Clueless Or Contemptuous

Either way, it's still the same old Donald Trump.  He goes to Bethel United Methodist Church in Flint, Michigan and looks like he's wondering how he got stuck in such an uncomfortable situation. Quietly and respectfully interrupted by Reverend Faith Green-Timmons for being "poltical" when he transitions into an attack on Hillary Clinton, Trump soon thereafter finishes his speech.

We've all been uncomfortable somewhere and started looking for a soft landing. Most of us, however, wouldn't try to turn it around, as Trump did later, by saying something akin to "But she was so nervous. She was like a nervous mess, and so I figured something – I figured something was up, really."

It is enough to remind someone of Trump's recent visit to Mexico, where he went in as a pit bull and was turned into a chihuahua.

Of greater substance, though only barely so, were remarks made at the church by the candidate, where he commented

It was announced that Ford- and I've been talking aout this- I think the reason that I've been doing well in Michigan is that I've been talking about this for four and five years to Michigan 'cause I'm having a great relationship with Michigan. But it was just announced that Ford is moving all small car production- all of it, 100 per cent- to Mexico over the next two to three years. We should not allow it to happen.

Characteristically, Trump did not explain how we "should not allow it to happen." Worse, he disappeared his history, when last August- after he already had become a presidential candidate- he told a Michigan crowd

You could have let it go, and rebuilt itself, through the free enterprise system. You could have let it go bankrupt, frankly, and rebuilt itself, and a lot of people felt it should happen. Or you could have done it the way it went. I could have done it either way. Either way would have been acceptable. I think you would have wound up in the same place.

He wasn't so concerned about the American auto companies or Michigan workers back then.  He went on to lament of the Flint water crisis

And the damage can be corrected and it can be corrected by people that know what they're doing. Unfortunately, the people that caused this tremendous problem had no clue.









They had a clue; actually, several clues.  City residents had a cluen when they complained about the smell, taste, appearance, and sickening effect of the water a mere six weeks after the city in April, 2014 had swiched its source from the Flint River to Lake Huron. General Motors had a clue when in October it switched its water supply from the Flint River to Lake Huron. The University of Michigan-Flint three months later had a clue when it shut some water fountains after it found high levels of lead in its water on campus. City manager Darnell Earley, hired by Republican governor Rick Snyder, had a clue what was happening when two days later he announced that he would hire water treatment consultants rather than switch back to Lake Huron because that would increase water cost by at least $12 million.
 
Flint resident Lee Ann Walters had a clue the following month when her water was found to exceed by almost seven times the EPA's upper limit for lead in drinking water.  The Flint City Council had a clue the next month when it voted overwhelmingly to reverse an earlier decision and get its water from Lake Huron. The state had a clue in July, yet responded to an EPA memo leaked the previous and advised Flint residents to "relax" because thre was no "broad problem with the water supply freeing up lead as it goes to homes."

Virginia Tech researchers had a clue when on September 15 they announced they had found high lead levels across the city. So, too, was a clue had by a pediatrician who five days later concluded that blood levels of lead had risen significantly in the city's children since the switch. Soon after, state officials finally decided to go back to Lake Huron.

Lots of people had clues. But the primary responsibility should lie with the Emergency Manager system. E.M. Ed Kurtz made the decision to switch the source of Flint's water. He later left and another individual served very briefly, at which time Darnell Early wa appointed..  Once Early became aware of the problem, he made a decision to save money short-term at the cost of poisoning city residents..  Two days later, he resigned when Governor Snyder- evidently impressed with Earley's work in Flint- appointed him emergency manager of the Detroit school system.

This problem did not occur because of cluelessness but because Governor Snyder engineered the takeover of Flinto government and put in charge individuals with an obsession about costs, even as Flint residents and its largely powerless City Council warned of the impending crisis.

The impact of lead in the drinking water in Flint has taken a toll, and will take its toll in a jump in crime in the city in 15-20 years.  However, it ought to raise another issue. Whether it's about drinking water, city governance, the domestic automobile industry, or interaction with ministers or foreign leaders,  Donald Trump appears to lack any self-awareness, having no clue that he has no clue. Alternatively, he is vastly more aware than he seems and is takes the American people for fools.

Share |

With No Thanks To Rush Limbaugh Or Mitt Romney


It's time to check in with our favorite plutocrat and blowhard.   Today, Rush Limbaugh maintained

Today, "General Motors Pushing US to Sell Stake -- The Treasury Department is resisting General Motors' push for the government to sell off its stake in the auto maker, The Wall Street Journal reports. Following a $50 billion bailout in 2009, the US taxpayers now own almost 27% of the company.

"But the newspaper said GM executives are now chafing at that, saying it hurts the company's reputation and its ability to attract top talent due to pay restrictions." General Motors is saying that they've got a branding problem because of Obama ownership. General Motors is saying that they cannot hire the best people, who love cars and could help revitalize the company, because they're governed by what Obama says people can make.

And as you all know, Barack Obama is at war with successful, high-earning individuals and wants to do something about it. So at his automobile company, there is a limit on how much anybody can make. And, as such, people called to go in there and perhaps reverse the direction of General Motors, want no part of it because GM is a joke. It's laughed at. It's called "Government Motors," and you can't make any money there. Barack Obama thinks this is "saving" the company.

Limbaugh links to a Market Watch report, which is a summary of a full article, which itself refers to the Wall Street Journal article Limbaugh presumably was touting.  It maintains

But GM executives have grown increasingly frustrated with that ownership, and the stigma of being known as "Government Motors." Executives have said the U.S.'s shadow is a drag on its reputation and hurts the company's ability to recruit talent because of pay restrictions.

Rush deprived us of the following line:   "Privately, executives are also irked at the continued curbs on corporate jet use."   So GM executives not only want to be paid more highly, they "chafe" at restrictions on use of corporate jets.

It is not he Obama administration or the left dragging down the reputation of the auto company.  Rather, Limbaugh and others on the right delight in referring disparagingly to General Motors as "Government Motors," hoping that the business saved by the President goes down in flames.

Nevertheless, it not this effort, nor government restrictions, nor the latter's reluctance to sell its shares until they bring a better price for the American people, which has slowed GM's growth the past two quarters.  The Huffington Post reports

Yet Itay Michaeli, an analyst with Citi Investment Research, said there's cause for optimism at GM if the company properly executes its plans. GM has kept its U.S. costs in line and hasn't resorted to wild cash incentives to juice sales. Its new pickups should hit showrooms next year as pent-up demand pushes up sales, he said.

But the company, he said, has to make its brands more identifiable to customers, and it still has to find a way to reassure jittery consumers so they have enough confidence to buy again.

General Motors' recent plight, like that of the economy generally, owes nothing to the allegedly heavy hand of government, but rather to a lack of demand.   The auto "bailout" saved nearly 3 million jobs and the auto industry while

GM is a much stronger company than it was before bankruptcy, where it shed billions of debt, closed factories and cut its work force to slash costs.  GM has a strong balance sheet.   It's sitting on $38.5 billion in cash and credit lines.   And the company still expects industry-wide US auto sales to total 14 million to 14.5 million this year, far above the 10 million level needed for GM to break even.

