Page 61 of 170

Bailing out the auto companies

November 12, 2008 /

What should we do about the auto companies? It’s infuriating to think that we would have to bail them out, given the mismanagement over the years. On the other hand, the economy is on the brink, and letting GM go under in this environment could take down the entire economy. Also, given the financial bailout, throwing another $25 – $50 billion to save Detroit doesn’t seem like an outrageous idea.

Of course, the devil is in the details. Many, like Tom Friedman, want to throw out management as part of the deal. This doesn’t make sense. Certainly, Rick Wagoner and the rest of the braintrust at GM made tons of mistakes, but in the past year they have made substantial progress on innovative cars like the Chevy Volt and big changes to their cost structure with the UAW. Without the financial crisis they had a credible path to recovery. Ford is in less trouble, and their new CEO should not be blamed for past mistakes.

The real issue is how many strings should be tied to the bailout. Obama wants to see real progress towards building green cars here in the United States. Investing in this area would have significant short-term and long-term benefits. The cars companies are already moving in this direction, so getting agreement on these points may be possible.

The bigger issue raised by Friedman relates to those in Congress who supported the auto industry and their disastrous policies.

The blame for this travesty not only belongs to the auto executives, but must be shared equally with the entire Michigan delegation in the House and Senate, virtually all of whom, year after year, voted however the Detroit automakers and unions instructed them to vote. That shielded General Motors, Ford and Chrysler from environmental concerns, mileage concerns and the full impact of global competition that could have forced Detroit to adapt long ago.

Indeed, if and when they do have to bury Detroit, I hope that all the current and past representatives and senators from Michigan have to serve as pallbearers. And no one has earned the “honor” of chief pallbearer more than the Michigan Representative John Dingell, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee who is more responsible for protecting Detroit to death than any single legislator.

This has led to a huge battle currently brewing in the Democratic caucus in the House.

In the first big post-election clash on Capitol Hill, two House heavyweights are battling to lead an influential committee that will have jurisdiction over global warming in the new Congress.

The fight pits California Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, a key ally of environmentalists, against Democratic Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, who has ties to the auto industry. Waxman is trying to oust Dingell as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

While Waxman supporters say they think they’ve got enough votes to prevail, Dingell is fighting hard to keep the position.

In an interview with WJR radio, he called Waxman an “anti-manufacturing left-wing Democrat” and said it would be a mistake to have him in charge, particularly with the auto industry struggling.

If Waxman is successful in his attempted coup, it means that two Californians would take leading roles in the contentious debate over global warming. Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer is the head of the Senate’s environmental committee, which has jurisdiction over the issue.

The 82-year-old Dingell, the most senior member of the House, has long resisted higher fuel standards and tighter limits on greenhouse gases.

Dingell needs to go. He’s a slave to the auto lobbyists, and nothing will get done if he’s blocking the move towards alternative fuels in the House. Hopefully, Waxman will prevail.

Economy, Policy, Politics

Obama’s stamp on the courts

November 9, 2008 /

I had no idea so many openings existed in the federal courts.

14 seats are open on appeals courts or will be by the end of January. Democratic appointees are a majority on one of the 13 federal appeals courts, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit.

These are the courts that as a practical matter have the final say on everyday issues that affect millions of people because the Supreme Court accepts fewer than 2 percent of the cases appealed to the justices.

“Most of the action is in the lower courts, from labor and employment law to civil rights to punitive damages to affirmative action and how the death penalty is administered,” said Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington.

The traditionally conservative 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, is the first court on which Obama can change the balance of power quickly. It has four openings and has five judges appointed by Republican presidents and five named by Democrat Bill Clinton.

Covering Maryland, the Carolinas and Virginia, the 4th Circuit hears a large share of national security and intelligence cases because Virginia is the home of the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Shapiro estimates that within four years, Obama can name enough judges to give Democrats majorities on nine of the 13 appeals courts.

Both Clinton and Bush had trouble getting some nominees through the Senate. Bill Clinton wasted precious time in his first two years in office as he was slow to nominate judges. Then, he was stuck with a Republican Senate that made it much more dificult to get his nominees through the confirmation process. George W. Bush had epic battles with the Senate over judges.

