Yes, good post (4.00 / 5)

And the power of corporate power is still very much alive and well and will be fighting all good bills to the death. The election of Obama and few Democratic Senator did nothing to alter the fundamental make-up and corruption of DC.

It's all the more reason to start off with boldy progressive bills, so that they're still decent by the time the corporate-sponsored compromises have been brokered.

To point to O's progressivism, people point of his expected bills on stimulus, health care, and energy. Fair enough, but progressive bills in these areas are still far away.

---

by: david mizner @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 18:05:37 PM CST

I Don't Think (4.00 / 5)

These are the fault of "Democratic leadership," so much as they're the inevitable result of having one party that's fundamentally serious about governing, and another party that just isn't. The bottom line is pretty simple; Democrats understand that the collapse of GM and Ford, at least, at this particular moment in this economic climate would be a total disaster for the economy and for the country. Yes it would be bad for them politically, as it would make economic recovery much more difficult, but it's also going to be very bad for the hundreds of thousands of working families who would lose their income, their healthcare, their retirement, etc. And they don't want to let that happen.

The Republicans, by and large (especially House Republicans) couldn't care less how many people lose their jobs, and might be just as happy if it breaks the back of UAW. And when those people control any of the sectors of law making, it's just not possible to get good legislation passed. Hopefully things can be redone when Bush is finally gone, but in the meantime it's not a question of whether or not they sufficiently stick it to Bush (solely anyway), it's also a question of whether a lot of people have jobs. It very much sucks, but Pelosi and Reid just can't snap their fingers and put Obama in office tomorrow. You've got to deal with the reality you have, and the reality is that Republicans can cause a lot of havok for at least another month.

And yes, one would certainly hope that will change drastically when Obama takes office, but then that's why the Lieberman mess was always so petty; at the end of the day it's just not nearly as important as getting votes for the things that matter. That you can write this after basically saying that you don't care if Democrats lose Lieberman's vote is very disconnected.

---

by: Brien Jackson @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 18:08:26 PM CST

The criticism over the Big 3 bailout bill... (4.00 / 4)

...is really unjustified.  You have a president and a GOP who simply do not care if the entire economy, or a large region of it, is completely destroyed.  They simply don't care one bit.

It's like the argument the military makes about fighting terrorists... how do you fight someone who is not afraid to die?

It's the same thing here... how do you get someone to do the right thing, when they are happy to kill off as many people as they can who don't agree with them...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 18:47:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh I think... (0.00 / 0)

...there's room to criticize it in parts, and obviously I don't think Congressional Democrats are perfect. But they are still limited by the fact that, as you say, the President just doesn't care. They're trying to keep things from falling in on themselves, keep the bottom from falling out, and keep people from losing their jobs, and they're doing it largely by themselves. Say what you want to about the car companies, but there's plenty of demand for their product in general. That management (and to a lesser extent the unions) made some really stupid, shortsighted decisions 20-30 years ago, and that the financial situation leaves them unable to get capital to reorganize, seems like a poor excuse to just let the whole companies collapse, and who knows how many people lose their middle class jobs as a result.

---

by: Brien Jackson @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 19:06:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

what did the unions do? (4.00 / 3)

The unions negotiated wages and benefits.  Big 3 management decided which cars to build and which cars not to build.  Are you blaming the unions for winning pensions and retiree health benefits?  These contracts were negotiated in a time when companies like GM had a sense of social responsibility.  When the UAW agreed to create a fund for health insurance they held out for a joint statement on the need for single payer health plan.  The Big 3 thumbed their noses at them.
Please, don't include the unions in this mess.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

---

by: LeeNYC @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 20:39:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually, a structural byproduct of the wartime economy... (4.00 / 2)

From the Asia Times tonight:

Suffice to say, America is unique, among the countries with highly sophisticated health systems as well as those where healthcare is delivered by shamans and witch doctors, in that healthcare is intimately tied together with employment.

The roots of this bizarre practice go back to World War ll. As American industry armed the arsenals of freedom, the factories were running at maximum capacity and beyond. With 12 million men in uniform, the plants were absolutely starved for labor, but wartime wage and price controls precluded their offering higher wages to attract them. However, enhanced benefits were not part of the wage controls, so, to attract workers, the plants tempted workers onto the production line with new benefits - such as health benefits.

