being put into a debtor-in-possession bankruptcy. They haven’t technically been put in such a scenario, but the firm’s restructuring plan has been rejected and the panel is offering a 60 period in which to put together a more radical restructuring featuring haircuts from bondholders and labor unions and dealers. This is basically what would happen in a DIP bankruptcy. The thinking is that given current conditions in the economy and the credit markets it wouldn’t be possible to arrange that through the private sector, so a bankrupt GM would need to be liquidated rather than reorganized. The government is stepping in to, instead, facilitate reorganization.

In both cases, these seem like economically reasonable courses of action. It’s important to note, though, that if these plans work it doesn’t seem like they’ll especially achieve what people would ideally like to see. The American auto industry isn’t really going to be “saved.” General Motors is going to shrink radically, and Chrysler’s production facilities will basically become “transplant” factories of an Italian firm. In job terms, the auto industry is going to continue to shrink as a source of employment. In particular, the Chrysler-Fiat merger scenario is consistent with massive job losses in the United States since it’s not obvious how many Americans Chrysler would really want to employ. If GM succeeds in getting out of a lot of its debt obligations, the resulting company isn’t going to be well-positioned to expand when the broader economy recovers since it’ll be hard to borrow on favorable terms. And the “good jobs” nature of blue collar work in the auto industry is going to further erode.

Long story short, this looks like an economically responsible way to avoid a cataclysmic implosion of these firms at an inopportune moment. But this isn’t going to prevent the conditions facing the population of Michigan from further deteriorating. That state more-and-more looks like it’s going to be the 21st century version of the Great Depression’s Dust Bowl. The most important policy question facing us in this regard thus continues to be what can be done to help the people of the Rust Belt that doesn’t just involved indefinitely propping up shrinking firms. The first step is simply to turn around the shrinkage in the larger economy, but the question will remain even if recovery reaches the rest of the country.

Security

Former Cheney Aide Suggests That Hersh’s Account Of ‘Executive Assassination Ring’ Is ‘Certainly True’

Last month, The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh revealed in Minnesota that former vice president Cheney presided over an “executive assassination ring.” “Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving,” Hersh explained.

Today, CNN interviewed Hersh and former Cheney national security aide John Hannah. Although he expressed regret for revealing the story (calling it a “dumb-dumb”), Hersh stood by his initial statements. “I’m sorry, Wolf, I have a lot of problems with it,” he said about the assassination scheme:

HERSH: I know for sure…the idea that we have a unit that goes around, without reporting to Congress… and has authority from the President to go into the country without telling the CIA station chief or the ambassador and whack somebody. … You’ve delegated authority to troops in the field to hit people on the basis of whatever intelligence they think is good.

Hannah replied that Hersh’s account of the assassination scheme “is not true.” Yet in the same breath, when asked about a “list” of assassination targets, Hannah echoed Hersh’s statements. Hannah said that “troops in the field” are given “authority” to “capture or kill certain individuals” who are perceived as a threat. “That’s certainly true,” he said:

Q: Is there a list of suspected terrorists out there who can be assassinated?

HANNAH: There’s clearly a group of people that go through a very extremely well-vetted process, interagency process…that have committed acts of war against the United States, who are at war with the United States or are suspected of planning operations of war against the United States, who authority is given to our troops in the field in certain war theaters to capture or kill those individuals. That is certainly true.

Hannah didn’t directly dispute Hersh’s claim that Congress wasn’t informed about the assassinations. “It is extremely hard for me to believe,” he said. Watch it:

Speaking about the program to MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, former Nixon White House counsel John Dean said, “It’s potentially a war crime, it‘s potentially just outright murder, and it could clearly be in violation of the Ford executive order” — referring to a 1976 Executive Order that said, “No employee of the United States government shall engage in or conspire to engage in political assassination.”

Climate Progress

Introduction to climate economics: Why even strong climate action has such a low total cost

A cost of one tenth of a penny on the dollar — not counting co-benefits

Here is an overview of the major cost analyses of global climate action.

In its definitive 2007 synthesis report of the scientific literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded:

In 2050, global average macro-economic costs for mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1% gain and 5.5% decrease of global GDP. This corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points.

So global GDP drops by under 0.12% per year — about one tenth of a penny on the dollar — even in the 445 ppm CO2-eq case (through 2050, see Table SPM.7). And this is for stabilization at 445 ppm CO2-eq, which is stabilization at 350 ppm CO2 (see Table SPM.6).

And that has a very good chance of averting the incalculable cost of catastrophic global warming impacts to the next 50 generations, which means the cost of action is far, far less than the cost of inaction.

The IPCC’s conclusion — and every single word in the report — was signed off on by 130 nations including China and the Bush Administration. Nor is this an especially controversial conclusion, at least among the few groups that have done comprehensive global economic and energy modeling:

mgi-cost-curve-small.jpg

How can the world’s leading governments and scientific experts and McKinsey and the traditionally conservative International Energy Agency agree that we can avoid catastrophe for such a small cost?

Read more

Yglesias

Iraq’s Still Unreconciled Political Conflicts

baghdadviolence_onpage_1.jpg

CAP’s Brian Katulis offers his take on what the past weekend’s crack in the edifice of sectarian relations in Iraq:

The stated goal of the surge, according to the Bush administration, was to reduce violence in order to help Iraq’s political factions bridge their divides over power, but that has simply not occurred in a meaningful way. Iraq remains plagued by enduring political divisions, as I argued last September in a paper on Iraq’s political transition after the surge.