With costs down, employment down, and profits up, it would be a conservative wish list, were not a Democratic President the one to set it into motion.  However, Limbaugh is correct when he states  "Mitt Romney has had nothing to do with it, and Mitt Romney wouldn't get anywhere near replicating any of this!"  In November, 2008 Romney argued on the editorial page of The New York Times

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check. 

This past May, Romney modestly claimed "I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy, and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet.    So, I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry has come back."

Pretty bold words for a guy who, in March, 2009, contended "Bailout of enterprises that are in trouble, that's not the right way to go. I know President Bush started it with the auto industry. I thought it was a mistake."   As if to remind us how wrong he was, the candidate in November, 2011 rambled "My plan, we would have had a private sector bailout with the private sector restructuring and bankruptcy with the private sector guiding the direction as opposed to what we had with government playing its heavy hand."  His version of a managed bankruptcy would have failed to save General Motors, as explained by AOL Autos Editor-in-Chief David Kiley:

What Romney leaves out of the discussion is that there was a prolonged political debate in Washington that lasted for months about how best, or whether, to rescue the auto companies. If the loans had not been granted by President Bush, the companies would have defaulted on obligations and forced into a messy, sudden bankruptcy. Romney says that rather than the government rescuing GM and Chrysler, the government should have provided loan guarantees to banks and private equity firms that would have then lent the automakers enough money to get through the financial crisis. President Obama funded the auto rescue out of the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP] because he could not get the Congress to vote yes on a specific rescue package for the auto companies.

There are two big flaws in Romney's position. According to Steven Rattner, the private equity investor who was named by President Obama to the auto industry task force, banks and private equity firms had neither the capital nor the interest in providing some $80 billion in funds needed for a traditional managed bankruptcy. None came forth at the time. Additionally, recapitalizing the companies with all loans--debt-- would not have fixed the company's problems or led them back to profitability. It was decided that GM and Chrysler needed to shed debt, restructure by shutting down low-performing brands and factories, and that the government would have to take equity in GM and take a risk that it would it get its money back later. Romney and adviser Carly Fiorina have said that the government could have forced the banks to provide the loans given the atmosphere and the fact that the banks were being bailed out too. But the companies would still have more debt than they could handle.

You're correct, Rush:   Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive, and Mitt Romney had nothing to do with it.




Share |

Limbaugh Says 'No' to America, Again


When Motor Trend named the Chevy Volt its 2011 Car of the Year, Rush Limbaugh criticized it and the Volt. Todd Lassa of Motor Trend then printed "Rush to Judgement" and argued the Volt

expensive for a Chevy, but many of those families will find the gasoline saved worth it. If you can stop shilling for your favorite political party long enough to go for a drive, you might really enjoy the Chevy Volt. I’m sure GM would be happy to lend you one for the weekend. Just remember: driving and Oxycontin don’t mix.

Wednesday, Rush struck back, remarking

The other day I sort of chided Motor Trend magazine for jumping on this bandwagon of the Chevrolet Volt, and the guy at Motor Trend has responded to me very nastily. He said I should drive one and that I have probably never seen one. I should ask General Motors for a loaner and they'd probably give me one for a weekend but I probably couldn't fit in it.

No, Rush, "the guy at Motor Trend" did not say you "probably couldn't fit in it." He wrote "driving and Oxycontin don't mix."

Jeff T. Wattrick of Motor Trend believes

Limbaugh’s beef with the Volt isn’t a question of automotive aesthetics or engineering. He just doesn’t like the Volt because it’s one of them librul eel-eck-trick cars that Muslim-Socialist Obama forced on the real ‘Mericans in Detroit.

But since when has Rush Limbaugh, arch-foe of President Obama's rescue plan for General Motors, been concerned about "the real Americans in Detroit?"

Short answer- never. Longer answer, from Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm:

It’s just un-American. I can’t believe that somebody would say this about this American product. He hasn’t even driven it. He hasn’t sat in it. You know, why wouldn’t you be supportive of American manufacturers building American vehicles with American workers, who now have jobs as a result of this. Why wouldn’t you be supportive of that?

Surely, Granholm isn't serious when she asks "why wouldn't you be supportive of American manufacturers building American vehicles with American workers?" Limbaugh isn't supportive precisely because it is American manufacturers building vehicles with American workers. If American business thrives- as it currently is- it undermines Limbaugh's argument that President Obama wants to destroy the private sector. And if there are jobs for American workers, there is less pressure driving down the wage rate, as well as benefits for workers.

Limbaugh (and George Will) had criticized the $7500 federal tax credit for electric cars and Lassa noted

The Obama tax credit extends to the new Nissan Leaf, too, but if you or Will slammed that car, I’ve not heard or read it. I’d be surprised if you did, though, as Nissan is building the Leaf in a non-union factory in a right-to-work state represented by two Republican senators. A factory located there because Tennessee offered Nissan big tax credits. Maybe you’re worried that if the $7,500 tax credit works, too many people will buy the Volt, and that could reduce the need for oil drilling tax credits?

Rush is hostile to environmentalism, energy conservation, and small cars. Bbut what he's really about is hostility to unions, the American worker- and to the success of American business, as long as the President is Barack Obama.... or any Democrat.



HAPPY THANKSGIVING

Share|

Rush Limbaugh On The Economy

Would someone please wake Rush Limbaugh up?

Friday, Limbaugh remarked

They're never going to run out! Now, I have to ask a question again. We're a year and a half in for all intents and purposes. We've spent $700 billion on TARP, the Toxic Asset Relief Program. We've purchased General Motors and Chrysler. We have spent close to a trillion dollars "creating jobs." None of it has worked, from our perspective. There is no good economic news.

He must have slept through the early part of this week when General Motors

posted its first quarterly profit in three years, and it's not exactly chump change. The General just announced it managed to rake in a net income of $865 million during the first quarter of 2010. According to The Detroit News, the change in direction is thanks largely to GM's rebound here in North America. The company's domestic operation pulled down a $1.2 billion profit for the first three months of the year thanks to a slimmer debt load and the sale of Saab to Spyker. During the fourth-quarter of 2009, GM posted a $3.4 billion loss.

Likewise, things are looking up internationally. The Detroit-based automaker also returned a $1.2 billion profit from its global efforts as well. That marks a $500 million increase compared to the fourth quarter of 2009. This is all good news for those eying when the fresh-from-bankruptcy manufacturer will start selling stock once again.

But then, Rush may have slept through the entire year, inasmuch as

CBO estimates the Recovery Act is responsible for between 800,000 and 2.4 million jobs through the end of 2009. The White House Council of Economic Advisers, meanwhile, puts the number of direct, indirect and induced jobs at 1.5 million to 2 million. Those figures are drawn from a macroeconomic model based upon the percentage of funds spent.

Private economists seem to agree that the stimulus package stimulated jobs, as CNN reported in April:

President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs — but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists.

Unemployment would have hit 10.8% — higher than December's 10% rate — without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs.

Given the positive effect upon employment of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 and the good news from General Motors, Limbaugh obviously lied when he claimed "there is no good economic news." But more importantly, he stated "none of it has worked, from our perspective."