Following the war, many saw the illogic of this approach, especially as the European democracies moved to implement national healthcare systems. Many, of course, except those who benefited from the American system - at that time doctors and since then the huge new medical-industrial complex. These interests opposed national healthcare insurance, feeling, probably correctly, that a single payer, government, financing all of a countries' healthcare bills, would have tremendous power to drive down remuneration to healthcare providers.

These interests defeated president Harry Truman's national healthcare initiatives in 1945, and did the same with the few other attempts, such as Bill Clinton's in 1993-94.

I agree with John Halle below where he says, "For what needs to be asked is not whether Obama is, in an improvement over Bush I, Bush II, Clinton or Reagan, but rather whether what Obama is proposing is even minimally commensurate with the scale of the problems we are confronting."

Nationalizing health care is not even in the Overton window but "public-private partnership" (aka date rape) is.

---

by: johnalive @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 21:05:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Bizarre practice" (0.00 / 0)

We finally have the perfect descriptor of "health care" in America. Thank you Asia Times.

---

by: DaveW @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 11:24:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm Not Blaming Unions (0.00 / 0)

For getting good deals, but I am blaming the individuals who agreed to compensation packages that could only be sustained if the firms maintained their market share forever, a patently insane assumption. I mean, I understand why management did it; converting compensation from wages to benefits (and deferring the bulk of the payments 20-30 years) was a gold mine for the next quarter's balance sheet, and made the executives a shit load of money. Plus they're mostly dead now that the shit is hitting the fan. What I don't understand is why union negotiators, who had to know what an insane construction the whole thing was, went along with the house of cards as well.

---

by: Brien Jackson @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 21:11:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

if you were a union member 5 years ago (4.00 / 2)

would you have voted for a golden pension plan or would you have voted for a hair cut on pensions and on your health care and said "im voting against health care even for myself because what we really need is a national health plan."

union leaders want to get paid and reelected today - not in five years. long term reality has no bearing on the matter.

-

aside, im curious in all this auto bailout business, why hasn't obama made more of the need for national health insurance - and that steam rolling that through would be part of an auto industry rescue so that they could get all health care cost of their books? Strategically that would seem to make a lot of sense to me. but i don't hear that, and it makes me wonder why.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

---

by: ObscureName @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 21:25:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well that's understandable (0.00 / 0)

"would you have voted for a golden pension plan or would you have voted for a hair cut on pensions and on your health care and said "im voting against health care even for myself because what we really need is a national health plan."
union leaders want to get paid and reelected today - not in five years. long term reality has no bearing on the matter. "

...but it's not right. Union leaders should look out for the interests of their members, and that doesn't mean getting the most compensation outright, it means getting the most sustainable compensation. If the UAW leaders didn't understand that the packages they negotiated in the 70's couldn't be maintained because Ford, Chrysler, and GM wouldn't own a collective monopoly on the US market for all eternity, then they were incompetent. If they did realize it, but sold the deal to their members anyway, then they were every bit as corrupt as the financial executives who built a house of cards on subprime loans and unbacked credit default swaps.

But again, I'm not faulting union members for that, and I give them a lot of credit for doing everything they can to help the situation. My point was simply that the problems with GM and Ford don't really have anything to do with being inferior to Toyota or Honda, or the myth that no one wants to buy an American car, but rather they're the product of bad agreements made decades ago draining capital.

---

by: Brien Jackson @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 09:26:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You mean like the sub-fund that everybody is bitching about? (0.00 / 0)

doesn't mean getting the most compensation outright, it means getting the most sustainable compensation.

People use to be able to count on a career ladder leading to more responsibility and better wages.  Now, careers are dying around age 50 - 55.  People are losing their prime earning years just prior to retirement.  It isn't age discrimination, it is cost cutting.  The longer someone has been around, the more money they make.  Workers are liabilities to be eliminated, not assets to invest in.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 16:29:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Toyota to some US states: (4.00 / 2)

Sorry, we're hurting like Detroit, gotta let you go.

If you thought it was just the Detroit 3 (formally the Big 3) dying on the economic vine, think again.  In the US, car sales have gone from 17 million+ per year to about 10 million. It turns out it wasn't just domestic automakers who were geared for higher numbers, but the "transplants" (as they are being dubbed) also made similar mistakes.  Now the fallout is happening on latter's side with massive job cuts.

Many of the cuts will come in the form of "nonproduction days." Some plants will be going through this for 10 days next month, this comes with such initiatives being inacted this month. Virtually all of Toyota's plants are non-union, so it remains to be seen what these workers can do to make ends meet.  In reality, these are nothing more than layoffs.

