On Air and Alive
by CmdrFenix on Jun.04, 2009, under Political Discussion
Sorry for the delay in my writing… I just bought a new car and my job has been eating me alive. I just traded my 2003 Mercury Sable in for a 2008 Dodge Charger. 
Yes… Yes I love it.
In case some of you do not listen to WBZ AM 1030 in New England, I called in on the Steve LeVeille program the other night around 12:12a on my way home from Manchester. Steve was discussing how it was great the gov’t “take over” of GM was and how they should do this for all large companies… Well I had to call in and give him my thoughts on this. I have been searching for the transcript online, but cannot find it. 
So Steve has a tendency to cut off in an interrupt people speaking if they disagree with him. I can assure you I never gave him that chance. So while I waited through 1 caller and a commercial, I collected my thoughts and prepared to get on the air. I opened with a joke to lighten the mood. I said, “Steve, I just want to say I listen to program a lot and I must say I am looking forward to driving the 2010 Pelosi… I hear it runs on dollar bills, but goes nowhere and does nothing.” He was cracking up, so I knew I had him. I proceeded to explain how the gov’t running any business was bad and some regulation was a much better course of action. I used the SEC’s failure to capture Bernard Madoff and their inability after Katrina to organize help as proof this was a bad idea. Next I went on to suggest other ways the gov’t could have invested in other more lucrative areas of the country that would promote the economy and produce jobs. What about Bio Techs in New England? What about the space program and all the little companies who feed on that? Why GM? Failed business model. Bad corporate policies. Basically a poorly run business like that should be allowed to fail. I feel it is probably because of some influential stock holders in the company stand to be wiped out if it fails and with their pull in Washington… Well you know.
Anyhow, I went on with Steve for about 10 minutes. Drove past my exit. He just said, “Yea…”, “Oh yea…”, and “I totally agree with you there…”. I never gave him the chance to kick in and *I* ended it as soon as I was done with, “Well I’m approaching my exit and have to go, take care!”. He abruptly hung up the phone and when I turned the radio back on, I found I was on a six second delay because I heard the tail end of my conversation. He quickly went to commercial and changed topics… I wonder if it was something I said?
June 4th, 2009 on 2:50 pm
I still havent figured out what you have against Nancy Pelosi. She’s “just another congresscritter” and doesnt seem any different (good or bad) than any of the others.
As for the rest of the post, I’m not sure why you’ve made the presumption that gub’mint trying to salvage a failing company is by default “a bad thing”.
What are the reasons?
What I mean is, are your objections some semantic philosophical “gub’mint should never engage in business” or is it something that appears practical like “gub’mint is trustable with nuclear weapons but can’t be trusted to run a business well.”
?
Without some blanket statement like “gub’mint stuff is bad” and without using any words that end in “ism” please explain why the gub’mint running GM into the ground is any worse then it’s previous executives running it into the ground. I’m honestly curious.
June 4th, 2009 on 2:52 pm
For consumption:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClwprO6KyGg
June 8th, 2009 on 8:06 am
I can’t stand her. Period. I think she’s a lying, untrustworthy, “congresscritter” as you aptly described. There are several members of congress I would love to see dropped on an island somewhere…
The problem I have with your argument about “they can manage nuclear weapons, but not businesses?” is that the “nuclear weapons” part was within their charter. That whole, “provide for the common defense” thingie. The gov’t, outside of regulation shouldn’t be involved with business IMHO.
June 9th, 2009 on 10:39 am
“The gov’t, outside of regulation shouldn’t be involved with business IMHO.”
Why?
June 9th, 2009 on 2:10 pm
Couple of reasons:
1. Look at the defense dept. Without Lockheed, an independent business, you wouldn’t have drive to compete with another company and develop the next generation stealth fighter. You can’t say that a non-profit seeking, non-competitive, gov’t only run business would could up with anything near as good as a company trying to make a profit and stay in business?
