President Obama Has No Interest In Running General Motors

[BPSCG]

Barney Frank, evidently, has not taken the same pledge...
General Motors has agreed to keep its Norton parts distribution center open beyond December 31, thanks to the intervention of Congressman Barney Frank.

Frank, D-Newton, met with GM Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson on Wednesday and expressed concern that the embattled automaker planned to close the facility by Dec. 31 as part of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing.

"The plant is an asset to the company. There are a lot of people loyal to GM," Frank spokesman Harry Gural said today.

Frank requested the meeting after learning last Thursday that GM planned to close the Norton plant, as well as distribution centers in Jacksonville, Fla., and Columbus, Ohio, at the same time, Gural said.

GM announced Monday it plans to cut a total of 21,000 employees, about 34 percent of the workforce, as part of its restructuring. About 80 jobs to be cut were at the 400,000-square-foot Norton plant, in the Norton Commerce Center off South Washington Street.Link (http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2009/06/04/news_update/5073804.txt)

I'm sure this was a decision based strictly on the business merits, and not on any crass political considerations.

[Dr Adequate]

I'm not quite following this.

If Frank persuaded GM to keep the Norton center open, then he's doing his job for his constituents. Good for him.

If he somehow coerced them, then that's a scandal. Did he? How?

[BPSCG]

I'm not quite following this.I find that hard to believe.

If Frank persuaded GM to keep the Norton center open, then he's doing his job for his constituents. Good for him.Well, now shouldn't GM's primary concern be the good of the company and its owners, not Barney Frank's constituents?

[Upchurch]

President Obama Has No Interest In Running General Motors
Sorry if I'm pointing out the obvious, but your OP article says nothing about Obama. Is this yet another thread fail?

[Brainster]

Obama has no interest in running GM because he's delegated that (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/01deese.html?_r=1) to a 31-year-old law student.

[mr rosewater]

Obama has no interest in running GM because he's delegated that (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/01deese.html?_r=1) to a 31-year-old law student.

Brian Deese, a not-quite graduate of Yale Law School who had never set foot in an automotive assembly plant until he took on his nearly unseen role in remaking the American automotive industry.

and,



Mr. Deese’s role is unusual for someone who is neither a formally trained economist nor a business school graduate, and who never spent much time flipping through the endless studies about the future of the American and Japanese auto industries.

Wow.

[Upchurch]

Wow.

Uh-huh. Don't forget:
“Brian grasps both the economics and the politics about as quickly as I’ve seen anyone do this,” said Lawrence H. Summers, the head of the National Economic Council who is not known for being patient whenever he believes an analysis is sub-par — or disagrees with his own. “And there he was in the Roosevelt Room, speaking up vigorously to make the point that the costs we were going to incur giving Fiat a chance were no greater than some of the hidden costs of liquidation.”
Ah, forget it. Let's just quote mine some more. That's a far easier way to make a point.


Brainster, where in your article does it say that Deese is running GM?

[mr rosewater]

He worked for Obama's campaign, campaigns over and he needs a job he's obviously qualified, I mean he must have driven in a car he is 31 after all.

[BPSCG]

Sorry if I'm pointing out the obvious, but your OP article says nothing about Obama. Is this yet another thread fail?
The President added that the government will not micromanage GM and hopes to get out of its ownership quickly.

"What I have no interest in doing is running General Motors," he said.

There. You happy now (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/business/NATL-Obama-to-Announce-GM-Bankruptcy-Filing.html)?

[Cleon]

Well, now shouldn't GM's primary concern be the good of the company and its owners, not Barney Frank's constituents?

Perhaps Frank convinced GM that keeping the plant open was for the good of the company and its owners.

Do you have any evidence that any sort of coercion or bullying was involved?

[Upchurch]

There. You happy now (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/business/NATL-Obama-to-Announce-GM-Bankruptcy-Filing.html)?
More confused, now. I already knew Obama had said that he has no interest in running GM. Also already knew that his plan involved getting GM back on its feet quickly so the government can get out of it ASAP. That wasn't the issue.

What does any of that, or Obama, have to do with what Barney Frank did?

[linusrichard]

I find that hard to believe.

Well, now shouldn't GM's primary concern be the good of the company and its owners, not Barney Frank's constituents?