And it has not. This is the same host who immediately prior to his earlier comment claimed

By the way, this happens to extend these unemployment benefits through the election. "Through the end of the year" means "through the election." We know that this does nothing to inspire people to go out and look for work. We've read you the sad stories of people who say, "You know what? I'm not going to take that job. Why go to the trouble of heading it up and drive to work and pay parking and all? No, I'll just sit here and accept my unemployment checks. Yeah, call back in six weeks. Maybe when the benefits run out at some point for me then maybe I'll be interested but I'm not going to start looking for a job until my unemployment benefits run out." The problem is when they run out, here comes Obama to the rescue.

In Rush's world, they're all lazy, the unemployed. They're not rich, they don't own businesses, most of them don't play golf, and some don't even vote Republican. They "just sit here and accept unemployment checks." Why do some Republicans such as Rush (who has compared the President of the United States to Adolph Hitler) hate Americans so? Given the contempt Limbaugh holds for most of the citizens who have lost their jobs in this extraordinary recession largely created by the financial industry he pimps for, none of it really has worked from his perspective.

Share|

Bennett (Apparently) Bites The Dust

This is not your father's Oldsmobile. So went the advertising campaign (video below) of one of General Motor's divisions in the late 1980s, early 1990s.

And this is not your father's Republican Party. Less so, your grandfather's Republican Party. It is not even Ronald Reagan's Republican Party. Reporting on one of the worst-kept secrets of recent American politics, Chris Cilizza explains

Utah Sen. Bob Bennett lost his bid to be nominated for a fourth term Saturday, defeated at the state Republican Party convention amid a strong conservative sentiment that threatens to unseat other establishment-backed Republicans in the months to come.

Bennett, who had spent the past two decades as a respected insider in the Senate, came under fire in recent months for what some claimed were his insufficient conservative bona fides.

Bennett's critics cited his vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) as well as his seat on the Senate Appropriations Committee -- both symbols, conservatives said, of his lack of commitment to shrinking the size of government.

While state Republicans had expressed uneasiness with Bennett, it was the DC-based Club for Growth that helped crystallize that opposition. The Club spent more than $200,000 on a combination of television ads, direct mail pieces and phone calls designed to influence the 3,500 (or so) delegates who attended Saturday's state convention.

Under convention rules, all eight candidates appeared on the first ballot. The top three -- attorney Mike Lee, former Congressional candidate Tim Bridgewater and Bennett (in that order) advanced to the second round of balloting.

Bennett was defeated there as Lee, a former counsel to popular former Gov. Jon Huntsman, and Bridgewater, who had lost two races against Rep. Jim Matheson (D), advanced to the final ballot.

Bennett told the Associated Press he has not ruled out a write-in campaign.

The descent of the GOP into a party dominated by Rush Limbaugh and others of the far has proven to be a dominant factor in the political landscape. Once it was only the RINO (Republican In Name Only) officeholders; now it has come to a very conservative Senator in the Mountain West. As compiled by Project Vote Smart, Senator Bennett compiled this record recently:

* Abortion: In 2007, 2008, and 2009, supported the interests of NARAL Pro-ChoiceAmerica 0% and those of the National Right to Life Committee 85% in 2007-2008, 75% in 2005-2006, 100% in 2003-2004;

* Budget, Spending, and Taxes: In 2005-2006, supported the interests of Citizens Tax Justice 0%; and those of the National Taxpayers Union 71% in 2006 and 80% in 2009;

* Business and Consumers: In 2008, 2007, and 2006 supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 100% and in 2007-2008 supported
the interests of the National Association of Manufacturers 100%

* Civil Liberties and Civil Rights: In 2009, supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 19%, in 2007-2008 the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 11% and of the American Civil Liberties Association 14% in 2007-2008;

* Education: In 2009, was given a grade of F by the National
Education Association and in 2007-2008, a grade of D

* Environmental Issues: In 2009, supported the interests of the League
of Conservation Voters 27%; in 2006 supported the positon of the League of Private Property Owners 89%

* Family and Childrens Issues: In 2007-2008, supported the interests of the
Family Research Council 88%

* Labor: In 2008, supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 10% and those of the Service Employees International Union, 0%


And on and on and on. On virtually every issue except for immigration- on which his ratings seem mixed- Bennett has received high ratings from conservative groups, low rtings from liberal groups- and generally very high, and very low, grades. Perhaps the convention voters were upset at Bennett's vote on TARP- but the matter rarely was mentioned and, characteristically for conservatives, there apparently was little or nothing mentioned as an alternative. And a seat on the Senate Appropriations Committee is no guarantee of liberalism- as Bennett has proven- and can be mighty helpful to the folks back home.

But this is Utah, a state whose voters have gone Republican in at least the last ten presidential elections and which gave McCain-Palin 63% of its votes. So it will be tough to elect a Democrat as U.S. Senator even if Bennett wages a write-in campaign. Even if it didn't turn out so well for the Not Your Father's Automobile company.

Share|

John McCain: Patriot, And Critic Of Workers And The Elderly

While The Quitting Governor is on tour, being interviewed by Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Walters, Rush Limbaugh, and anyone else who can help her peddle her book, the other half of the duo from the 2008 presidential campaign is reminding us of the absurdity of the ticket. While serving as grand marshall for a NASCAR race in Arizona, Senator John McCain claimed

It was all about the unions. The unions didn't want to have their very generous contracts renegotiated so we put $80 billion into both General Motors and Chrysler, and anybody believes that Chrysler is going to survive, I'd like to meet them.

(Sarcasn alert.) Way to go Senator, demonstrating your support for American auto workers and American workers in general, as well as your faith in the American economy.

Now, if not previously, hardly pampered, the American auto worker shouldn't need any defending, but, as the congressman representing Bloomfield Hills, Democrat Gary Peters couldn't resist sending McCain a letter in which he invited the latter to the district and added

Because of the sacrifices made by the UAW and other key stakeholders, the American automobile industry is well positioned to emerge from the current economic crisis stronger and more globally competitive than when we entered it.

Auto workers, however, should not feel singled out by the Arizona senator. We recall (video below) the contempt McCain has also for members of the construction and building trades union (AFL-CIO), before whom McCain appeared in April, 2006. In the question-and-answer session, he (in)famously charged

Now, my friends, I'll offer anybody here $50 an hour if you'll go pick lettuce in Yuma this season and pick for the whole season. So -- OK? Sign up. OK.

You sign up. You sign up, and you'll be there for the whole season, the whole season. OK? Not just one day. Because you can't do it, my friend.

But it's not only American workers John McCain is not terribly fond of. Who can forget his response (video way below) to a question during the general election campaign in 2008, when he misled his audience about the solvency of the Social Security system, whose underlying principle he referred to as "an absolute disgrace?" Not me, apparently.

There are several good things about John McCain, most notably: he's not Sarah Palin. And if Senator McCain soon finds his voice and defends his presidential campaign staff against attacks leveled by the politician he dangerously vaulted to prominence, I expect to be among those lauding him.