Toyota will idle assembly plants for additional days in December and January in Georgetown, Kentucky; Princeton, Indiana; and Fremont, California, spokesman Mike Goss said.
Toyota, like its smaller rivals, has been caught out by the collapse in demand for cars and trucks in the United States, a downturn that accelerated in October and November amid tightening credit and deepening consumer uncertainty.

- excerpt from "Toyota cuts North American Production", Reuters, 2008.

Manufacturers have been scrambling to adjust production because of the sales decline. Honda Motor Co. added to production cuts in North America last month. In November, industrywide sales fell to their lowest annual rate since October 1982, according to Autodata Corp. Toyota's November sales fell 34% from a year earlier, with sales of cars dropping 31% and trucks and sport-utility vehicles declining 37%. Sales of its Camry sedan were down 29% for the month.
At Toyota's plant in Georgetown, Ky., where the Camry, Avalon, Solara and Venza sedans are built, the company added seven nonproduction days over the next two months, for a total of nine days. In Indiana, it will add six nonproduction days to the Sienna line and one day to the Sequoia line, which is already running at a reduced rate.

- excerpt from "Toyota Plans Further Production Cuts", WSJ.com, 2008.

Of course, it must be because their cars suck and their CEOS are greedy.  20-30 years ago?  Are you sure Henry Ford didn't screw it up even before that?  Never mind that they have taken steps to change and have made progress.

The financial situation doesn't leave them unable to reorganize.  It leaves them unable to finish the reorganization that they started and had planned to complete in 2010.  Remember that words like "making the company fit", re-engineering, etc. really mean kicking people to the curb.  Oh the greed of the UAW and Detroit 3 to try to do a controlled burn instead of a slash and burn.  Those greedy bastards.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 05:13:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If that's the case, (4.00 / 1)

which it may well be, then what ever happened to public relations?  You know, like publicly stating that that's what the Republicans are doing?  It's like the so-called filibusters that have been occurring; have you actually seen Republicans reading the phone book on live TV?  I'm waiting for Democrats to call Republicans on their tactics publicly, and to make Republicans show their true colors publicly, and to force them to take the actions publicly that they will have to take to support their abject positions.  Until that time...yes, I call it capitulation.

---

by: Aunt Martha @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 20:29:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Or, like Dodd attacking them? (4.00 / 1)

Just who should they defend against?   Shelby and the likes are obviously self-serving fools.  But when you have Dodd joining in the attacks and Obama watching the dog fight with weak and empty protests, just who are they suppose to convince that this isn't 1980 anymore.  

Do you honestly think the self-serving bunch on the Hill are going to assume any responsibility for their complicity in what is going on?  One unfair trade deal after another, no real energy policy to maintain a market for smaller and fuel efficient cars, no relief on health care for US producers...  Come on.  Dumping it all on the Detroit 3 is totally unfair and mob mentality.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 05:27:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, it's worth noting that any such PR efforts would be (0.00 / 0)

dependent on the acquiescence of a massively corporatized media. I'm rather skeptical of that likelihood.

---

by: sb @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 07:53:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You have a president and a GOP who simply do not care if the entire economy, or a large region of it, is completely destroyed. (0.00 / 0)

ok look folks, this is just non-sense. do you know what brokers on wall st are begging for this week? an auto bailout. BEG GING! They've loved every single bailout that has come through because in general each one of these deals has bailed out bond holders and in most cases equity holders (aig and lehman and bear are notable exceptions). recall that most of the money has gone to propping up institutional insolvency.

the last thing that corporate global finance wants is deflation and a bottoming out of the financial mess via debt default. not because they want us in a 20 year stag-deflation malaise like Japan, no they just want the suffering from their investment positions to be as minimal as possible. write downs of debt, restructuring of whole industries, massive layoffs, none of these things is appealing to global corporate financial institutions or the global corporations. which is why they love bailouts and stimulus plans, its protecting their asset prices and investments with tax dollars. The Fed has purchased some trillion dollars worth of complete crap paper from banks - they do it with dollars from treasury bill sales or dollars they print. if the Fed reserve we're to face an insolvency issue from this retarded purchase scheme (which is pretty illegal but congress is too scared shitless to bother questioning this little enterprise) they are basically backed by the full faith and credit of tax payers.