I see, so the point of the thread is to criticize GM, not Obama or Frank?

He worked for Obama's campaign, campaigns over and he needs a job he's obviously qualified, I mean he must have driven in a car he is 31 after all.
One more time:
“Brian grasps both the economics and the politics about as quickly as I’ve seen anyone do this,” said Lawrence H. Summers, the head of the National Economic Council who is not known for being patient whenever he believes an analysis is sub-par — or disagrees with his own.

Monica Goodling he ain't.

[theprestige]

Okay, so the premise of the OP is literally untrue.

If the Obama Administration had no interest in running GM, they would not, in fact, be involved in running GM. Clearly they have found some compelling reason--some "interest", if I may--for getting the federal government involved in GM's business.

You can tell which companies Obama truly has no interest in running, because those are the companies which neither he nor his staff have any involvement in running.

[Upchurch]

If the Obama Administration had no interest in running GM, they would not, in fact, be involved in running GM.
I think it's fairly plain from the context that Obama is saying that he has no interest having the government in running GM in the long term and that this is a temporary measure to get it going again.

[mr rosewater]

So Frank was caught acting ham handed, and I do mean ham handed (pig anyone) no different from military base closings or parts for a fighter jet made in all 50 states. I would find it amazing if Henderson can get any work done at all with what I believe every congressman calling and offering their opinion.

[BPSCG]

More confused, now. I already knew Obama had said that he has no interest in running GM. Also already knew that his plan involved getting GM back on its feet quickly so the government can get out of it ASAP. That wasn't the issue.

What does any of that, or Obama, have to do with what Barney Frank did?Okay, you want me to engage you when you're being deliberately obtuse. Sorry I can't oblige.

[Upchurch]

Okay, you want me to engage you when you're being deliberately obtuse. Sorry I can't oblige.
"deliberately obtuse"? Your OP article has nothing about Obama in it despite your implication that it did from your thread title. This last link had nothing in it that related back to what Barney Frank did.

I will admit that I assume this is a new approach on your series of "statement expiration date" threads that failed to make their points. Like those, this thread has two different elements by which you are trying to imply a connection by putting them in the same thread.

I am willing to be proven wrong. If you could just show how Barney Frank's actions shows a failure on Obama's part, I will happily acknowledge the point.

Until you do, this is just another in a series.

[BPSCG]

"deliberately obtuse"? Your OP article has nothing about Obama in it despite your implication that it did from your thread title. This last link had nothing in it that related back to what Barney Frank did.

I will admit that I assume this is a new approach on your series of "statement expiration date" threads that failed to make their points. Like those, this thread has two different elements by which you are trying to imply a connection by putting them in the same thread.

I am willing to be proven wrong. If you could just show how Barney Frank's actions shows a failure on Obama's part, I will happily acknowledge the point.

Until you do, this is just another in a series.If my thread titles bug you so much, there's always that ignore key.

[Upchurch]

Another failed thread, then?

[mr rosewater]

Another failed thread, then?

No not at all, Obama told the bond holders to go suck wind that they should eat their loss for the good of the country, but Frank can't help but be the pig he is with his not in my back yard because I have the power. Great thread B.

[Upchurch]

No not at all, Obama told the bond holders to go suck wind that they should eat their loss for the good of the country, but Frank can't help but be the pig he is with his not in my back yard because I have the power.
So, despite not being previously mentioned, the point being made in this thread is that Obama is asking some people to tighten their belts, which is then contrasted to Barney Frank, who is fighting for jobs in his constituency.

This, then, is presented as a failing of whom? Obama for being pragmatic or Frank for representing the people who elected him?


Great thread B.
Yeah. Great thread B.

:D

[mr rosewater]

Ya know Upchurch we just went through this with the republicans a form of abuse of power if you choose not to see it here fine, don't, some of us do. GM is cutting cost something they must do to survive it's a mess and made more of a mess if people like Frank interfere.

[Upchurch]

...and made more of a mess if people like Frank interfere.
ah.

What was Obama's role in Frank's interference?

[mr rosewater]

ah.

What was Obama's role in Frank's interference?

Obama's role is rewriting contract law, and by the way where in the constitution does it give him the power to do what he's doing.

