Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

What Is Obama Admin Message?

March 30th 2009 16:57
Anyone watching these early days of the Obama Administration has to wonder what the message is. Candidate Obama promised to exit Iraq immediately - President Obama is calling for a phased withdrawal with thousands of troops remaining in Iraq. Candidate Obama discussed attacking Pakistan - President Obama has added 21,000 US personnel to Afghanistan. Candidate Obama called for an end to earmarks - President Obama signs legislation with more earmarks than anything prior. Candidate Obama called for the closing of the detention facility at Gitmo - President Obama signed an executive order, but cannot find any facility to move the prisoners to.


Now President Obama says he doesn't want to run General Motors - but forces the CEO of GM to resign.

"We cannot, we must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish," President Obama said at the White House.

"What we are asking is difficult," he said. "It will require hard choices by companies. It will require unions and workers who have already made painful concessions to make even more. It will require creditors to recognize that they cannot hold out for the prospect of endless government bailouts."

The remarks come a day after the administration ousted GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner and rejected the restructuring plans that GM and Chrysler had hoped would lead to another infusion of government cash. Instead, the White House is giving GM 60 days to come up with a strategy for viability. Chrysler has a month to wrap up a partnership with Italy's Fiat SpA.

GM is expected to hold a news conference Tuesday morning to respond to the White House's rejection of its restructuring plan, a person familiar with the plans said Monday.


The administration says a "surgical" structured bankruptcy may be the only way forward for GM and Chrysler, and President Obama held out that prospect Monday.

But what is the real message? Does a "surgical" structured bankruptcy mean that shareholders and bondholders get wiped out, but the UAW contracts are left intact? Would a forced partnership between Chrysler and Fiat create an organization that will not honor Chrysler vehicle warranties? What about shareholders of Cerberus Capital Management LP, the private investment fund that owns Chrysler?

But beyond these questions are a series of questions regarding priorities and expectations. For example, why does AIG get about $200 Billion, but GM only gets $35 Billion and the tap is shut? Why is it important for the auto industry not to "simply vanish", but it gets less money than the financial industry? Does that mean the auto industry is less important? What about other industries - from steel to planes to appliances to computer chips - any less important to keep from "simply vanishing"? What about industries that have moved out of the US for any variety of reasons - is it a priority for the Obama Administration to bring them back to the US? Is that more or less important than the auto industry? And what will be the costs (to taxpayers, shareholders, lenders and to company management) to qualify for the endless flow of funds from Washington?

The Democrats berated the Bush Administration for seven years for not having an exit strategy for Iraq. I think it is time to begin asking what the exit strategy is for government funding of failed businesses. There cannot be multiple trillion dollar rescue plans indefinitely, yet that appears to be the direction Obama is moving. After the "toxic assets" it was "financial stimulus", followed by a "down payment" on health care and now the auto industry. There is talk about bailing out newspapers, several of which have closed recently or moved to web-based product. There will be huge spending on education following the $100 Billion in the stimulus. There will be huge spending on energy projects of one type or another.

Obama refuses to call any of this "spending", instead referring to it as "investment". However, the US government has never been in the "investment" business. It is not an investment fund and it has no money of its own to invest. Rather, it is spending taxpayer dollars on projects that politicians choose to identify as important enough to fund. How are those decisions being made? Who is involved in making the decisions? What alternatives are (or are not) being considered for each of these spending choices? Finally, how long will the American people allow this destruction of private ownership to continue?
60
Vote
   


The Dow Jones 30 Industrails Average, one of the premier benchmarks of stock market performance, has fallen below the 7,000 point mark for the first time since 1997, the New York Times reports.