while I completely understand how the left gets frustrated with conservative dickering, its just total rubbish to believe that conservatives don't care about layoffs or the economy. that doesn't mean they aren't trying to exploit the situation. they certainly have other agendas - like forcing democrats to spend a slush fund for green technology on this rather than allocate a separate pool of cash - but they are not indifferent to layoffs. not only are layoffs bad for reelection prospects and the investment circuit's bottom like; but letting the chips fall where they may is a lost opportunity to pock profits at tax payer expense. consider the military industrial complex - this is a great fleecing of tax payers. these bailouts are hardly any different.

its simply not true that conservatives don't care about layoffs, and to believe it is true prevents one from seeing how the screws are really turning in Wash DC. all these bailouts are happening no matter what. the genius is in orchestrating who are the big winners and who are the big losers in the details. so far its banks 1.5Trillion, tax payers 0.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

---

by: ObscureName @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 21:00:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

god my english is terrible (0.00 / 0)

some corrections to ease the pain:

not only are layoffs bad for reelection prospects and the investment circuit's bottom LINE; but letting the chips fall where they may is a lost opportunity to POCKET profits at tax payer expense.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

---

by: ObscureName @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 21:39:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry, Chris, what was that phrase again? (4.00 / 9)

"Democratic leadership"? Never heard it before. What does it mean?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 18:13:20 PM CST

Ten more (4.00 / 9)

One of the interesting factors from the last election is that we will be replacing 20 modeate Republicans with 20 mostly progressive Democrats.  The Blue Dog power has come from their ability to function as a third party nuch like the southern Democrats did between say 1939 and 1964.

Problem is that the Blue Dogs are much smaller and their natural allies, the "moderate Republicans" are being pushed into extinction.  Look carefully at the Republican retirements in the House.  The moderates dominated the list;  conservative Republicans and Blue Dogs dominated the list of losers at the polls.

We need 218 votes to push legislation through the House.  The 40 Blue Dogs will be just enough to block even a mainstream Democratic agenda.  Some of the Dogs from NY are not very conservative at all but think the Blue Dog label is an electoral charm.  Think again.  Mike Arcuri was one of those and he survived by the skin of his teeth. The only mainstream Democrat to lose was Bill Jefferson (137th in the House) and he lost for being a crook.

In the old days around 280 or 290 Democratic votes in the House were needed to pass groundbreaking legislation.  Now it's probably about 265.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 18:47:54 PM CST

Very very good points. Read this post. Plan you efforts accordingly. (4.00 / 2)

Drive Obama towards progressive action.

We have moe power here than previously thought. Obama was elected by us, and it happened becayuse we got organized. Stay organized, stay positive, make change happen.

I only want to add, there is a great deal of experience on the left over here protesting and not proposing. Lets lead and drive change, as opposed to whine and drive crazy.

More research, more study and more dedication. There was not ONE single comment on Paul Krugman's Nobel speech. Not one. I am sure if you listened to the damn thing you have some points to make. But it wasn't listened to.

Damn it. become experts, read the books, study the data.

All right, during Bush and Republican rule we had to study resistance and rights and organizing, now we have to add economics, social change, physics and ecology. Well if you aree going to be a citien you have some responsibility.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 19:42:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is right on -- more so than the question of ideology (4.00 / 7)

Are Chris Dodd and Barney Frank ideologues? These are the chairman of the Senate and House Banking Committees.

Dodd has a long history of doing the bidding of financial services companies -- banks, insurance companies, accounting firms -- many of which are based in his state, Connecticut. So, it's not so much ideology that makes Dodd do stupid things. He may actually think he's helping the industries in his state. Never mind that his actions to loosen accounting standards in the 1990s led to the Enron scandal and the collapse of at least one major accounting firm and the loss of $200 billion in shareholder equity.

When Henry Paulson asked for money to bail out the banking industry, he went to Congress for help. Dodd and Frank could have insisted that the money they gave him went to stem the "internal bleeding" and stop foreclosures. They didn't do that. They gave Paulson the green light to do whatever he wanted, including allowing banks to give the money to the their shareholders.

When Democratic Senator Levin fights higher emission standards, he thinks he's protecting the auto industry in his state. When Iowa senators argue for more corn-based ethanol, it's a nod to the farmers in their states. And every Congessman has defense contracts to protect.  

Keeping tabs on Democratic committee chairmen like Dodd, Levin and others -- and really putting their feet to the fire on issues -- will serve progressives a lot more than ideological battles, IMHO.  

We also need to be vigilant when Congressmen decide to shift the regulatory roles to Government Agencies like the SEC, DEP, FCC or DOT, as Levin tried to do back in 2003 to weasel his way out of raising CAFE standards.  This kind of stunt is a dereliction of duty, and it happens all the time.