A key tactic used in the Iraq surge could essentially be likened to what was done in the run-up to the current financial and banking crisis in the United States—steps were taken to make things look better than they actually were, while real problems lurked beneath unaddressed. A day of reckoning must at some point occur, because the structural imbalances of power in Iraq will naturally address themselves, as sure as the force of gravity that keeps us all sitting in our chairs. The inexorable force in Iraq is demographics. Iraq is a Shia-majority country now governed by Shia factions, with nominal participation by Sunni forces. This represents a fundamental shift from the balance of power during decades of Saddam Hussein’s rule, which ended nearly six years ago. Ever since his regime’s ouster in 2003, the fundamental story has been one in which Iraqis adjust themselves to the new reality of Shia rule in Iraq.

This weekend’s incident was the first crack in a shaky foundation constructed by the 2007 surge of U.S. troops—a foundation that largely glossed over long-standing political rivalries. And frankly this tension between the central government and these independent militia groups is less dangerous than the growing tensions between Arab and Kurdish factions in northern Iraq.

As if often the case in Iraq, one can read this two ways. The potential deterioration in the situation could be used as a pretext to backslide on the Obama administration’s commitment to abide by the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement and leave Iraq. Alternatively, you could see the continuing unstable nature of the Iraqi polity as a reason that we shouldn’t be endlessly optimistic about the idea that tens of thousands of U.S. troops can stay in Iraq safely. Personally, I’m inclined toward the second reading. But the point is about larger strategic vision—some see it as in American interests to maintain a large military force in Iraq come what may; others, the people who are right about this, see that idea as contrary to our interests. Either way, it’s useful to recall that despite “surge” triumphalism, the bulk of the underlying issues in Iraq remain unresolved.

Politics

Murtha: ‘If I’m corrupt, it’s because I take care of my district.’

murtha.jpgCriticism of Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), whom Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) calls one of the “most corrupt members of Congress,” has been mounting recently over his aggressive efforts to steer money to his district. In a recent interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Murtha used stark language to defend himself against charges of corruption:

Mr. Murtha, a 76-year-old Marine veteran schooled in the blunt-knuckle deal-making that defined politics here, is contrition-free when it comes to his success.

“If I’m corrupt, it’s because I take care of my district,” Mr. Murtha said. “My job as a member of Congress is to make sure that we take care of what we see is necessary. Not the bureaucrats who are unelected over there in whatever White House, whether it’s Republican or Democrat. Those bureaucrats would like to control everything. Every president would like to have all the power and not have Congress change anything. But we’re closest to the people.”

Murtha’s remarks recall another one of CREW’s most corrupt lawmakers, Rep. Don Young (R-AK), who defended his controversial earmarks on the House floor in 2007. “I was always proud of my earmarks. I believe in earmarks, always have, as long as they are exposed. But don’t you ever call that a scandal,” said Young.

Culture

Bigger Than Jordan?

lebron_james_1.jpg

If you asked me what LeBron James would need to do to surpass Michael Jordan’s excellence, I would say something like “better three point shooting.” But via FreeDarko, Ray Allen has something else in mind:

“Mike paved the way for all of us to open up the endorsement door,” said Celtics star Ray Allen, another Jordan Brand athlete. “But the one thing that Mike never was is political. I think in today’s era, the NBA player has an even greater podium if he chooses to use it. And with Barack Obama being the first black president, it’s a great forum. I think that would separate him from anybody who’s done this. … It’s great to be a basketball player, but to transcend sports is a big responsibility. If he were able to pull that off — if he wants to pull that off — I think that would set him apart.”

I think there’s something to that. Obviously, I doubt anyone would particularly care what LeBron thinks about negotiating with Iran, and a certain number of people in Hollywood tend to push political engagement to the point where it’s annoying. But LeBron, like a lot of athletes, is actually in a position to offer an interesting perspective on wealth and poverty and economic opportunity in the United States.

Of course for all I know what LeBron’s concluded from that perspective is that marginal tax rates on the wealthy ought to be low….

Climate Progress

Hudson Institute’s Dennis Avery: ‘I Stand Corrected’ On My Lie That Carbon Dioxide Levels Are Declining

Conservative economist Dennis Avery, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and one of Marc Morano’s climate denial jokers, claimed today on a right-wing website that the “atmospheric CO2 levels at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa observatory have declined since 2004″:

How can this be when humans keep emitting more greenhouse gases? Could declining atmospheric CO2 levels mean that the whole Greenhouse Warming theory is collapsing?

In fact, carbon dioxide levels measured since 1958 at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s Mauna Loa Observatory have continued their inexorable rise, going from an average of 376 to 385 parts per million from 2004 to 2009:

CO2 trend

Avery’s claim was based on a post on Morano climate denial joker Anthony Watts‘ blog, which implied that carbon dioxide growth rates have been going down. As Joe Romm noted at Climate Progress, “Dennis Avery doesn’t know the difference between growth and growth rate.”

In a telephone interview with the Wonk Room, Avery admitted his error:

I stand corrected . . . I apparently misstated the case.

Furthermore, the post Avery misinterpreted was nonsensical as well. Craig Loehle, principal scientist with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, the forest products industry’s “research institute,” drew an “eyeball trend line for the peaks” of a chart of monthly carbon dioxide growth rates by Morano joker Alan Siddons. Despite Loehle’s ability to draw lines on charts, carbon dioxide is piling up in the atmosphere faster than ever:

CO2 Growth Rate chart

To reiterate, carbon dioxide levels are continuing to increase. And the increase is getting faster. In the 1960s, carbon dioxide levels were going up an average rate of less than one part per million each year. Since 2000, carbon dioxide levels have been rising at an average annual rate of two parts per million. Avery and Loehle weren’t just wrong — they’re dead wrong.

The Wonk Room appreciates Avery’s willingness to admit one mistake. But we doubt this marks the beginning of a trend.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up