Spreading Ignorance, One Broadcast At A Time

In the midst of one of his spasms of free association about health care, TARP, General Motors, and Kin Jong-il, Rush Limbaugh compressed four decades of urban deterioration into one entertaining paragraph. He ranted:

I don't care where you go, whatever they call themselves, progressives -- go to Detroit -- what do you see in Detroit? Abject poverty. What do you see in most of Michigan? Abject poverty. What do you see where liberal Democrat socialists anywhere in the world have total unchecked power to run things, be it a country or be it a city or be it a state? You see abject poverty. Marxism, socialism, create poverty. I know it's hard to believe that this is somebody's design. But it is.

He then went on to blame this on Barack Obama, having blamed a moment earlier the nation's ills on Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and unions, who "are scheming against the American people, as they have been all along."

If you're reading this blog- not just this post, but this blog at any time- you're interested enough to have heard along the way some of the explanations for the decades-long urban decay in the U.S.A. In the recent past, political corruption (of which Detroit has had its share), drug (including alchohol) use, street crime, poverty, poor education, and more.

There are deeper causes of the ills of urban America. Cities were flourishing when, according to Bradford Snell, president and general manager Alfred P. Sloan of General Motors had other ideas:

In 1922, according to GM's own files, Sloan established a special unit within the corporation which was charged, among other things, with the task of replacing America's electric railways with cars, trucks and buses.

A year earlier, in 1921, GM lost $65 million, leading Sloan to conclude that the auto market was saturated, that those who desired cars already owned them, and that the only way to increase GM's sales and restore its profitability was by eliminating its principal rival: electric railways.

At the time, 90 percent of all trips were by rail, chiefly electric rail; only one in 10 Americans owned an automobile. There were 1,200 separate electric street and interurban railways, a thriving and profitable industry with 44,000 miles of track, 300,000 employees, 15 billion annual passengers, and $1 billion in income. Virtually every city and town in America of more than 2,500 people had its own electric rail system.

General Motors sought to reduce competition from electric railways through a variety of measures, including the use of freight leverage. GM, for decades, was the nation's largest shipper of freight over railroads, which controlled some of America's most extensive railways. By wielding freight traffic as a club, GM persuaded railroads to abandon their electric rail subsidiaries.

With a pack of notorious mobsters, GM helped purchase and scrap the street railways serving Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Members of GM's special unit went to, among others, the Southern Pacific, owner of Los Angeles' Pacific Electric, the world's largest interurban, with 1,500 miles of track, reaching 75 miles from San Bernardino, north to San Fernando, and south to Santa Ana; the New York Central, owner of the New York State Railways, 600 miles of street railways and interurban lines in upstate New York; and the New Haven, owner of 1,500 miles of trolley lines in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

In each case, by threatening to divert lucrative automobile freight to rival carriers, they persuaded the railroad (according to GM's own files) to convert its electric street cars to motor buses -- slow, cramped, foul-smelling vehicles whose inferior performance invariable (sic) led riders to purchase automobiles.

A few decades later, President Dwight Eisenhower would launch the interstate highway system, enabling the middle class to flee cities for more pastoral areas. This increased competition for the limited number of jobs in urban America. And the white middle class, lured to the suburbs by the mortage interest tax deduction, was encouraged to flee by private actors aiming to maximize income and only inadvertently helping destroy the city. Wendell Cox (pdf), who (over-) emphasizes the impact of urban renewal, attributes the description of the process to a W. Edward Orser, who explained

First, real estate operators would try to find a house for sale on an all-white block, often specifically alluding to the prospect of potential racial change in the area and to the threat of lowered property values for those not wise enough to see the handwriting on the wall. As an inducement to sell, the agent typically offered a buying price at or above the current market value. Second, having secured the first house by such means, he quickly installed a new African-American tenant in the house --- renter or buyer … Third, as soon as the new tenant had taken up residence, if not sooner, the operator moved on down the block, alerting homeowners to the initial sale, warning them of the prospect of increased African-American settlement and offering to buy their houses as well. Those who were among the first to sell might be offered prices above the market value; the next several sales might approximate the actual worth of the house; those who sold later suffered a considerable loss.

Not surprisingly, this tactic had a destructive influence on racial harmony as most homeowners suffered a financial loss and tensions among homeowners, and between races, suffered.

The decline in the nation's manufacturing base, particularly devastating in the early years to cities (now harming entire metropolitan areas) has been facilitated by outsourcing of jobs to the private sector, offshoring of jobs abroad, the euphemistically termed "free trade," and favorable tax treatment of corporations which engage in one or more of the above.

This decline, reflected in the near-dissolution of the domestic auto industry (before President Obama and the Democratic Congress recently revived it), is particularly obvious in Detroit, Michigan. Powerful demographic trends have played a role for generations,as Time Magazine, talking about the African-American migration northward, pointed out on October 27, 1961:

With little education or training, Detroit's new arrivals have had to scramble for any job they could get. But in their desperation to find work at any wage, they have crowded out thousands of the city's longtime residents; more than 70% of the 61,692 persons on relief have lived in Detroit since before 1950.

Disagree if you will, about the role of General Motors, the real estate business, white flight, or the federal government, but the deterioration of the American city was not precipitated by "liberal Democrat Socialists." This much is obvious.

The operative term is obvious. Obvious to anyone interested in public policy. Obvious to you, to me, and to Rush Limbaugh.

It is incomprehensible that Rush Limbaugh would be completely oblivious to all of these factors. Incomprehensible. Rush is not ignorant- merely manipulative and dishonest and completely contemptous of his listeners, given that he expects most of them to believe what he's selling.

There really are facts supporting the conservative worldview. There must be. But apparently the right-wing talkies believe conservatism cannot survive absent an atmosphere of ignorance. Their listeners, and American society, only suffer as a consequence.

Rush: Socialized Medicine, Socialized Care Policy, Social Security

Maybe this is the key to Rush Limbaugh's success: as he flits from issue to issue, Rush is a kind of whirling dervish of misinformation, confusing as he entertains.

Strategically, if irrationally, conflating the Car Allowance Rebate System with health care reform, Limbaugh Friday exhorted:

You could almost say they're the same plan. We're going to get rid of your old clunker car and we're going to get rid of your old clunker grandparents with Obama's health care. Cash for clunkers. Death for clunkers. Disastrous government programs that, it should be noted, were not inherited from George Bush, either. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, have the gall to call various groups of Americans "villains." These greedy compensates who are trying to jam socialized medicine down our throats, which is a law designed to deny health care to those who have paid in the longest.

That's where this is going to end up. It's going to end up like Social Security: The young are going to pay for the old, pure and simple. That's what's going to end up being. Our parents, our grandparents, our great-grandparents. What kind of person would design a program to deny care for those who raised us?

Trying "to get rid of your old clunker grandparents with Obama's health care," while a humorously contemptous means of referring to the elderly, has been debunked, here at thinkprogress.org. (Medicare now pays for an end-of-life consultation for an elderly patient if the doctor initiates the subject; the amendment proposed would extend payment by Medicare to the consultation if intitiated by the patient.) The myth that Democrats want to kill the elderly was created by the Republican right to kill health care reform, apparently the impetus for Rush's reference to "deny(ing) health care to those who have paid in the longest" and "design(ing) a program to deny care for those who raised us."