How do we be more vigilant? Don't let Democratic Congressmen pass the blame on to the administration, and constantly remind them of how their past attempts to "protect" their industries have led to disaster.

I posted this comment under the Capitalist Tool diary, but I think it may be more appropriate here, so I thought I'd post it again

---

by: CaptCT @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 19:00:49 PM CST

Should committees be led by members who have a financial stake in that committee's regulation? (4.00 / 3)

Does it really make sense to let Agriculture committees be dominated by Ag states? Or for members from Connecticut and Massachusetts run the banking committees? Wouldn't it make more sense to make the head of the banking committee be from say, New Mexico? Car industry, California? (well I guess thats true now with Waxman) This isn't a real serious proposal but it strikes me that congressional committees should be more balanced in that regard.  

---

by: essaywhuman @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 19:20:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not a bad idea (4.00 / 2)

When Joe Biden became VP, his spot as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee opened up, and Biden suggested to Dodd that he move out of the Banking committee to Foreign Relations.

Dodd wouldn't do it, but it was a great idea on Biden's part.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 19:29:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It makes some sense (0.00 / 0)

No one besides people with agriculture-based constituents want to be on Agriculture.  For example, Charlie Rangel's district is Upper Manhattan.  Why would he want to be on the Agriculture?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 21:02:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ag Com administers Food Stamps (4.00 / 1)

---

by: John Halle @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 21:08:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To represent food eaters not just producers (4.00 / 4)

---

by: essaywhuman @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 22:52:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But That *IS* Ideology! (4.00 / 3)

Keeping tabs on Democratic committee chairmen like Dodd, Levin and others -- and really putting their feet to the fire on issues -- will serve progressives a lot more than ideological battles, IMHO.  

Fighting to make them serve the common good, rather than special interests is all about ideology.

What else would it be?  Chopped liver?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 20:52:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

id like to layer onto this another curious double standard (4.00 / 2)

its very interesting that the left gets very angry at "bank bailouts" and sees these as strictly benefiting an elite class of oligarchs. but sees bailouts for auto companies as helping "average working people".

this is as if to say there are not lots of average working people at banks who have not had their jobs saved due to these bailouts. even on wall st there are tens of thousands of secretaries, accountants, mail room clerks, delivery people.. at branches there are window tellers and retail customer service people, etc.

I'm not advocating for the bank bailouts here (because I don't advocate for any auto bailouts either), rather I want to highlight that the left seemingly is slipping into the vary kind of black and white myopia that it has ridiculed the right for. Republican congress and George Bush bad, Democratic Congress good. Bank bailouts bad, auto bailouts good.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

---

by: ObscureName @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 21:12:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The magnitude of fallout wouldn't be the same... (4.00 / 1)

Between the effect on the economy of the loss of all those clerks and the loss of all those auto workers. Putting financial sector workers out of a job won't send the economy into depression.

Progressives have to draw a line somewhere to prevent this argument from being carried on ad absurdum. Remember when Obama said, "Given that a lot of people work for insurance companies, a lot of people work for HMOs, you've got a whole system of institutions that have been set up." I believe Hillary said something about lobbyists being people who have to put food on the table too.

I'm very comfortable saying that as a progressive I will vote to inflict temporary hardship on the average folk of the financial, insurance and lobbying sectors to effect longterm structural change.

---

by: johnalive @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 21:30:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"protecting jobs" (4.00 / 1)

is always going to be absurd. just like "the terrorist will get us" is.

what could happen in a sane world is the govt could cram down a bankruptcy on the big 3, put up the cash to float the companies through the expedited process and guarantee all warranties, wipe out the equity holders (oh yes those 40%+ gains the last week on stock ticker GM will be quite worthless), give a blistering punishment to the bond holders, slay Wagner and half the board, crush the pension plans (I know I know - I shed a tear too - tell it to civil employees in NJ who are looking at half payments the next three years and the half million who got laid off last week - they'll gladly take a slashed pension plan), hurry up on national health care, restructure and turn these companies back out with production cut to ~7M cars/year. no farking car czars!

buh buh buh. whatever. dems control all three houses. stop picking winners and losers and treat all idiots the same. for tax payer dollars we want reduced production, reduced benefit payments, debt forgiveness, and executives sent to the soup line, or jail in many case.

the problem is we rationalize one kind of business bailout over another with grim tails of epic collapse and cherry picked rationalizations.