[Ziggurat]

. Edited for incivility.
You have to at least make and attempt to address the topic rather than just posting incivilities.

[Upchurch]

Obama's role is rewriting contract law
He did? Source?

and by the way where in the constitution does it give him the power to do what he's doing.
Do what, exactly?

[mr rosewater]

http://www.slate.com/id/2217653/

It was these smaller firms that President Obama lacerated last week, blaming them for greediness that prevented a better deal. In a normal Chapter 11 filing, their claims on a failed company's assets would be paramount, above the claims of unsecured creditors such as, say, the union health care fund or employee pension fund. But the smaller investment firms say the government tried to strong-arm them into accepting a debt-for-stock swap that would have shortchanged them.

[Upchurch]

http://www.slate.com/id/2217653/

It was these smaller firms that President Obama lacerated last week, blaming them for greediness that prevented a better deal. In a normal Chapter 11 filing, their claims on a failed company's assets would be paramount, above the claims of unsecured creditors such as, say, the union health care fund or employee pension fund. But the smaller investment firms say the government tried to strong-arm them into accepting a debt-for-stock swap that would have shortchanged them.
I suggest you continue reading the op/ed.

[davefoc]

Okay, you want me to engage you when you're being deliberately obtuse. Sorry I can't oblige.

I don't quite understand why you're being so prickly here BPSCG.

Upchurch's point is that now that Obama and his administration have finished screwing with the company and the results of the bankruptcy they plan to step back and let GM's current managers do what is needed for GM to make a profit.

Is there evidence that refutes this? Absolutely the Obama administration moved in to give the UAW a much better deal than they could have gotten in any kind of normal bankruptcy. As a result the current GM is saddled with at least some of the same disastrous UAW legacy that is largely responsible for getting them into this mess. In return GM (and indirectly the UAW) got something like $50 billion dollars of US cash most of which will probably never be repaid.

But now that the deal is done is the Obama administration putting together special initiatives to force GM down politically driven paths? Any special efforts to get it to build a greener car or to leave open particular plants?

Is your point that Barnie Frank is a proxy for the Obama administration or that GM is going to be driven to do things that will please the administration right now whether there is any actual Obama administration pressure to do so? Or do you have evidence of direct Obama administration efforts to get GM to act in non-profitable ways?

My guess, is that the Obama administration will be keeping their hands off this mess. The Democrats have paid off the UAW, but the political price to pay for dumping more money into the GM mess will be high and I expect the Obama administration is going to be much more interested in a stable GM than a GM that will be used to implement their various polical and ecological dreams.

[mr rosewater]

Indiana pension funds and other creditors are appealing a ruling by the judge in charge of Chrysler’s bankruptcy case, who approved the sale. He found Chrysler had satisfied conditions to use a quick-sale provision of the bankruptcy code rather than have to go through the usual, lengthy process of asset sales, including hearings, evidence presentation and valuation trials.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aO2Q.Ee3SKik&refer=us


In bankruptcy court, the funds had also argued that the use of $2 billion in loans from the Troubled Assets Relief Program to finance the deal was illegal because the law was only intended to help financial institutions, not manufacturers.

Extraordinary Powers

Judge Jacobs said that under the TARP statute, no one can interfere with the Treasury’s “truly extraordinary” powers unless there is a constitutional violation. A lawyer for the Indiana funds, Glenn Kurtz, said there had been such a violation.

[Dr Adequate]

I find that hard to believe. Nonetheless.

If there is a shred of a scintilla of a hint that he used improper influence, then you have mysteriously chosen to omit it from your post.

If he didn't, then the headline is: "Congressman Helps Constituents". This may be unusual, but surely it's not actually wrong.

[BeAChooser]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/22/private-emails-detail-obama-admin-involvement-in-cutting-non-union-worker-pensions-post-gm-bailout/


6/22/2011

New emails obtained by The Daily Caller contradict claims by the Obama administration that the Treasury Department would avoid “intervening in the day-to-day management” of General Motors post-auto bailout.

These messages reveal that Treasury officials were involved in decision-making that led to more than 20,000 non-union workers losing their pensions.

… snip …

In 2009 congressional testimony, senior Obama administration official Ron Bloom said the president told the Treasury Department to stay out of the management of these companies and downplayed any administration intervention.