Businesses and investors alike generally prefer stability to surprises, and that's what they have been getting from the Obama administration for weeks. There were promises of no lobbyists and high ethics, followed by exceptions and withdrawal of nominees due to ethical lapses. There were promises of transparency and public discussion of legislation, followed by 1,000 page bills passed by one-party force, no hearings, no public discussion and not even public disclosure of the content until after the bill had passed. There were promises of no pork projects or earmarks, followed by legislation jam packed full of both. And with record borrowing and record spending already in the pipeline, the government has in effect nationalized the auto industry, a huge insurance company (AIG) and at least one major bank (Citigroup).

At the end of this week a new unemployment report is expected to show whether the trend is continuing toward more unemployment, or a leveling off. Either way, not much improvement in the economy is expected.

[David Dietze, chief investment strategist at Point View Financial Services,] said that investors were also concerned about the message that they were hearing from governments. In Europe, over the week, stronger countries refused to come to the aid of smaller, struggling governments. And out of Washington, he said, the message continues to be inconsistent. The Senate has delayed confirmation of some members of the administration’s economic team, and the government has yet to value the toxic mortgage assets it has accepted from financial institutions.

[snip]

HSBC Holdings, the global British bank, fell 20 percent after saying it would seek to raise nearly $18 billion in new capital from shareholders and shut down its American consumer lending business.

“It’s pretty despondent everywhere,” said Dwyfor Evans, a strategist at State Street Global Markets in Hong Kong. “O.K., there are signs that some of the leading indicators have stabilized to some extent, but it’s at a very, very low level, and we’re not seeing corporate investment picking up, or consumers starting to spend again — in other words, the traditional mechanisms by which economies come out of a recession are absent at this time.”

Economic data and company earnings in recent weeks have eroded hopes that a gradual recovery would start to materialize during the second half of the year. If, as seems increasingly likely, a tangible recovery will not come until 2010 at the earliest, Mr. Evans said, “that means corporate earnings will remain extremely soft for quite some time.”

The world-wide markets will remain in turmoil as long as the largest economic force, the United States, continues to pull legislation out of dark corners and immediately impose new rules on existing players.

Larry Kudlow went even further in his assessment of the Obama plan:

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spend ing program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.

That's very clear. What will happen next is not known. However, Americans have taken to the streets nationally to complain about these spending and proposed budget bills. Commonly referred to as "tea parties" in a nod to the famous Boston Tea Party held in 1773, protestors are calling for less change and more discussion as the Obama administration pushes forward in their agenda.

50
Vote
   


AIG Gets $30 Billion More

March 2nd 2009 04:31
Fox News is reporting that
American International Group (AIG: 0.4299, -0.0721, -14.36%) and the federal government will announce a major restructuring of the insurance giant’s government bailout Monday morning that will commit the Treasury Department to invest up to $30 billion in new equity in the company if it needs it, a person familiar with the negotiations told FOX Business.
AIG has gone from being the largest insurance company in the world to the largest sink hole. At what point does the taxpayers' responsibility to "bail out" a company whose management is completely in the dark end?

Just last week we learned that the Treasury has taken a 36% ownership position in Citibank. The White House insists this is not nationalization because they have not replaced the management or board of directors. So what? The government is the largest shareholder and can easily vote to replace management on a whim. And that's (a) exactly why Citibank stock is selling for $1.50 and (b) what investors are afrad of. That is how politics is done in the US now - on a whim.

So what will happen to AIG? Why are they needed to stay in business? After all, there are many other insurance companies. And insurance is a global business. Where does this end?

The situation will only get worse from here. What limits are there on these government programs? How can anyone object to ANY government spending when we are allowing billions to be spent on every dubious program possible?

114
Vote
   


January's Silver Lining

February 12th 2009 19:32
In a surprising show of strength, the results of January's retail sales statistics shows an overall increase of 1 percent, the largest increase in 14 months.

The various "experts" were surprised, but some of this was predictable: Many people who received gift cards for the holidays used them in January. The revenue gets booked in January, even though the cash changed hands in December. Also, many retailers had various sales (some like Circuit City had close-out sales) and these lowered prices also attracted buyers.