2. Lack of choice… So taking the current situation with GM into play. What if nobody is willing to afford one of those nice 35mpg cars in 2016 that GM is now forcing out? Oh if the gov’t doesn’t take over Ford you might have a cheaper car you could buy, but without that “free enterprise” thingie then you, Tim, would be forced to buy the 2016 Pelosi whether you can afford it or not.
Those are just the two that came to mind… Eating some Wonton soup for lunch atm.
Anyhow gov’t has enough agendas already. Keep them out of business beyond regulation.
June 10th, 2009 on 7:20 am
Citoren is a government owned auto maker, and has been doing fine for quite a while. They’ve still innovated and produced “new” stuff rather then just restamping last year’s model out of the factories.
I guess I just dont feel that being owned by gub’mint instead of owned by RichWhiteFolk makes much of a difference in terms of quality-of-goods. *shrug*
June 10th, 2009 on 11:05 pm
Its more about principle than if the “gub’mint” can run the business. (Though they have not demonstrated capability in managing defense contracts, controlling administrative waste, controlling immigration, illegal drugs and weapons to name a few.)
Their charter in our constitution is to “regulate commerce”, not take over failing companies. GM should fall on its butt and find their own way simply because its the American way, not the French way.
June 11th, 2009 on 12:05 pm
The best thing about the “American way” is that if you ask any two US Citizens what exactly the “American way” is, you get four answers. I won’t presume to have a better understanding of what’s “American” than anyone else in the country who has the same passport I do.
That being said, Interpreting “their charter in our constitution” as the -end- of mandate, rather then the -foundation- of mandate, is a long discredited practice. In contemporary times, the groups who advocate minimalist interpretation are limited to fringe groups like the libertarians and secessionists (I’m so glad the good guys won the civil war, arent you?). The majority even of modern conservatives, including the Republican party (if you can call them conservative anymore), recognize that the constitution is a foundation document and not a constricting “box”. Books have been written on the subject, but constitutional powers such as “common defense” can be interpreted by many people to mean many things – it’s been used to justify suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war, been used to justify requiring security clearances of civilian workers working for defense contractors, used to justify paying the armed forces from the federal budget, and many other things. It may surprise you, but there -are- wingnuts out there who disagree with those things.
If you want to stand on principle, you’d be better of following the Colin Powell school of thought and take a stand on issues like torture, civil rights, the second amendment, and things that effect basic day-to-day life. Gub’mint buying a stake in GM (or some other megacorp) and kicking the failing executives to the curb isnt a matter of principle – it’s a matter of practicality. If gub’mint doesnt intervene, nobody will, and in this particular case it could cause large segments of our economy to collapse.
In fact, I’ve heard not-totally-unsound arguments made that the bailouts of the automakers are a national defense issue. Protecting the manufacturing base of the nation (which, if you remember was retooled and put to good use back in the 1940s…) and protecting a large chunk of our technology base certainly contribute to the collective long term national defense.
If you want to talk about not demonstrating capability, I’d like to know what your comparing it too. Personally, I’d put good money that our military is quite capable of defending the nation. I reject that “immigration” is even an issue at the moment, as the numbers are the lowest they’ve been in 75 years – total manufactured issue by the media. I won’t argue that the “drug war” is being bungled, I agree completely. However if you want to cherry pick, let’s cherry pick things like the postal service (you know, the US’s only big “socialized” industry), the national park service, the US Coast Guard, or any of the other thousand things the gub’mint has been doing well for quite some time.
June 11th, 2009 on 12:56 pm
I’m sure there are many books written on many different subjects relating to the constitution all the way to cooking, but it all comes back to person opinion. I am of the feeling, right now, that it’s a limiting document until I am convinced otherwise. Since it’s not expressly explained in the constitution then there is no right or wrong answer, just the opinion of those who’s are in power at the moment, and the rest of the American citizens. I am not saying any past interpretations are right or wrong (each one should be looked at independantly), but instantly giving them the power to them gives me serious pause, but that is just my $0.02.