But if Rush really believed that the bill targeted elderly Americans for extermination, it's unlikely he'd protest it so vehemently. In the very same stream-of-consciousness rant, he complains of the 'cash for clunkers' program

That's where this is going to end up. It's going to end up like Social Security: The young are going to pay for the old, pure and simple. That's what's going to end up being.

This, apparently, is Rush's nightmare: the car program is going to end up like Social Security! The young are going to pay for the old, pure and simple! Social Security- the beginning of the end of civilization!

Never mind that the crash of housing prices has been a multi-billion- or is it trillion- dollar subsidy from the old to the young. (Housing prices drop, retired people sell their house for far less than earlier would have been expected, said house then bought by young people at a bargain price.) Rush says health care reform is going after the elderly- and worse yet, the automobile program is going to be like that awful Social Security, in which elderly people are financially aided by younger people (who later become the elderly who are helped by the young, as the social compact is continually reinforced).

Characteristically convoluted logic by El Rushbo, whose only complaint should be that it can't be patented.

Next Rush: Frigging, frigging, and more frigging

Rush: Cash For Clunkers= Tax Cut

There is nothing Rush Limbaugh, a paragon of disingenuousness, does better than trying to have it both ways. And so it was on Friday, while Rush was on his way to claiming "cash for clunkers is a public sector disaster. It turns out our cars aren't clunkers; the program is," he would contend

By the way, this billion dollars that they allocated has been the most stimulative thing they have done. And the reason is it's essentially a tax cut..... just imagine if just half, if just half of the stimulus bill had been returned to people in the form of tax cuts we would be on our way out of the recession....

You know, I'm tempted to say when I listen to Debbie Stabenow, "Just shut up! Just shut up, cut taxes for everybody. Cut taxes $4,500 for everybody has a chance to use their money or all kinds of things."

The Car Allowance Rebate System, Limbaugh (a multi-millionaire who never saw a Republican tax cut he didn't like) argues, is "essentially a tax cut." Let's see: as explained here, "the dealer will take your trade, apply the credit toward your purchase price, have your clunker destroyed, and get reimbursed by the government." And that would be a tax cut?

It's really not very complicated. Rebate program: go to a private dealer, buy a car you hadn't intended to buy, agree to pay for the car, and get a credit on the price. Tax cut: send the government less money than otherwise because the tax rate has declined; save most of the money.

A result of an automobile rebate program? Not surprisingly,

Manufacturers, who had cut back on production late last year and early this year, are accelerating production schedules to accommodate the rebate program.

And the Bush tax cuts? According to an article written by Larry Beinhart on April 28, 2008- before the economy went into a tailspin-

Ordinary Americans found that their income was declining. From 2001 to 2007, median family income declined -- depending on where you get your figures from -- by somewhere between $500 and $1,000. Median individual income went down by at least $1,000.

The yearly average number of new private sector jobs created from 2001-2008 was just 369,000, not even keeping up with the growth in population. It should be compared to the average number of new private sector jobs created from '92 to 2,000: 1,760,000 per year.

The number of people in manufacturing jobs decreased by over 3 million.

And few industries have suffered in recent years as much as the domestic auto industry, and probably none with as devastating an impact on the American economy.

Fortunately, this program isn't a tax cut. Just something that will do its part to help wean us off foreign oil, stimulate the economy, and make the automobile industry a little more viable. And in so doing, annoy Rush Limbaugh.

Next Rush: Cash for Clunkers is similar to socialized medicine, bad for the elderly just like Social Security.

Rush: Health Care Reform To Be As Unsuccessful As Car Clunker Program

On Rush Limbaugh's website, it's called "Government Disasters: Cash for Clunkers, Obamacare for Suckers," and it was a twisted attempt on Friday to tie the "cash for clunkers" program in with health care reform.

You would think most rational conservatives, observing how successful the Car Allowance Rebate System, would not want to conflate this new auto program with the drive for what Rush terms "Obamacare." But then most conservatives aren't as brazen as the head of the Republican Party was on July 31:

And now we get the cash for clunkers, and care for suckers. Cash for clunkers. Health care for clunkers. You could almost say they're the same plan..... Cash for clunkers. Death for clunkers. Disastrous government programs that, it should be noted, were not inherited from George Bush, either. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, have the gall to call various groups of Americans "villains...." .

.... Cash for clunkers is a public sector disaster. It turns out our cars aren't clunkers; the program is. Just like Obamacare. You know, I warned everybody. I told you America could not afford Barack Obama. I said, "I hope he fails," because Obama's programs are designed to harm this country. You have to ask yourself a question: Why in the world suspend cash for clunkers after four days?

Perhaps, Rush, the program was suspended because it ran out of money. And it ran out of money because, far from "a public sector disaster," the effort has been a tremendous success. As the News-Star in Louisiana put it on Saturday,

For Toyota dealers in the five-state region — Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas and Oklahoma — customer traffic is up 47 percent and sales up 27 percent since the program kicked off last week, according to the company.

Up north, the Philadelphia Inquirer describes the reaction of a general sales manager of a Ford dealership in nearby Cherry Hill, New Jersey:

Rucci began requesting additional orders -- about 20 percent more than usual, he said -- six months ago with Ford Motor Co. in anticipation of the start of "Cash for Clunkers."

But even his expectations have been exceeded, he said.

To handle the extra customers, he has extended the workday for five managers and a sales staff of 17 by an average of four hours a day since the program began July 24.

Experts say demand generated by the clunkers program may have pushed U.S. auto sales to a 2009 high last month, possibly signaling a bottom in the car-buying market's worst slump since at least 1976.

An increase in demand, increase in sales, happy customers, dealership profits increased. It's enough to rile Limbaugh up. But wait- there is more, according to the owner of two Dodge dealerships in the Philadelphia, Pa. area:

"I really think it will jump-start the industry," he said. "We were looking at another six months of doldrums. . . . Now it's speeding up our recovery by six months. A lot of guys didn't have that six months in them."

Or as the general sales manager for a Toyota dealership in the area summarized

"It's been a fantastic program for the industry and for the customers taking advantage of it."

That man's name: Glenn Beck (not that Glenn Beck).

Rush gasped

Just expand the program. But they cancel it? Or suspend it? On the theory that they were overwhelmed? What the hell do they think is going to happen when they're the only people you can go to for health insurance?

He spoke too quickly. The House on Friday promptly voted an additional $2 billion for the program, with the Senate expected to act similarly this week. That is, the federal government has expanded the program, as Limbaugh argued it should. And if a public option for health care is adopted, perhaps this is "what is going to happen when the're the only people you can go for health insurance." Quick, decisive action to respond to the needs of the American people, apparently. (Of course, Rush made up the part about "the only people you can go to for health insurance- unless he knows of a plan to eliminate the private health insurance industry- be still, my beating heart.)

Will Rush on Monday applaud the federal government's decision to expand the "cars for clunkers" program, as he advocated? Will he then acknowledge that reform of the health care industry will be as successful? Hmmm.... probably not.

