THE SYSTOCRAT PAPERS

Dear Jimmy:

Hey man!! Long time no see!!  How's the peanut farm?  

So . . . just got wind of your remarks at a town hall the other night.  Some of the opposition to Obama and his proposed reforms is racially motivated?  Really?  We had no idea - thanks for letting us know.  While we're on the subject, please allow me to thank you for building the lunatic fringe a much bigger platform to hurl their bullshit from.  Yeah.  Thanks for that too, Jim.

I understand that there are two schools of thought here.  On the one hand, it's great to bring these things to light, renounce them publicly.  And there certainly has been quite a bit going on lately.  I can't say I necessarily disagree with Maureen Dowd when she opines that Joe Wilson, he of "Sons of the Confederacy" fame, might as well have called Obama "boy" when accusing him of being a liar this week.   Like you, I was watching when Wilson's mouth betrayed his brain on national television, and I was gratified by the collective groan of disgust that could be heard from end to end of this country.  The House voted to censure him too. Completely appropriate, I'd say.

On the other hand, the same folks that opposed health care reform in the 90s sure gave the Clintons a hard time too - called them all sorts of nasty names, etc.  While I'm sure there are some genuine feelings of racial animosity against our President down in Dixie and elsewhere, I'm also certain that there are some shrewd people who are using Obama's race as a tool to stir things up.

But Jim . . . c'mon, buddy.  Did you really think that by calling these racists out, they'd rethink their position?  "Gee, Jimmy Carter thinks we're racists.  I feel really bad about this."  Sheepish looks all around. "Guess we'd better cut that shit out, eh?"

Not a chance.  Instead, our radical friends are using your conveniently timed comments to distract the nation from the real issue at hand.  Rush Limbaugh encouraged his listeners to have an "open conversation about race" on Tuesday.  The cable news cycle this evening was dominated by a discussion of your remarks and the role of race in politics generally.  Chris Matthews reported tonight that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs answered 18 questions today dealing with race. 

Don't get me wrong, Jim.  I agree that racism is still a serious problem in this country.  Just ask Tashawnea Hill, an Army reservist who, earlier this month, was mercilessly beaten by a white thug yelling racial epithets outside of a Cracker Barrel in Georgia while her 7 year old daughter looked on in shock and disbelief.  And it's no secret that the number of hate groups in the U.S. has increased dramatically since 2000. 

But now we're talking about race instead of health care.  Who does that benefit, I wonder?  Certainly not those of us who would like to see meaningful health care reform in our lifetimes. 

To be fair, I suppose your remarks could inspire rational, reasonable people in this country to rise up and stand together against the reckless hate that has infected our political discourse lately.  Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professor of African American studies at Princeton University and a leading commentator on race relations in the U.S., "congratulated Mr Carter, saying he had once again "demonstrated the power of interracial solidarity against racism", and had "carefully, powerfully, and accurately pointed out that racism is currently motivating some Americans' opposition to President Obama". 

All very positive stuff.  Meanwhile, we're still being distracted from health care reform by the race issue. 

The problem here is that I think most of us are already aware of people out on the fringes of society who will never approve of Obama because of his race.  More specifically, racism, i.e. "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" is wholly irrational - there is no evidence whatsoever to support this view.  People who hold tightly to racist views are not likely to be swayed by rational arguments.  I'm not sure I've ever heard of a situation where a racist was persuaded away from their irrational beliefs by the reasoning of another. 

In my experience, the best way to counter racism is to put people in different groups together and let them see for themselves that all people are fundamentally the same, regardless of race or color, and that, given the same chance, we're all equally capable.  In recent years, our society has become more integrated, and I think there is no better barometer of our increased tolerance for each other than the very fact of Obama's election.  Certainly he wasn't elected because he's black - he was elected because American voters felt that he was best suited for the job. 

Let me sum things up here, Jim.  Racists are crazy and not likely to be coaxed away from their irrational views, even if you, me and everybody else with a heart and a brain speaks out against them.  As a former President, your voice carries a long way in these parts.  While I do think it's important to speak out against racism, I'd also appreciate it if you'd use that bullhorn of yours a little more carefully in the future. 

Let's not allow the issue of race, which didn't prevent Obama's election in the first place, distract us from other issues of equal importance, like health care reform. 

Sincerely,

TD

Posted by Tom Douglas at 07:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Fellow Systocrats:

Health care reform is a simple matter of common sense, nothing more.  Given the fact that our health care system is undeniably broken, and given the plan outlined by President Obama in his speech on Wednesday night, any American that still opposes health care reform is either in bed with private health insurance companies, simply not paying attention, confused by all the misleading rhetoric out there, or just a plain old garden variety idiot. 