AS IF our choices are limited to complete fleecing or armageddon. I'm tired of it from George Bush and Hank Paulson and I'm tired of it from Barney Frank and Carl Levin.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

---

by: ObscureName @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 21:52:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Willingness or ability? (0.00 / 0)

The opening of the diary expresses skepticism about Dem "willingness to pass the sort of legislation that will help pull us out of the many crises". It does not make the case that the auto rescue/bailout could become law without the compromises. That's something I'd like to know before deciding that, as "willingness" suggests, that the Dems secretly don't want to see the bailout passed. Given the mystery of their past failures to face down GOP minorities, it is not an unreasonable hypothesis, but in this case, neither is evidence provided.

The opening argument is then supported by examples of why Dems might not have the "ability to deliver progressive change". Seems to me there's a vast gap between saying Dems are unwilling to pass progressive measures and that they're unable to do so. If we're to be skeptical, which is always good advice when dealing with politics in America, the poat leaves out the information that would make that skepticism reality-based: are Dems unwilling to pass progressive legislation, or are they willing but prevented by the political environment, and why? If we ever figure that out we might finally have the basis for sound strategic decisions.  

---

by: DaveW @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 19:01:37 PM CST

You ask a good question (4.00 / 1)

The answer isn't all that clear, of course.

But consider that Dems now have serious majorities in both houses and we also have the President Elect.

So why on earth would anyone bow before Bush or the congressional GOP in order to show them deference at this point? In purely political terms, there simply isn't a valid reason to do so, especially given the circumstances. I'm not speaking ideologically here, I'm simply saying that if they really are trying to serve the national and public interest, they wouldn't be behaving the way they are. Unless they're mentally challenged, that is. From what I've seen from a rather broad spectrum opinion, congress isn't merely asleep at the wheel with respect to all these bailouts... they're just plain stupid, delusional, or corrupt or some combination thereof. All this is just to say our so-called leaders in congress simply aren't doing their own due diligence. There's always a reason for that, regardless of what that reason is.

Simply put, if the Dem leadership were even remotely interested in seriously dealing with all of the various crises we are currently best with (and in an intellectually vigorous manner), we wouldn't be seeing the crap legislation that's been coming out of congress for over a month now.

We've seen a massive Kabuki effort over a $15 Billion LOAN to not-so-Big Auto, yet not a fucking word for Wall Street and the Trillions they've consumed thus far.

Does it not strike anyone else odd that such is the case?

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 00:18:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well in this particular case (0.00 / 0)

"But consider that Dems now have serious majorities in both houses and we also have the President Elect... So why on earth would anyone bow before Bush..."

The President Elect is not in office, yet, and though he will be soon, without the bailout GM will not survive until Jan 20. So on this particular issue, the criticism of the Dem congressional leadership is really unfair. Really they have no leverage whatsoever. There's no way they can get a veto-proof majority in either chamber, and the bill absolutely has to pass before the end of the month (at least it does if you believe it is essential to prevent a GM bankruptcy -- I'm not so sure, but that is the position of the Dem leadership).

So just what the heck are they supposed to do to stand up to Bush? He's holding three kings, and the Dems are hoping to draw to a pair of sixes. Frankly what was weird was that they claimed to be negotiating, when it was obvious all along that the only thing that could possibly pass was exactly whatever Bush agreed to.

---

by: dbeach @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 00:31:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Odious comparisons (4.00 / 8)

It strikes me that the usual basis for evaluating the incoming administration is in comparison to the previous three, four or five administrations.  

As Chris notes, on these grounds, what we are likely to see will be favorable and maybe even an unqualified success.

But while this metric allows ourselves to pat ourselves on the back, allowing it to dictate our response would be a disaster.  

For what needs to be asked is not whether Obama is, in an improvement over Bush I, Bush II, Clinton or Reagan, but rather whether what Obama is proposing is even minimally commensurate with the scale of the problems we are confronting.

On these grounds, I'm far less optimistic.

So, to take one example, while I'm encouraged by the $700 billion stimulus and Obama's initial statement that some of this will go towards developing the kind of energy infrastructure to begin to reduce CO2 emissions, or at least limit their growth, nowhere have I seen a recognition of the absolutely urgent necessity (as shown by James Hansen) to simply stop building coal fired power plants immediately.  Nor does it seem that anything like this-namely a ban on coal power generation and extraction- is anywhere on the horizon.  

The consequence of a failure to act on this crisis to the degree necessary, as Hansen notes, will be an uninhabitable planet in a few generations.