“From the beginning of this process, the President gave the Auto Task Force two clear directions regarding its approach to the auto restructurings,” Bloom said then. “The first was to behave in a commercial manner by ensuring that all stakeholders were treated fairly and received neither more nor less than they would have simply because the government was involved. The second was to refrain from intervening in the day-to-day management of these companies.”

But the emails TheDC obtained show high-ranking Treasury Department officials, including Matthew Feldman of Treasury’s Auto Task Force, corresponding with senior GM officials on how to make certain decisions regarding who was going to win and who was going to lose.


Looks like we were lied to yet again.

I'm curious. When will the Obamaphiles on this forum show an ounce of skepticism?

[Upchurch]

I'm curious. When will the Obamaphiles on this forum show an ounce of skepticism?

One might ask the same of you, B. You seem to buy into anything, no matter how ridiculous, that you perceive as even remotely anti-Obama, no questions asked.

[Travis]

Darn that Obama for not letting a huge company go bankrupt and put millions out of work.

[Tricky]

I'm concerned that Dan Akerson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Akerson)is out there directing the search and elimination of Al Qaeda operatives.

[davefoc]

Darn that Obama for not letting a huge company go bankrupt and put millions out of work.

Almost, certainly the bailouts that began under Bush and were ramped up under Obama didn't do that. What they did was transfer billions of dollars of general fund money to General Motors union retirees, a chunk of money to miscellaneous executives and they allowed the UAW to continue in power to continue to undermine any real chance that GM has for long term success.

Unlike virtually every bankruptcy the union stayed in power. The union was a powerful political entity and they succeeded in doing what special interests do, They got the resources of the many used to benefit the few.

If there had been no bailout or at least no bailout without the end of the UAW and without the nonsense of allowing GM executives to get out with the money that they had earned by lying for years about the financial health of the company, a restructured GM with perhaps a little government money might have had a chance to become the world class company it once was. I think the chances are much less now.

If the government had just made the straightforward decision to let Chrysler die its long delayed natural death GM might have recovered enough to have been able to attract private investment after a normal bankruptcy. Of course it didn't do that so the government funded the redundant manufacturing capacity of the weakest auto manufacturer in the US thereby harming GM the entity it was allegedly trying to save.

The Detroit "bailouts" were done like a whole lot of other stuff is done these days in Washington, to benefit a special interest at the expense of the general interest. Unfortunately we had 8 years of runaway crony driven spending by the Bush administration before the Obama administration and the US has run out of resources to continue the accelerating transfer of US wealth to special interests. We will crash and burn or the US political process will reform. There is little indication that Republicans or Democrats intend actual reform before economic disaster forces it on them.

[lomiller]

Does anyone find it interesting that the same people who argued bankruptcy was a way to strip employees of their pensions, are now upset over employees not getting to keep their pensions?

In any case this doesn’t exactly seem to fall under “day to day operations” even if the information provided is accurate, and given BaC’s record it’s best to assume it’s not even remotely accurate. When a creditor looks at a company that owes them money and seems them paying out billions with no contractual obligation whatsoever it should be pretty much expected they would say “stop it”

[davefoc]

Does anyone find it interesting that the same people who argued bankruptcy was a way to strip employees of their pensions, are now upset over employees not getting to keep their pensions?

In any case this doesn’t exactly seem to fall under “day to day operations” even if the information provided is accurate, and given BaC’s record it’s best to assume it’s not even remotely accurate. When a creditor looks at a company that owes them money and seems them paying out billions with no contractual obligation whatsoever it should be pretty much expected they would say “stop it”

Thanks for the on-point comment. I noticed that also. It is a bit disappointing to see obvious partisan spin presented as something of importance. When the Republicans had control of the government they savaged the US economy with massive debt, unsustainable spending and disastrous governance in general. Rather than admitting their role in the mess the US finds itself in now they just seek out and publicize any event that they think they can put some anti-Obama spin on like that will magically erase the legacy of their failed governance.

[BenBurch]

Thanks for the on-point comment. I noticed that also. It is a bit disappointing to see obvious partisan spin presented as something of importance. When the Republicans had control of the government they savaged the US economy with massive debt, unsustainable spending and disastrous governance in general. Rather than admitting their role in the mess the US finds itself in now they just seek out and publicize any event that they think they can put some anti-Obama spin on like that will magically erase the legacy of their failed governance.