Joe Wilson's outburst during Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress this week capped a long summer of "debate" over health care reform during which a small but determined group of Americans took great pains to demonstrate to the rest of the world just how willfully obtuse they can be.  Admittedly, there is a lot of confusing rhetoric out there - terms like "death panels," "socialized health care" and "rationing" have become part of our collective lexicon, and people have been bandying these terms about with little understanding of what they mean, or even if they are applicable to the proposed reforms.  In addition, there are rumors that health care reform will involve financing abortions and care for illegal immigrants with taxpayer funds.  Notably, Obama took care to specifically refute both of these rumors during his speech to Congress this week. In fact, the plan Obama currently supports is self-sustaining - in his own words, the White House will only endorse a bill that pays for itself, i.e. one that does not increase the federal deficit by so much as a dime.  Let's hope that this remains the case.

In the meantime, the lunatic fringe will continue to try to confuse and confound the American people with outrageous, misleading "facts" and arguments that in most cases have nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with preserving the status quo.  Just so we're clear, the status quo that a tiny minority of Americans are fighting so hard to preserve is a state of affairs where private insurance companies charge as much as possible for health care coverage, while taking every opportunity possible to deny coverage. 

The goal of private health insurers is to maximize profits, regardless of what happens to the consumer.  Even if it means that sick people will die. And make no mistake about it - without health insurance, people do die.  In fact, a recent Treasury Department study notes that the mortality rate for a person without health insurance is 25 times that of a similarly situated person with insurance. 

Let's discuss the status quo in more detail.  The National Coalition on Health Care issued a report in July 2009 which estimates that over the last decade, employer sponsored health care premiums increased by 119% and that employees' share of these costs has risen at a corresponding rate.  According to this report, this increase is 4 times the rate of inflation and wage increases during the same period. 

Not surprisingly, this precipitous rise in health care costs has made it much more difficult for businesses to provide coverage to employees and for employees to afford the coverage themselves. The July 2009 NCHC report includes projections from the Congressional Budget Office indicating that, absent health care reform, the cost of health insurance could increase 100% by 2018, raising the cost for a family of 4 to a whopping $25,000 a year. 

As a predictable result, there are a growing number of business interests who can no longer afford to provide their employees with health insurance, and millions of people in the U.S. who simply cannot afford it, even when times are good.  The Treasury Department study above found that from 1997 to 2006, 48% of "non-elderly" Americans (under 65 years of age) went at least one month without health insurance.  Some other notable findings for non-elderly Americans cited in this study indicate that between 1997 and 2006:

 - 41% of Americans went without health insurance for at least six months;

- 57% of Americans under 21 weren't insured at some point during the this period;

 - 53% of Americans in rural areas go without insurance at some point; and

 - 45% of Americans whose household income averaged between $50,000 and $100,000 (i.e. people firmly in the middle class) were without health care at some point. 

The report goes on to conclude that because the period between 1997 and 2006 was "generally characterized by economic growth and job creation, and that the most recent estimates indicate a positive trend in the number of uninsured Americans, extrapolating our findings into the next decade would likely underestimate the number of Americans who will go without health care insurance absent health care reform." 

This is where the public option comes in.  In the words of former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, a nationally based public health care option will have the leverage necessary to negotiate lower prices from health care providers and provide consumers with a more reasonably priced option that is not available on the existing market.  If you want to switch to the public option, you sign up and start paying premiums to the government instead of a private insurance company.  If you don't like the coverage under the public plan, feel free to stroll back across the street and reconnect with the private insurance companies. 

That's the public option in a nutshell - it's not a government takeover and it does not interfere with the "free market."  It simply provides what in theory ought to be a more affordable option. 

Simply put, here's the proposed deal.  If you like your current plan, do nothing.  Of course, your coverage may improve as a result of the proposed reforms, but I think we can all learn to live with that.  For example, part of the White House proposal is a provision that prohibits insurance companies from dropping your coverage for frivolous reasons, or because of a preexisting condition. 

On the other hand, if you are concerned about the rising cost of health care, your best bet is to get behind the public option. In either case, what's not to like?  

If you're still reading, do your fellow citizens a favor.  The next time you hear an outrageous claim about health care reform, ask yourself two questions.  First, take the necessary time to consider whether the claim is accurate. Chances are that it's not.