Now that the huge stimulus plan has been passed by Congress and a conference committee has agreements on differences between the two Houses, the next few months' statistics will be very important to see if the economy is being "stimulated" or just being battered by poor government policies. (See George F. Will's column for more on this topic.)

Another important matter will be gasoline prices and supply. As the weather warms and more people get on the roads nationally, it is common to see prices rise. Already prices are $.20 to $.25 more per gallon than the lows a month ago. By May will we be treading near last year's $5 prices? Only time will tell.
57
Vote
   


Exxon Mobil Does It Again - Take Note

January 30th 2009 19:40
The media reports are loaded with headlines screaming about Exxon Mobil's $45.2 BILLION in profits for calendar 2008. But, as reported here before, that is not the entire story.

In calendar 2008, Exxon Mobil paid a total of $116.3 BILLION in taxes. In other words, for every dollar in profits they paid almost three dollars in tax. That's roughly a 70% tax rate. But the politicians will yell about "obscene" profits and call for a windfall profits tax.

Look at it this way: Exxon Mobil collected $477.4 BILLION in revenue, so their profit was 9.4% for the year. Companies like Microsoft and Google earn more than double that. Why isn't there a call for "windfall profits taxes" on those companies?

This is all political posturing. We should understand that company profits are paid to shareholders - the pension funds and retirement accounts of all Americans. It's more important that political resources be put into national security and not into talking about what companies should or shouldn't be earning.
72
Vote
   


GM Gets Billion$; Lays Off Thousands

January 26th 2009 18:32
So, after going to Congress twice for a bailout and being approved for $13.4 BILLION taxpayer dollars, GM today announced that it will lay off 2,000 workers and halt production in several plants for weeks.

GM factory workers who get laid off typically get "sub pay," in which they receive unemployment benefits, and GM pays the difference, up to most of their salary, for 48 weeks.

[ Click here to read more ]
45
Vote
   


Obama Names Chief Performance Officer

January 7th 2009 22:49
In keeping with his campaign promise to control Federal spending and to bring greater efficiency to how taxpayer dollars are spent, President-elect Barack Obama today appointed Nancy Killefer as Chief Performance Officer.

"We expect that discussion around entitlements [Social Security and Medicare] will be a part, a central part of those plans," Obama said. "And I would expect that by February in line with the announcement of at least a rough budget outline we will have more to say about how we're going to approach entitlement spending."

[ Click here to read more ]
54
Vote
   


Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies

September 5th 2008 22:24
Barack Obama has called for a windfall profits tax on oil companies after another round of record earnings were reported by the industry. As I mentioned here back in May, the only numbers being reported by the media, and repeated often by politicians of a certain stripe, are the earnings.

Horrors! They made money


[ Click here to read more ]
59
Vote
   


O'Reilly Calls for FFVs

June 18th 2008 19:02
Last week Bill O'Reilly called on Congress to mandate flex fuel vehicles (FFV) in order to get the US off of oil. Here's his commentary and the analysis:


[ Click here to read more ]
86
Vote
   


General Electric and Iran

June 17th 2008 04:20
Last month Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post wrote a long article analyzing the rants by Bill O'Reily against General Electric. O'Reily has repeatedly said that GE is doing business with Iran, and various GE spokespeople have denied the allegation.

Trying to find original sources is beyond the resources of this writer. Trying to understand today's headline, however, is another matter. As reported in AllHeadlineNews, today's news regarding General Electric is quite bad


[ Click here to read more ]
76
Vote
   


General Motors' New Re-structure

June 3rd 2008 21:56
Earlier today GM announced that it would close four plants in a move toward making smaller cars and fewer trucks and SUVs.

The US auto industry has been challenged more than any other by a combination of forces: International competition, environmental regulations, labor union costs and benefits, and shifting consumer preferences. Now the high price of gasoline is adding to the burden of the automakers


[ Click here to read more ]
60
Vote
   


Opher Banarie's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by Opher Banarie
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]