Seriously, this does not look good.. at all.
I realize that parts suppliers will have hard times if GM fails, but the reality is that suppliers success is based on public demand for cars. If the public is demanding cars from Company A instead of Company B, then the suppliers need to also be providing parts for Company A.
This is really pathetic:
In its own restructuring plan, GM said Tuesday it would need up to $30 billion from the U.S. Treasury Department, up from a previous estimate of $18 billion and including $13.4 billion it has already received. It also said it would need to cut 47,000 jobs worldwide and close five more U.S. factories. GM said it needed about $6 billion in support from the governments of Canada, Germany, Britain, Sweden and Thailand to provide liquidity for its overseas operations in those countries.
Tom Toles / Washinton Post
“…it’s worth considering what Republicans are getting — not by keeping Coleman’s hopeless effort alive but far more importantly by delaying Al Franken’s swearing in.
The Stimulus Bill battle is a good example. The Dems needed Specter, Collins and Snowe to get the thing through. With Franken they would have needed only two of those votes. I don’t know precisely what each of them wanted. But I don’t think there’s much doubt that would have led to a less watered-down bill. And it seems quite possible that that missing vote will play a similarly consequential role in the weeks ahead. Perhaps in the months ahead.
The court process has to play itself out. There’s no way around that — though the judges seem ready to strangle Coleman. But we could do with a little more recognition of the fact that this is not about getting Norm Coleman into the senate. It’s about paying money to give the Republicans a few more months of leverage against the Democrats 59 seat majority.”
–Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo, 02.18.09
On the birth of your second child.
A Republican is suggesting bank nationalization and a Democrat thinks it is a bad idea.
~ ~ ~
To be honest, this should be an interesting situation to playout in the coming months. My take is that the Obama Administration will opt against a one size fits all approach. I believe they sent a clue as to their intention by Treasury Sec. Geithner’s discussion of “stress tests” on banks.
The tests themselves will publicize just how poorly managed some of the banks are; thereby allowing more leeway from the American public in how best to handle the situation.
“Having been in two separate White Houses, within our third week, given our set of accomplishments — well, measure them up.”
–Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, who also served as a senior adviser in Clinton’s administration.
National Journal’s Ronald Brownstein has a nice piece regarding a press interview that President Obama gave on Air Force One on the way to Chicago yesterday. In particular Brownstein hones in on how Obama’s outlook could tell us about his leadership style:
“My consistent bottom line is: How do we make sure that the American people can work, have a decent income, look after their kids and we can grow the economy.”-President Barack Obama
Any compromises or course corrections, he argued, must serve those overriding priorities.
That’s an elastic and responsive vision of the presidency which doesn’t quite match the preferences of either the ideological warriors of left and right, or those who define consensus as simply the midpoint between each party’s traditional answers. It contrasts markedly with the style of George W. Bush, who too often viewed rigidity as proof of resolve. Bill Clinton came closer to Obama’s approach, but even he seemed more intent on proving certain fixed assumptions — that opportunity could be balanced with responsibility, for instance, or government activism squared with fiscal discipline. Ronald Reagan likewise shared an instinct toward compromise, but he operated within a more constricting ideological framework than Obama.
Obama’s determination to elevate ends over means could bring him closer in temperament to presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt (who pledged “bold, persistent experimentation”) and Abraham Lincoln, who often insisted, “My policy is to have no policy.” That doesn’t mean either man lacked identifiable goals, much less bedrock principles. It did mean they were willing to constantly recalibrate their course in service of those goals and principles — as Lincoln once put it, like river boat pilots who “steer from point to point as they call it — setting the course of the boat no farther than they can see.”