Next Rush: "Cash for Clunkers" is no more than a tax cut, which I'm always in favor of, but not this program.

Down On America

A pattern is developing.

First it was Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry, who after the tea party in Austin on April 15 told reporters

There's a lot of different scenarios. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot.

Then it was Hugh Hewitt, echoed by Republican Party boss Rush Limbaugh, urging his listeners to sink an American auto company and throw Americans out of work:

Even if these massive subsidies for a time present appealing products at subsidized prices, however, I won't be visiting a GM or Chrysler lot no matter the product offered. The very idea of a socialized American car company ought to cause millions of Americans to reject the idea of doing their car shopping at those venues.

And now there is U.S. Representative Mark Kirk, who admits (video below), when he met with leaders of mainland China, he declared

One of the messages I had -- because we need to build trust and confidence in our number one creditor is that the budget numbers that the US government had put forward should not be believed. The Congress is actually gonna spend quite a bit more than what's in the budget, and the health-care bill probably being the lead driver of additional spending by the Congress.

Wanting (or considering) splitting off from the United States; encouraging a boycott of an American company and its workers; indirectly urging a foreign nation to call in its loans to the American government, which probably would bring down the U.S. economy. Some people might say that conservative Republicans love America but hate Americans. Half-right.

Rush: Down With America, and American Workers

Chairman of the Republican Party (not RNC) Rush Limbaugh has done it again.

No, not saying that he hopes President Barack Obama will fail, though he did so (video below) when interviewed by Sean Hannity on GOP TV on June 3. No, now he has made clear what some of us have suspected for a while- that he wants the American worker and the American economy to fail.

The people saying they don't want to buy anything at General Motors are not mad at General Motors. They don't want to patronize Obama. They don't want to do anything to make Obama's policies work!....

Anyway, the point is, be it General Motors, be it Chrysler -- whatever else Obama ends up controlling and running -- the American people are not going to want it to succeed. So I want all of you who work at General Motors and all of you who are members of labor unions to understand that the opposition to you is not because of you.

So Rush Limbaugh encourages a boycott of one of America's three automobile companies (and historically the largest) and it's nothing personal- just business, you understand. While the President is encouraging individuals to buy American, Limbaugh is applauding the sentiment of people allegedly refusing to buy from General Motors, encouraging them to boycott it and Chrysler. And if the effort is successful, the companies will fail and Americans will lose their jobs. Still, "the opposition to you is not because of you"- it's only your job and American manufacturing Rush and his dittoheads want to destroy.

Another Limbaugh Fantasy

The online edition of the Long Island, N.Y. newspaper Newsday has reported on a couple of dealerships in Long Island which are among the 789 Chrsyler dealerships slated to be closed by the end of the year. One of them, Jim Anderer, says that his dealership employs 50 people and makes more than $1 million a year, and was the guest of Neil Cavuto on GOP today. Rush Limbaugh on May 19 played a portion of the interview, in which Anderer stated

Well, they'll say they want to combine all the stores, or they say that the dealers cost the manufacturer money to keep in business. And all of these might be true in some cases, but in the dealers that they cut, there seems to be no cohesive way that they did it. There was no process that you could put your finger on and say, "Hey, we cut 25% of the lowest performing dealers." They didn't do that, okay? Nobody will give us a real clear explanation or formula that they came up with.

And then Limbaugh's comments, before he started rambling about credit cards:

Now, why do you think that might be? I mean, I could only hazard a guess here. Do you think that the Obama administration -- "working with" Chrysler, heh, heh, heh; working with the automobile manufacturers, working with the dealers -- they're just randomly taking a look at a list and saying, "Eh, we don't need this one in Long Island, chop it. We don't need that one in Portland, chop it. We don't need that one in San Antonio, chop it"? Do you think they're doing that, or do you think maybe...? I just throw this out there as a possibility. Do you think maybe Obama and his administration are targeting dealerships that happen to be run and owned by Republicans? I don't know this.

And Rush makes it clear whom he blames: the evil federal government whose despot, Barack Obama, even may be "targeting dalerships .... run and owned by Republicans." Continuing the fantasy, Limbaugh says in the next paragraph "Well, you joke about it being about penalizing success, but what the hell... That would be the theme of this administration: 'We're going to penalize success.'"

This would be a surprise to Chrsyler, which, according to Newsday

said the dealerships were chosen based on various factors, including sales volume and their proximity to other Chrysler dealers.

The decision, as far as anyone- including Rush Limbaugh- knows, was made by Chrysler Corporation itself based on factors actors in the free enterprise system (for which Rush is consumed with love) normally consider. The "structured bankruptcy" and agreement with Fiat may not be enough to save Chrsyler, but the company was in sufficiently dire straits that it accepted $4 billion in loans from the federal government. President Obama's strategy may not be optimum but if Rush Limbaugh has had a better idea to save the faltering automobile company, he has not expressed it. And before concocting, and propagating by way of his microphone, a conspiratorial scenario, he ought to treat seriously the deterioration of a great American company, related businessess, and tremendous job loss.

Shill At CNBC

You would have thought that after Jon Stewart humiliated Jim Cramer (video below), the network Cramer represents would have gained a little humility, engaged in a little circumspection. Apparently, though, you would have been wrong.

Thanks to Rush Limbaugh (I won't often say that) for playing on his May 15 program a portion of the discussion between CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo and a man Rush identified as the executive directive of the American Labor Association, Jonathan Tasini. Corporate apologist Limbaugh, as you would guess, believed that corporate apologist Bartiromo got the better of the labor advocate, though without hearing the entire exchange it's impossible to discern. And Limbaugh's special brand of partisan extremism does not come with a fetish for context or completeness.

Here, though, is the relevant portion of Friday's program broadcast by the head of the Republican Party:

"When you look at the number of industries dominated by unions --" I made this point yesterday, by the way -- "When you look at the number of industries dominated by unions, the performance is not that great, right? Airlines, autos, teachers. Why is that? Is there a connection to a business or an industry being heavily unionized and the industry being in the toilet?"

TASINI: You cannot blame unionized workers for the state of the auto industry. That was pure mismanagement, not the least of which is continuing to refuse to have a single payer Medicare for all health care system which would have relieved ten of billions of dollars of health care costs from the auto industry and the steel industry. The problem of much of the industry in America, the industry you're talking about, has nothing to do with wages, nothing to do with union workers. UAW --

BARTIROMO: What are you talking about? The autos had all those legacy costs in place. They're paying people who are putting their feet up and just relaxing at home on the sofa, and they're not on the assembly line.

TASINI: -- the way you solve the problem of the auto industry and the steel industry, many industries, is you have a national health care system.

TASINI: There are two reasons states are in trouble in terms of their budget. One is the overall collapse of the economy, thanks to Bernie Madoff, Wall Street, AIG, and all your other friends. If we went back to more progressive taxation system and taxed just the top 1%, we would have about eight or nine billion dollars more, which would solve the crisis here in the states.

BARTIROMO: I can't allow you --

TASINI: That's a fact.