Contemplating this fact, and others like it, should direct our energies toward pushing, both on the inside on the outside, to accomplish what needs to be done rather than resting on our laurels for having finally driven the far right cancer into remission.

The latter was necessary, but by no means sufficient.

---

by: John Halle @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 19:11:41 PM CST

A ban on coal plants? you're dreaming... (0.00 / 0)

Remember, we didn't elect Nader or Kucinich. We elected Obama.

It's one thing to expect progressive governance, it's absolutely another to expect radical. far-reaching plans from someone like Obama. It's like expecting him to propose a half cut in the Defense budget or to appoint Dennis Kucinich as SecDef. It's not gonna happen, as much as we would want it.  

---

by: Iron Curtain @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 19:24:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes. (4.00 / 2)

Exactly what I said. Anyone who thinks a ban on coal fired power plants is in the cards is dreaming.

And, as Dr. Hansen has shown, as a virtual scientific certainty, earth will experience a 5 degree C temperature elevation leading to

"A very different world. So if you'd want that for your kids and grandkids, we can continue what we're doing. Climate change of that scale will cause enormous resource wars, over water, arable land, and massive population displacements. We're not talking about ten thousand people. We're not talking about ten million people, we're talking about hundreds of millions to billions of people being flooded out, permanently."

Those are the words of the incoming energy secretary, by the way.

---

by: John Halle @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 19:31:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But what's the use... (0.00 / 0)

about complaining about something that is certainly not in the cards?

---

by: Iron Curtain @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 19:35:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let me rephrase that... (4.00 / 1)

I mean, I think you should go to Change.gov and ask him this question directly.
If this question is not in the cards, let's add it in the deck, shall we?

---

by: Iron Curtain @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 19:38:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Better -much response than the first attempt. (4.00 / 1)

Look Gore is, Chu i telling how bad it is. We neeed real action.

Obama has promised proposed offered called for --> the end of carbon emissions in the generation of American electricity in ten years. This is a promise that must be kept, must be encouraged, researched and worked for. On all levels, by every activist working to also reduce poverty, and every activist working to make unions easier to join.

This IS our job.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 19:51:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just curious (0.00 / 0)

Obama has promised proposed offered called for --> the end of carbon emissions in the generation of American electricity in ten years.

When did he say this?

---

by: mcc @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 20:02:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I am looking, but, at this point I may be conflating Obama's (0.00 / 0)

support for Gore's vision, and Gore's challenge to that end.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 20:21:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My searching has led to Obamas platform which says 25% renewable in 17 years. (4.00 / 2)

And so I think I am busted, I conflated.

Gore is right however, and I hope this is what he told Obama in his meeting. I am encouraged by the direct statement: "All three of us are in agreement that the time for delay is over, the time for denial is over."  --when it was over.

I am still looking.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 20:40:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

I was just checking because something Obama did specifically vow to make happen is "independence from foreign oil in 10 years", something which noncarbon energy is certainly a substantial part of.

---

by: mcc @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 02:11:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't mourn, organize (4.00 / 3)

I agree with Chris' analysis.  In the case of the bailout, I'm not sure there was anywhere to go.  Bush held all the cards--it was no skin off his teeth if the industry failed. He needed to sign off and he could dictate the terms.

Instead of wringing of hands about whether the leadership will be progressive enough, we have to create the pressure to make them do what they don't want to do.  It's called community organizing from the ground up.

Look to the Republic workers in Chicago.  They didn't give up--they took over the plant.  Small eruptions like this will create a wave of progressive change that cannot be denied.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

---

by: LeeNYC @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 20:46:18 PM CST

totally sane (4.00 / 2)

Chris says it so plainly and coherently. It's hard to disagree.

 Everyone knows this, but saying it well that ruins something that well, I don't understand, a good story?  Obama was always the center candidate. So was Clinton.It was a dogfight because they occupied the same ground.

---

by: ft @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 21:51:50 PM CST

Do You Mean (0.00 / 0)

That the superstructure reflects the economic base?  That when living in a capitalist society the ruling class exists to serve the interests of, well, the capitalists?  Who'da thunk it?

---

by: kaleidescope @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 22:52:33 PM CST

I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the metaphorical head here... (4.00 / 1)

The friggin' establishment. As in the ruling elites, the Democrat Elites, the Ruling Class. Sorry for using this kind of language, but I'm a tad pissed off at the moment.