Obama has the advantage of a healthy majority in the Senate. As we’ve seen from his transition team, Obama isn’t wastin any time. Expect the nominations to come fast in the first year.

Civil Liberties, Democrats, Policy, Politics

Hitting the ground running

November 9, 2008 /

The Washington Post highlights some of the immediate actions we can expect from Barack Obama’s administration. Items like stem-cell research and environmental regulations top the list.

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.

“The kind of regulations they are looking at” are those imposed by Bush for “overtly political” reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration’s Office of Management and Budget. The list of executive orders targeted by Obama’s team could well get longer in the coming days, as Bush’s appointees rush to enact a number of last-minute policies in an effort to extend his legacy.

Democrats, Environment, Policy, Stem Cell Research

Stephanopoulos praises selection of Rahm Emanuel

November 6, 2008 /

This shouldn’t be a surprise, as George Stephanopoulos served with Rahm Emanuel in the Clinton White House. Nevertheless, Stephanopoulos makes some good points as he praises Barack Obama’ selection of Emanuel as Chief of Staff.

He brings a lot of strengths to the office.

He knows the White House. He served there for six-and-a-half years under President Clinton.

He knows Congress. He’s been a member of Congress now for four terms and risen to the number four Democratic leadership position on Capitol Hill.

He knows policy and he knows how to drive policies through the bureaucracy.

He’s also loyal. Obama has told associates he believes he’s “got his back.”

He’ll be a strong presence in the White House.

Emanuel has centrist instincts and understands the dangers of moving too far in one direction in part from the Clinton experience.

There’s been commentary from some Republicans arguing Emanuel is too partisan. But he’s also made a point of reaching out in the House to Republicans and building bridges. He’s had a series of bipartisan dinners over the last several years to build bridges with Democrats and Republicans.

He likely understands that successful presidencies build those centrist coalitions.

This makes sense. Emanuel is tough and abrasive at times, but Obama will set a clear tone for his White House. Emanuel will be a huge asset in managing Obama’s agenda in the House. He helped recruit many of the more moderate members, and he has an excellent relationship with Nancy Pelosi. He’s smart and talented, so he’s a great addition to the team.

Stephanopoulos also reports that “Obama chief strategist David Axelrod has accepted the position of Senior Adviser in the White House.” Axelrod ran a brilliant campaign, and he’ll be a great asset in the White House as well.

Democrats, Liberals, Moderates, Politics, President 2008

Reforming the marijuana laws

November 6, 2008 /

Things are starting to change. In Massachusetts, the voters overwellmingly approved a ballot initiative decriminalizing marijuana.

Defying the scare tactics of state and local officials, voters in Massachusetts and Michigan gave current marijuana policies a resounding vote of no confidence Tuesday. Massachusetts voters approved the first marijuana decriminalization initiative ever passed by voters, Michigan voters enacted the nation’s 13th medical marijuana law, and local reform measures appeared to be passing in several communities.

“Tonight’s results represent a sea change,” said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, which sponsored the Massachusetts and Michigan campaigns. “Voters have spectacularly rejected eight years of the most intense government war on marijuana since the days of ‘Reefer Madness.’”

In Michigan, White House drug czar John Walters personally campaigned against Proposal 1, calling it an “abomination.” In Massachusetts, all 11 district attorneys warned of huge increases in teen marijuana use and other dire consequences should Question 2 pass, even though studies in the 11 states with similar laws, as well as Australia and Europe, have found no such increases due to decriminalization. Under Question 2, criminal penalties for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana will be replaced by a civil fine of $100, much like a traffic ticket.

This makes sense and I expect it to gain traction around the country. Marijuana cases are clogging the courts, so more jurisdictions will begin to consider these reforms.

Medical marijuana has made even more progress, and Barack Obama has pledge to stop the disgraceful practices of the Bush adminitration to use federal laws to prosecute users of medical marijuana.

We should expect significant changes in the Drug War as well. Obama will not apoint a drug czar who views medical marijuana as an “abomination” and he has been very critical of locking up non-violent drug offenders.

It’s encouraging, however, to see these changes coming from the bottom up.

Civil Liberties, Drug War, Liberals, Policy

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 NorthCoastBlog.com

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