BARTIROMO: -- to fan the flames of class warfare on this program, okay? You said --you said --

TASINI: Class warfare.

BARTIROMO: -- Wall Street and all your other friends, who is "they"?

TASINI: Are you telling me you don't think there's class warfare in this country? We have the biggest gap between rich and poor that we've ever had probably in a hundred years, productivity in the last 30 years has skyrocketed, and workers have gotten no benefit of that. That is the definition of class warfare.

You'll notice immediately Bartiromo's descent into the the tag line of "class warfare." Conservative Repubs have three options to counteract the charge that the strength of the middle class has been undermined by policies that favor the wealthiest 1% of the American population. Cry "socialism," "class warfare," or rely upon facts. Well, realistically, they cannot, and do not, rely on facts, a wise strategy given that in the economic sphere they have virtually none which could buttress their argument.

The failure of CNBC to undergo any self-introspection after its evisceration by Stewart really isn't surprising. The mainstream media, of course, largely ignored Stewart's charges about the bias of the business network, focusing on the humiliation of one man rather than analyzing the arguments (video way below) about a media little interested in questioning financial institutions, insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, the energy industry and any other corporate interests in which it's entangled. (Fortunately, the left-leaning alternative media did have a clue; video way, way below).

But Bartiromo's recitation of Repub talking points about "class warfare" should not obscure the vacuousness of her other remark- that the airline, auto, and teacher "industries" are "in the toilet" (quite elegant, that Bartiromo) because of unionization. She might have noticed that the decline in the airline industry has mirrored the rise in energy prices, for which organized labor cannot be held responsible, except perhaps in the CNBC fantasyland.

Admittedly, profits of automobile companies have suffered while they have helped build the American middle class with middle class wages and health care benefits which should otherwise would have been provided by a universal health care system, as Tasini tried to explain to Bartiromo with his reference to Medicare and single payer. The American automobile industry would have profited if it had built more models which appealed to the American consumer and reacted more quickly decades ago to rising oil prices- even so, it now would be in little danger of collapse if the financial institutions apparently held blameless by Bartiromo had nor restricted credit and, having received taxpayer funding, restricted credit further.... to the industry and to the American consumer.

I am not sure what Bartiromo meant when referring to the teacher "industry" and perhaps neither did she. If she were aware, she might have meant layoffs of teachers common throughout the nation, and even more ubiquitous, teachers paying for their own school supplies. Those, clearly, are a direct result of teachers being scapegoated for the problems of the communities they serve and for insufficient support from taxpayers, school boards, and elected officials. And not coincidentally, the decline of public education has coincided with the intrusion of the private, for-profit market in the education of American schoolchildren.

Fortunately, given Bill O'Reilly's penchant for attacking NBC, MSNBC, and their owner, General Electric, we soon will hear Fox News' top talker criticize Maria Bartiromo's performance on CNBC. Or not.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 1
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Nativist, And Ignorant

Oh, this is rich. Buy a vehicle manufactured in whatever nation you prefer. Express a little nativist hostility if you'd like. But a Suzuki Vitara, very likely manufactured in Asia, I saw this day sporting a bumper sticker reading "This Is America. Speak English" adorning its rear bumper suggests hypocrisy raised to an impressive level. One wonders: Was the driver figuring that the American auto worker who did not have the opportunity to put together his Suzuki an illegal immigrant who spoke Spanish? How much English was the factory worker in Makinohara, Toyokawa, or Hamamatsu speaking when he assembled the Vitara? And did he (or she) appreciate the fine irony of driving a vehicle made in Asia while he was outraged that not enough people are speaking English?

Presumably, the motorist was inspired by South Philadelphia restauranteur Joey Vento, he of Geno's Steaks. Mr. Vento proudly displays a sign reading "This is America- WHEN ORDERING PLEASE SPEAK ENGLISH" at his cheesesteak joint which, curiously, Philadelphia's Human Rights Commission a year ago ruled (by 2-1) did not discriminate against anyone.

Like Vento, I suppose, today's motorist can be confident that at least most people in "America" are at this moment speaking English. Except, probably, the vast majority of individuals in most of the other 22 nations comprising the Americas.

The Banks, Obama, And Rush

It's amazing how often, even for an entertainer, Rush Limbaugh allows his imagination to run amok with something he has heard. Politico reported on a meeting Barack Obama held with CEOs of major financial institutions in which the President reminded them of the fierce public reaction to huge compensation packages paid to executives such as themselves. The President apparently cautioned them

Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that. My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.

Limbaugh could have, legitimately, scolded Obama for referring to Americans as the gang with "pitchforks." But then, he would have found awkward making the transition to referring contemptuously to "The mob that President Obama stoked, the mob that he fueled, the mob that he and his buddies at ACORN inspired to protest AIG, their offices, and the executives of the homes." Instead, Rush on April 3 whined about the executives being

dragged in there and to have the president of the United States threaten you, "Hey, the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks is me," meaning you better accede to what I want or you might get mobbed, the American people are ready to hang you and burn you at the stake, for all intents and purposes.... My administration is the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks. And then it goes on to say that President Obama told the CEOs exactly what he expects from them, because he is running their business.

If only it were true. If only the President of the United States wanted to assert over corporations which have nearly brought the nation to its knees even half the control he is over the automobile industry (itself battered by the unavailability of credit from the financial services industry). Instead, Mr. Obama was telling them that if they would merely show a little tact, he would gladly run interference for them. And the executives of the financial institutions, not reticent to assert its influence over a neo-liberal president, had other plans. On March 24, The Wall Street Journal reported

When administration officials began calling them to talk about the next phase of the bailout, the bankers turned the tables. They used the calls to lobby against the antibonus legislation, Wall Street executives say. Several big firms called Treasury and White House officials to urge a more reasonable approach, both sides say. The banks' message: If you want our help to get credit flowing again to consumers and businesses, stop the rush to penalize our bonuses.

And Obama, ever alert to pressure from the financial industry and the declining public furor over bonuses paid to the nation's biggest welfare recipients, has stood up and taken notice. The Washington Post reports today:

The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials.

Administration officials have concluded that this approach is vital for persuading firms to participate in programs funded by the $700 billion financial rescue package.

The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials.

Still, Republican party leader Rush Limbaugh, sincerely or not, runs on and on about President Obama being a "socialist." It's no surprise that, like so many other things claimed by the conservative talk show king, it's a charge that goes without definition or explanation.

Opposing Conservative Views

Maybe Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are stealing each scripts from each other. In an article published on Sunday in The New York Times, the increasingly popular Beck says the U.S.A. is “on the road to socialism.” Limbaugh, of course, can barely let an hour, let alone a show, pass without accusing President Obama of the never-defined "socialism." Yesterday, offended by the firing of CEO Rich Wagoner by the President, Rush asked "Is Hugo Chavez able to possess this man and go out and make speeches?" and exclaimed

This would have been a tipping point, I think. He would say the country that we've always known is over. He would probably say, "Son, capitalism, as we've known it, is over. The line has been crossed."

Unfortunately, someone forgot to inform a former Republican presidential aspirant of Barack Obama's resemblance to Karl Marx.