Second and perhaps more importantly, ask yourself what the person/organization making the claim stands to gain if health care reform is defeated?  The answer to this question is easy - preservation of the status quo, which means the freedom for private insurance companies to keep making enormous profits while more and more Americans are denied access to health care. 

The American people deserve health care that is comprehensive, reliable and affordable.  Let's all use our common sense and urge our elected representatives to improve the status quo now. 

Posted by Tom Douglas at 03:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

Fellow Systocrats:

This is America, where we all enjoy a constitutionally protected right to free speech, even when we choose to say absurd things.  As a result, we enjoy a rather unusual diversity of views in this country, some of them interesting, some silly and some downright disturbing. 

For those of you that are interested in learning more about the "Tea Parties" that took place across the country today, I offer "Tea Bagging for Dummies," TSP's common sense analysis of these protests. 

Assuming for the sake of argument that these parties were at least partially authentic "grass roots" events and not one hundred percent "astroturf" i.e manufactured protests by monied, right wing ideologues, Fox News, etc., here are some of the more down-to-earth reasons for the "tea-bagging" that occurred today:

 1. Apparently, some folks feel that they are "Taxed Enough Already" or "Born Free - Taxed to Death," and came out to protest what they feel are excessive taxes now being levied by the federal government.  Of course, under Obama's budget, 95% percent of Americans (probably closer to 99% of the folks who turned out for today's festivities) will receive a tax cut.  Why would anyone receiving a tax cut protest against higher taxes?  Beats the frack out of me . . .

2. Excessive government spending/rising public debt: Some Americans are concerned that our federal debt is rising at an alarming rate and that this debt will be passed on to our children.  Excellent point!  Now, where were you folks when Dubya was busy doubling the federal debt from 5.7 trillion to 10.7 trillion, recklessly spending our tax dollars on an illegal war that funneled billions of dollars a month to corporations, who in turn provided substandard equipment, buildings and services both to our brave military men and women and to the Iraqi people?

The people who are opposed to federal stimulus spending fail to recognize that this spending is absolutely necessary to halt the death spiral our economy was caught in.  Job losses = decreased spending = more job losses = even less spending = even more job loss, etc.  Thanks to irresponsible practices in D.C. over the last few years, nearly every economist that's worth a damn agrees that we really have no alternative but to spend at this point.  And before you go there, tax cuts are simply NOT going to encourage the unemployed to stimulate the economy by spending money.  

3. Opposed to massive bailouts for financial institutions: Now this rationale I can understand.  For example, the way the AIG folks have brazenly distributed our tax dollars as exorbitant bonuses to many of the very people whose crappy management skills placed the company in dire straits in the first place is offensive to all Americans.

4. Too much pork included in the stimulus package: I can understand where people are coming from with this one as well.  At a time when our elected representatives in D.C. should have been on their best behavior, both parties instead chose to load up the stimulus bill with pet projects.  Shameful, and protest-worthy.

Nonetheless, we are talking about Congress, so the pork issue shouldn't come as any surprise.  Also, I still think the Iraq war constitutes the ultimate pork project.  Again, billions of tax dollars diverted to private corporations to "support" an illegal war.  Where were the protests against the Iraq "pork" over the past 8 years? 

Now, if these were the only arguments advanced at these tea parties, one might say that in a certain sense, they embodied what American politics are supposed to be all about - the right to assemble and speak your mind as you please. 

However, there was also a rather nasty undercurrent to these events, as evidenced by this video clip of CNN anchor Susan Roesgen interviewing some tea baggers in Illinois today.  These people exemplify the worst that American politics has to offer - angry and uninformed, they are clearly capable only of mindless repetition of inflammatory talking points. Of course, today's events also served as a platform for various extreme/exclusionary factions to make their voices heard.   Some of the more outlandish positions include the following claims:

- Obama is a Fascist

- Obama = Hitler

- "Illegal Aliens are Raping U.S. Taxpayers" (Uh, I thought you people didn't want to pay taxes . . . )

- "The American Taxpayers are the Jews for Obama's Ovens" (Whaaaat???  This is some truly crazy shite . . . )

- "When President Obama Bowed to the Saudi King, he mooned America" (Oh, right.  Good thing neither Bush 41 nor 43 were close with any Saudis - like say, Prince Bandar for example . . . )

- "Speak for yourself Obama - We are a Christian Nation."  (Now I wonder - if Jesus appeared before us today, would he advocate the exile or marginalization of non-Christian Americans?  For those of you who are wondering, the answer is HELL NO!!!! (pun intended))  

Want to see more pictures from the lunatic fringe?  Here's a link to a slideshow on HuffPo that features pictures of these signs.  