So, certain people, like DiFi, Silvestre Reyes and others (all seemingly with the approval of Reid and Pelosi, since they're not saying anything) are touting their desire to keep people like McConnell and Hayden on in the Obama admin. DiFi made some remarks to the NYTimes which were then bandied about and she issued a rather technocratic, equivocal statement. Reyes is far dumber, as is evidenced in this post... (Best and Brightest? Methinks NOT)

http://attackerman.firedoglake...

Then there's this piece in Salon, which deserves reading...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/f...

In all this, I'm not seeing Obama's people spouting support for the continuance of our current kidnapping/torture regime. It rather seems to be the Establishment asserting itself with Obama instead. I mean, let's face it: if the ruling elites didn't want Obama as president, he wouldn't be where he is today, so there's at least some sort of Faustian Bargain there. It's also possible that Obama is sufficiently naive to think he can get past all that somehow. Exceptional people can think that way some times, no? (It's also possible he would be wrong to think so, just as the opposite is also possible. "Paging Mr. Voltaire, to the White Courtesy telephone please......")

Given that all of the cabinet selections to date (with the likely exception of Chu, who is a great choice and I hope he can take the heat he's going to get) have been all about pleasing The Establishment (ie, protecting the Right Flank), perhaps focusing all our critical faculties on Obama is a tad much. At this point, I'm more concerned with the Establishment that really thinks the Status Quo is somehow something worth fighting for. That means Reid, Pelosi and their kindred (read: Corporate) interests, et al.

If congressional Democrat(sic) (yes it's a pun)leaders are showing deference to the US as Torture State idea, I would venture to say THEY are the real problem here. I mean, they can't possibly go any lower than that, can they?

FWIW (which is admittedly trading on the Junk Bond floor), I think it's time to stop thinking of Dem leadership "capitulation" as such. Perhaps it's time we recognize that certain people in leadership positions actually AGREE with those they claim to oppose. Neither Pelosi or Reid are actually spineless. They didn't acquire their positions by being "nice", after all. They got there by being ruthless, which is the tradition in politics.

So who could possibly complain about their devotion to Machiavellian Method?

Only the people Leona Helmsley referred to as "Little People" would complain. Perhaps that's why all that letter  writing has been met with derision all these years.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 23:07:28 PM CST

Same thought (0.00 / 0)

How many times do we see this drama play out?  They play at taking a stand that we can get behind and then they capitulate to "facts on the ground" that just can't be overcome - it's all about pragmatism, you know, ideology must be sacrificed.  In fact, they are all playing on the same team - the initial posturing is just for show.

---

by: CarolBG @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 05:54:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

always worth keeping this type of sociological analysis in mind (0.00 / 0)

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whor...

when talking about the establishment elite.  

---

by: essaywhuman @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 09:47:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not capitulation, (4.00 / 1)

it's agreement.  The Democratic leadership agrees with the GOP and the Bush on most things.  We can't get around it and it's time to stop trying.

It' time to support challengers to Dodd, Reid, et al.  As soon as we pull down one of the leadership, the rest will start paying attention to what their voters want.

---

by: zak822 @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 12:09:08 PM CST

who can then spend part of that money to block the development of cleaner vehicles. (0.00 / 0)

Are you talking about lobbying against CAFE?  Hell,  so is Toyota and everybody else.  Lobbying is what they all do.  What they want is a actual energy policy from this country.  Buying public is fickle.  Today its a hybrid and tomorrow its a jet.  

The big three are really getting a bum rap.

In fact, many of the problems facing the Big Three aren't specific to them.  The worldwide auto industry is a mess, due to the freeze on credit; worldwide trade is expected to decline for the first time since 1982.  

What makes the situation so dire for GM and Chrysler is that they're currently in the midst of major restructuring, and they are the only auto producers in the world that have massive built-in legacy costs.  It's cheaper to produce cars in Canada, despite comparable labor costs and higher taxes, because the auto companies don't have to pay for health care for current and retired workers, both unionized and non-unionized.  Take away the massive health care and pension costs borne by the Big Three-costs which foreign producers in the US don't have to the same degree, because they have almost no retirees-and the Big Three would be hurting like the rest of the global auto industry, but GM and Chrysler probably wouldn't be on the verge of a catastrophe.

Instead of liberals and Democrats defending and helping the the last damned "AMERICAN" manufacturing industry in our don't make anything country, they commiserate with and parrot Republican talking points and swap anecdotal horror stories from the 80s.

They are getting a bum rap.  I do agree with you that Dems cave in on a boo. They make Barney Fife look like Schwarzenegger.

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 16:50:49 PM CST