I think a lot of people expected the president just to cave, write a check, and just hope for the better," Romney said Tuesday morning on CNN. "I think he's expressing some backbone on this....

That's something I think he should have said months ago. There were a number of us who said bankruptcy or a bankruptcy-like process was something that was needed to get GM and Chrysler on their feet again."

Romney hasn't gone liberal or populist. When he authored this op-ed in The New York Times in November, 2008, the former Massachusetts governor (expressing views he still holds) advocated "new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers." The United Auto Workers, recognizing the sorry state of the domestic auto industry, has been negotiating benefits downward for several years now; and retraction of pension payments and health care for workers already retired represents a promise not kept. Still, it is interesting to hear a member of the Republican right who, apparently unlike most of the conservative talk show hosts, does not offer a demonization of others as his only contribution to the issue. And to find that neo-liberals and conservatives can find common ground in blaming workers.

Flight Of Fantasy

When Barack Obama assumed the presidency, he had waiting for him the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, an unpopular war, and a growing terrorist threat in the Persian Gulf. He has made big decisions and avoided others. And yet this is what obsesses Rush Limbaugh:

The best way to understand Obama, and I can't say this enough, he really believes that it's his job to return the nation's wealth to its rightful, quote, unquote, rightful owners. And that means that he believes the people who have wealth have stolen it from those who have no wealth. It's been unfairly achieved and accrued, and it's his job to take it and redistribute it. And that's what he means by sacrifice. When he talks about sacrifice, he's talking about raising your taxes, taking away your assets, and giving them to other people he thinks you stole them from who are thus more deserving.

This is what Limbaugh repeats, explicitly and otherwise, every day. Obama wants to raise everyone's taxes, steal from the rich and redistribute it to the undeserving poor and middle class. So imagine my surprise when the Wall Street Journal reported Monday

In his address Monday morning, Mr. Obama laid blame for GM and Chrysler's financial ills largely at the feet of the management teams at those companies. That said, he called on hourly workers and retirees at the companies to be ready to accept more sacrifice if they hoped to keep their employers afloat.

"It will require unions and workers who have already made extraordinarily painful concessions to do more," Mr. Obama said, adding that all stakeholders will need to provide givebacks. "Only then can we ask American taxpayers, who have already put up so much of their hard-earned money, to once more invest in a revitalized auto industry."

Now you may like the idea of the President of the United States demanding productive, middle-class employees give up some of their pay, health benefits, or pension while AIG and Merrill Lynch executives get to keep their bonuses for running their businesses into the ground, followed by a bailout by the American taxpayer. (And if so, you're right there with Rush.) But requiring yet more givebacks by unions and workers is a funny way of redistributing income away from the wealthy and, given Mr. Obama's stated concern here for the taxpayer, it's hardly a guy who wants to "raise your taxes."

Put aside Limbaugh's partisanship, fanaticism, ethnic bigotry, anti-Americanism, and sexism. On second thought, don't.

The Limbaugh Way (1)

Now that Rush Limbaugh has assumed leadership of the Republican Party (video below), it's instructive to look at some of his guiding principles. On February 12, El Rushbo (as he likes to call himself) went off:

This (Democratic U.S. Representative of California Brad) Sherman guy obviously is a dunce. For a member of Congress to be telling CEOs of anything, they have to sell their jets? Does this guy not understand, for crying out loud, this Congress is supposed to be about creating jobs, we're told. They're out there trying to destroy the automobile business. Now they're trying to destroy private aviation.

And Limbaugh on November 11, 2008 regarding an automotive rescue plan supported by most Democrats, the United Auto Workers, and General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler:

This notion that we, the taxpayers, might profit if the government bails out the Big Three and that somehow we're supposed to go along with this on that basis, insults my intelligence.

Same guy, same subject, different date (December 10, 2008):

This is a travesty what is happening here. It is a pure, 100% travesty. There is so much anger for this bailout out there. If the Republicans do not stand up to this, I don't care how much Obama screws up, nobody's going to have the guts to vote for Republicans anymore. A lot of Republicans are saying, "But, Rush, how do we oppose this? This is President Bush, and he's doing this. President Bush is signing off on it." Take a stand! You gonna be dealing with an incoming Democrat administration that you're going to have to be taking stands against all the time. Take a stand on this.

Rush opposes a rescue plan for the domestic automotive industry. But this Congress is "out there trying to destroy the automobile business." Chalk this one up to: hypocrisy.

A Metaphor Of The Bush Administration

In a Washington Post article dated November 10, 2008, staff writer Amit R. Paley described a stealth change to Section 382 of the tax code, undertaken when "the financial world was fixated on Capitol Hill as Congress battled over the Bush administration's request for a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry." It took effect with a five-sentence notice which radically changed twenty-two years of tax policy by allowing "some banks to keep more money by lowering their taxes as a way to help financial instituitions during a time of economic crisis." Paley explains further:

Section 382 of the tax code was created by Congress in 1986 to end what it considered an abuse of the tax system: companies sheltering their profits from taxation by acquiring shell companies whose only real value was the losses on their books. The firms would then use the acquired company's losses to offset their gains and avoid paying taxes.

Lawmakers decried the tax shelters as a scam and created a formula to strictly limit the use of those purchased losses for tax purposes.

The notice came one day after troubled Wachovia Bank had agreed, with a guarantee by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, to be acquired by Citigroup. Aided by the tax change, dubbed "the Wells Fargo Ruling," a more attractive bid made by Wells Fargo four days later resulted in its merger with North Carolina-based Wachovia. Over the next month, PNC acquired National City and saved approximately $5.1 billion, and Banco Santander netted $2 billion as it acquired Sovereign Bancorp.

This radical change to the tax code had all the earmarks of a classic Bush Administration policy, for it was:

- sudden, coming "out of the blue," the day after the House of Representatives initially rejected a bailout bill, "when Treasury's work seemed focused almost exclusively on the bailout;"

- secretive, with the Treasury Department neglecting to inform the tax-writing committees of Congress;

- fiscally irresponsible, given the calculation by Jones Day, a law firm which represents banks that could benefit from the notice, that it could cost taxpayers approximately $140 billion;

- brash, described by a partner at Jones Day as "a shock to most of the tax community. It was one of those things where it pops up on your screen and your jaw drops. I've been in tax law for 20 years and I've never seen anything like this."

- (probably) illegal, with even several lawyers representing banks poised to reap a bonanza conceding the Department of the Treasury lacked authority to issue the notice.

This corporate giveaway reflects the notion that a company deserves a refund from the federal govenment in a year when it loses money. (Sarcasm Alert) Consequently, we can be confident that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will condemn this change in the tax code given her opinion about rescuing another industry with failed management:

When you talk about rewarding for work ethic and good management decisions and then consequences are the results of the opposite of that, and those decisions lead to some mistakes that are made in some industries, taxpayer bailouts should not be looked to as the be-all, end-all solutions.

Unfortunately, the former vice presidential candidate may have concluded that $14 billion loaned to car companies threatens the Republic while a handout of $140 billion to financial institutions is sound fiscal policy.