This.

That is exactly what is wrong with American politics.

And the reason for this is that they hope to motivate people by hatred, and when that is your agenda, you have no ability to admit fault or to take blame; All fault and blame must be on the hated other.

[seayakin]

Almost, certainly the bailouts that began under Bush and were ramped up under Obama didn't do that. What they did was transfer billions of dollars of general fund money to General Motors union retirees, a chunk of money to miscellaneous executives and they allowed the UAW to continue in power to continue to undermine any real chance that GM has for long term success.

Unlike virtually every bankruptcy the union stayed in power. The union was a powerful political entity and they succeeded in doing what special interests do, They got the resources of the many used to benefit the few.

If there had been no bailout or at least no bailout without the end of the UAW and without the nonsense of allowing GM executives to get out with the money that they had earned by lying for years about the financial health of the company, a restructured GM with perhaps a little government money might have had a chance to become the world class company it once was. I think the chances are much less now.

If the government had just made the straightforward decision to let Chrysler die its long delayed natural death GM might have recovered enough to have been able to attract private investment after a normal bankruptcy. Of course it didn't do that so the government funded the redundant manufacturing capacity of the weakest auto manufacturer in the US thereby harming GM the entity it was allegedly trying to save.

The Detroit "bailouts" were done like a whole lot of other stuff is done these days in Washington, to benefit a special interest at the expense of the general interest. Unfortunately we had 8 years of runaway crony driven spending by the Bush administration before the Obama administration and the US has run out of resources to continue the accelerating transfer of US wealth to special interests. We will crash and burn or the US political process will reform. There is little indication that Republicans or Democrats intend actual reform before economic disaster forces it on them.

I think sometimes the anger much the public often has towards politicians is based on this situation. Few politicians take responsibility for anything bad they have done (except when forced into a corner by a sex scandal and they only way out is mea culpa). For me, I think Alan Greenspan showed his metal when he admitted that self-regulation of the banking industry was a mistake. This is very rare among politicians and those nebulous Washinigton insiders (for either party).

[seayakin]

This.

That is exactly what is wrong with American politics.

And the reason for this is that they hope to motivate people by hatred, and when that is your agenda, you have no ability to admit fault or to take blame; All fault and blame must be on the hated other.

Unfortunately, this seems too true and I don't know if I'm getting cynical but it sometimes seems to be the only motivating factor for the electorate.

[NoZed Avenger]

Does anyone find it interesting that the same people who argued bankruptcy was a way to strip employees of their pensions, are now upset over employees not getting to keep their pensions?



I think the real objection is not the loss of ensions, necessarily, but over the government picking winners and losers in the pension mess -- and the winners happen to be big political donors.

Having said that, the emails listed inthe report are pretty damn weak sauce. I don't think they really support the accusations, unless there is more than that I am seeing. The writer seems to be stretching things.

[davefoc]

I think sometimes the anger much the public often has towards politicians is based on this situation. Few politicians take responsibility for anything bad they have done (except when forced into a corner by a sex scandal and they only way out is mea culpa). For me, I think Alan Greenspan showed his metal when he admitted that self-regulation of the banking industry was a mistake. This is very rare among politicians and those nebulous Washinigton insiders (for either party).

In a mild defense of politicians, almost never accepting blame is probably the only way to get into and to stay in office. The Republican candidates are falling all over themselves to tell us how bad the Obama administration is largely because it is doing what the Bush administration did, spending money that the country doesn't have to promote special interests. But a Republican presidential candidate that honestly discussed the disaster of the Bush administration would have zero chances of winning a Republican nomination.

FWIW, I am slightly hopeful. The state of California is fast approaching insolvency due to years of massive unfunded pension commitments, kowtowing to the public worker unions and bogus budgets designed to hide unfunded spending. Jerry Brown, a guy who I didn't vote for, actually seems to be dealing with the problems in the most skillful and honest way that I've seen any politician do in a very long time. Maybe, some combination of a Republican congress and a Democratic president who seems to be dealing with difficult issues like a thoughtful adult might actually work. And then again maybe the US is the Titanic after the lookout has spotted the iceberg, but before collision.