Of all the strange scenes I witnessed while catching up on my tea bagging news this evening, Governor Rick Perry, (R) Texas, easily takes the cake.  Perry has been busy raising his national profile lately by railing against the intrusion of the federal government on states' rights.  Today, he suggested to reporters in Austin that Texas may want to secede from the U.S.:

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.

Now I know that Gov. Perry is reaching out to people out on the fringes of political discourse in his state and that his "secession" rhetoric is likely nothing to worry about. 

However, his "my way or the [secessionist] highway" attitude suggests that he does not really believe in the democratic principles that this country was founded upon.  Rather, his position appears to be that democracy is fine, so long as he gets his way.  When things don't go to suit him, look out, cause he may resort to remedies beyond the ballot box to set things to rights. 

The bottom line re: all of this is that today, the GOP invited some of the more outlandish and disturbing elements of right wing society down from their mountain strongholds to mingle with the rest of us heathens in the valley of mainstream political discourse. As the GOP struggles to stay relevant in the coming months, I wonder how many more tea bag-minded Americans will come out of the hills, drawn by the public expression of narrow, dim views on American democracy, like the ones expressed by Gov. Perry today.

Posted by Tom Douglas at 08:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)

Fellow Systocrats:

I received an email the other day entitled "Read and Heed Thomas Jefferson," which features a number of quotes from our third president intended to demonstrate that Obama's stimulus plan and proposed budget are ill-advised and otherwise straight up "un-American."  Yeah.  Notably, these "Friends of Jefferson" did not utter a word of protest during the last eight years, despite the fact that ol' Mr. Jefferson, who envisioned America as a republic of small farmers, would have vehemently raised most or all of the points below in objection to the ill-advised policies of the Bush administration, which in 18th century terms most closely resemble those of Alexander Hamilton and his High Federalists.  

Where the hell is "Weezie" when you need her? She'd set things straight if she were here.  But I digress . . .  

Yes, any true fan of Jefferson's legacy would have circulated this email during the Bush years.  Yet, the entire text of this email does not appear on the Internet until November 14, 2008, a few days after Obama became president-elect of the U.S.

What's particularly disturbing about this email is that it appears to be inciting the American people to armed rebellion!   (Allow me to feign shock and disbelief for a moment . . . )  Gee, now I wonder . . .  who stands to lose under Obama's proposed plans to rescue our Bush-whacked economy?  Could it be the rich and powerful, who, after 8 years of tax breaks and corporate welfare under Dubya are now contemplating the end of a near unprecedented free-for-all whereby the rich looted the public trust at their pleasure?  Hmmm . . . .

Of course, I didn't receive this email from a wealthy person.  This email was sent by an individual who will benefit from Obama's proposed budget.  Furthermore, my sense is that this email is being circulated exclusively to the non-wealthy, folks like you and me.  Apparently, regular folks like us are concerned about Obama's socialist policies.  And I hear these people.  Gosh, it'd be a real drag to have the government create a job for me when I can't otherwise find one, or to help me stay in my home when I can't pay my mortgage cause I lost my job through no fault of my own, or to not have to choose between paying my mortgage and paying for health care, especially if I have a serious medical condition.   Clearly, all of that sucks. 

It's not surprising, then, that us regular folks simply aren't buying into all that "socialist" hype, even when a guy like Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, says that Obama's budget "makes the vast majority of Americans much better off." 

Now, it's one thing to criticize Obama's massive budget and stimulus plan.  I can certainly understand why Obama's plan to restart our economy could be the subject of legitimate, rational non-partisan debate, although personally, I have yet to hear anyone propose a viable alternative. 

But armed rebellion?  Against the Obama administration?  Fought by people who stand to GAIN from his initiatives?  

Enough said.  Here are the relevant parts of the email, along with my mostly off-the-cuff responses:

Read and Heed Thomas Jefferson

John Kennedy once said to an assembled group of scholars in the White House, " I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. 

The quotes below could prove his point.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

This is a not-so-veiled stab at Obama's plan to increase taxes for the rich and otherwise divert a larger share of our tax dollars to pay for the "socialist programs" referenced above.  To me, though, this quote makes more sense when applied to the last eight years, when Bush and his cronies took from the non-wealthy (those who would work) and gave to the rich (defense and reconstruction contractors, large corporations, etc., i.e. those looking to amass as much wealth as possible with minimum effort). 

Plus, there's a difference between those who would not work and those who can't.  I think everyone, Obama included, agrees that capable people that refuse to work should not receive a dime in aid.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.  A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.  

I find it simply incredible that after Dubya nearly doubled the outstanding public debt (from approximately 5.7 trillion dollars to approx. 10.7 trillion), largely through irresponsible government spending that did nothing to improve the condition of the vast majority of Americans, the right now claims that we should be more fiscally responsible!  Again, where was this email when Bush was spending billions of taxpayer dollars a month on a frivolous war in Iraq?  The only remedy for the current economic crisis is to spend in order to create jobs and stimulate lending.  Tax cuts do NOT create jobs, and the market is NOT going to correct itself at this point unless we put people to work.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from  wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

Again, are we talking about the last eight years, when the Bush administration wasted billions of our tax dollars on a war that was supposed to make us safer?  Re: the anticipated "welfare state" argument, see my comments above.  

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. 

Of course, in 1800, nearly every government in the world was either a monarchy or an oligarchy.  These days, there are many examples of successful Social Democracies with expansive, state-run "welfare programs" where the standard of living is higher than it is here in the U.S.  

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  

Great idea.  Let's turn the entire U.S. into the Wild West, circa 1850-1900.  Because as a society, we've clearly demonstrated that private citizens can act responsibly when entrusted with firearms.

Of course, now I'm gonna have to go buy a gun to protect myself against the people who say they need guns to protect themselves from people who want to take their guns away.  People like me, I guess. (Sigh).  

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. 

Oh, so THAT'S what they were getting at in the last paragraph . . . Let me understand this - after eight years of the rich and powerful in this country diverting our tax dollars into their pockets under every frivolous rationale they could think of, we're only NOW complaining of tyranny because Obama is going to impose a modest tax hike on the richest 5% and otherwise try to improve the standard of living for the average American citizen?  Beware, my friends - this is the propaganda of the rich and powerful.  These arguments are not being made on your behalf . . . 

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Here, Jefferson is expressing his cautious approval of Shay's Rebellion, an armed uprising of farmers in Massachusetts.  These farmers, after unsuccessfully petitioning the MA Senate to reform corrupt lending practices that resulted in mass foreclosures and imprisonment, organized to forcibly prevent courts from entering these judgments.

Am I supposed to understand that a second American revolution, while apparently NOT warranted under Bush, a man that subverted the Constitution in every way he could think of, IS warranted under Obama, who has the unfortunate task of cleaning up the steaming Monticello-sized turd that Dubya left in the Oval Office for him? 

Is anyone really buying this crap?  

To purchase the Jefferson print featured above, please click here.  

Posted by Tom Douglas at 10:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

By Paddy O'Brien

I've been having a lot of discussions lately regarding the bailout of the Big Three U.S. automakers and the general consensus from both sides seems to be that everyone is getting fed up with all these bailouts.  (I know that this isn't technically a bailout but a loan but as someone once said, you can put lipstick on a pig yada, yada, yada.)  Regardless, we are helping them out (saving them) and the ultimate question is do we really need to save them?  All of them? 

I was forwarded Thomas Friedman's recent NYT article on the bailout and it helped inspire this blog.  With this bailout of the Big Three are we in fact pouring money into a catalog business in the time of ebay?

Friedman's article questions whether Detroit is capable of any innovation whatsoever.  It was shocking for me to learn that the 1908 Model T got better gas mileage than most of the vehicles currently on the road.  THAT'S ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO (100!!)  In other words, The Big three have failed to substantially increase gas mileage in a century.  Remember that we went from the Wright Brothers to the Moon in about sixty five years. 

While I'm not a "greenie" like Friedman, I do believe that the key to mass acceptance of an electric car is the ability of the vehicle to go long distances and to travel at an acceptable speed for the average highway traveler; approximately 80 MPH.  By mass acceptance I mean that people in Nashville, Boise, Amarillo and Jacksonville will buy the cars, not those who live on Louisburg Square, Wilshire Boulevard or the People's Republic of Cambridge.  The key to Friedman's article seems to be that the right kind of battery needs to be invented for the electric car and a national plug in network needs to be formed.  Friedman, as do most rational people, doubts that Detroit is capable of achieving either.  As currently constituted I agree with Friedman as Detroit has never grasped the need for vehicles with better gas mileage why would they now grasp the need for the appropriate battery for an electric car.

It's my opinion that we shouldn't bailout the Big Three UNLESS....they develop the right battery, a battery capable of producing the power to propel a vehicle for 80 MPH for 8-10 hours.   I find it hard to fathom that they can't use some of this money (as originally designed) to advance the progress on this development.   Regardless of the need to pay salaries, health care, bad union contracts, etc, a portion of this money MUST be designated toward technological development; i.e. electric cars and/or natural gas/hydrogen vehicles.

But alas, the bailout of the Big Three is an inevitability for several reasons; not the least of which is the fact that one of every ten jobs in America is directly related to the auto industry.  The tentacles of the Big Three stretch far as they are the largest purchasers of steel, glass, and computer chips and we would be remiss if we also didn't mention rubber, aluminum and plastic.  So it's not just the auto jobs but all the jobs from their suppliers and other industries as well that would be effected by a failure of one or more of the Big Three.  As the great German philosopher Udo Dirkschneider once said, they got your balls to the wall.  While this is true, we should be able to dictate some terms to the Big Three, some of which are set forth below.

I wouldn't bailout all three.  I'd bail out Ford and GM and tell Chrysler...owned by a private equity/venture capitalist firm to hit the road and sell off the good parts of the company to GM or Ford (not Toyota, Hyundai or Tata.)  At the very least, Chrysler needs to get rid of their CEO, Bob Nardelli, who was essentially FIRED b/c he helped drive Home Depot into the ground.  Nardelli lacked the vision to foresee the impact Lowe's would have on Home Depot; how can we expect him to counter the new up and comer Tata Motors?  Prior to Nardelli becoming CEO Home Depot doubled in size about every four years.  Nardelli and his supporters argue that Home Depot was reaching it's limit.  If it was reaching a limit, how do you explain the explosion of Lowe's, essentially Home Depot's only competitor? Couldn't Home Depot have put some stores in those areas?  During his duration as CEO of Home Depot the stock price was essentially unchanged while Lowe's nearly doubled.  Moreover, Nardelli's salary was double that of the CEO of Lowe's.  Are these the marks of a good CEO?  Your competitor's share price doubles and yours does nothing and then you obtain a $210 MILLION DOLLAR Severance package so that you will leave in hopes someone can run Home Depot with a vision and awareness of competition.  Any bailout that would include Chrysler, a PRIVATE company, must include the removal of Nardelli.

GMs CEO, Rick Wagoner doesn't exactly instill confidence either.  He is essentially a career auto industry man  who has run GM for nearly eight years and in that time the stock has essentially become slightly more than worthless.  It appears he's too far ingrained in the industry system to act as a CEO with the appropriate vision to resurrect GM.  If your a fan of sports and your team was always competitive and had won recent championships and the next manager or coach takes over and the team goes from perennial title contender to one of the worst franchises would that manager or coach keep their job?  It certainly appears that Wagoner has attempted to make the correct moves at GM and it can certainly be argued that if he hadn't made those moves GM would have come begging a couple years ago instead of today.  Who knows, maybe with the appropriate parts of a Chrysler break-up Wagoner is the guy to turn around GM.  It is Sen. Chris Dodd who is pushing for Wagoner to resign and that makes me think that if a political hack/crook like Dodd, who has no comprehension of business wants him gone that's probably good evidence that he should stay.  Let's not forget that Dodd's last endorsement of "a leader for ALL times," was Klansman and 1964 Civil Rights act opponent Robert Byrd.  I digress...despite the Dodd "endorsement," I don't think we'll be disappointed if Wagoner goes.   

Ford is another story, Ford's CEO Alan Mulally only came on board about two years ago when the company was already hemorrhaging.  Granted he's failed to stop the bleeding but that's probably has more to do with the fact it was a Sisyphean task than any actions (or inactions) he has undertaken.   Moreover, it is important to note that Mulally comes from Boeing who 1) competes well w/ foreign makers (thanks in large part to Mulally) and 2) has come back from the abyss not once but twice both of which Mulally deserves a lot of credit.  It seems clear to me that Mulally deserves more time as he has a history of being able to compete with foreign competitors and saving troubled iconic manufacturers.  Additionally, he was a proponent of the 777, the plane that helped save Boeing...maybe he can use that experience to develop and electric or alternative car that will save Ford.

Lastly, I would make it clear to the Big Three that this is it.  The public trough is now empty to you guys.  This is Chrysler's second time here and certainly there cannot be a third. 

Posted by Tom Douglas at 09:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)