Having the exec’s kicked the curb is not the problem from where I sit. “If gub’mint doesnt intervene, nobody will…” Well maybe they shouldn’t. GM is not the only US automaker. Yes they are large, but they failed based on poor corporate decisions. Insane pensions, bad strategic planning, and unreasonable executive salaries are but a few reasons. Ford is still there. Not taking any bail out money. Chrysler is there (albeit in bankruptcy restructuring)… so yes it would hurt, but letting the whole company fail and then working with the existing ones to retool business models that ARE already working is IMHO wiser than flushing it down the toilet called GM. In terms of National Defense, Humvee has already been sold to a Chinese company. How does that bold well for the US economy and the military who purchases their vehicles?
I don’t have a problem with immigration except with regards to border security. The process of bringing people into this country and “Americanized” needs to be cleaned up a bit, but that IMO that is all. That is also a completely different topic that we could go into for hours.
It’s off topic, but IMO the Postal Service needs to be privatized. There is a really good write up on it here. Basically they are taking a large portion of the federal budget and loosing money each quarter with not clear way of recouping any of that. I just heard on WBZ the postal service is expected to loose over 1.5 billion dollars a year, which has been the norm for over 10 yrs now. Now compared to the 1.5 trillion that the Obamamessiah’s “orgy of spending” (something he accused GWB of doing) has produced, it’s a drop in the bucket I know, but still.
I would have to research those other areas, but just as a quick note:
1. The US Coast Guard – Provides for the common defense in closer areas (green water naval force) where-as the US Navy (blue water naval force) handles it more aboard. So, I don’t know why you mention it here. I disagreed with their deployment to Iraq, but that is personal opinion on my part with no knowledge of the tactical reasons for that.
2. National Park Service – Safe guarding protected lands in the US is similar to a law enforcement branch like the FBI and since the national parks span multiple states, it makes perfect sense to have it federalized and funded.
I am not anti-federal gov’t. I feel the gov’t is, at this point, out of control and needs to be reigned in, but like I said, that is just my feeling on it. I will continue to write letters, articles here, and speak out about it until convinced otherwise.
June 11th, 2009 on 1:31 pm
I can’t believe you linked something from cato. That’s like if I linked something from dsausa.org …
The postal service actually serves as an excellent example on many fronts of the issues discussed here. The postal service is a gub’mint subsidized entity that is not a monopoly – they compete with private sector giants like fedex and ups. All three perform very similar (but not identical) services. The main difference is when you look at the books, the USPS has marginal amounts of overhead compared to the other two. Why? They don’t need to spend money on advertising, lobbying, lawyers, and so on. The USPS operates in a deficit intentionally, which is often overlooked by people like those slobs over at cato – the idea being that providing a cheap (comparative) and efficient service outweighs the administrative burden. That is to say, if the USPS raised postage to the same levels as the other major carriers and turned profitable, the end-cost per-capita would be higher to the average citizen vs funding it at a loss through tax revenues. Conservatives hate to hear it, but the postal service really is just that efficient.
I picked up on the USCG and NPS as examples of things that gub’mint does very well that realistically wouldnt (or couldnt) be handled well by the “private sector” that arent neccessarily constitutionally mandated. The Coast Guard is a uniformed service, but their primary mission has always been law enforcement – not national defense, and well over 99% of their operations are in that area. Enforcement of maritime law, and providing S&R assistance/etc simply could not be provided by any kind of private entity or state-level program. At least, not with even a small fraction of how effectively it’s done by the US Coast Guard currently. If you want to talk about gub’mint being non-effective at providing services not strictly and explicitly mentioned in the constitution, make sure to mention that you want to get rid of all the good stuff and not just the portion of federal stuff that is run poorly.
As for Obama v. Bush spending, it’s been well established that Bush is the clear winner here – he succeeded in sneaking in tremendous amounts of money to the federal budget (WAY more then Obama’s even been talking about, nevermind got approved) trough using the ‘reconciliation’ process to pay for overseas military operations and all the halliburton bonuses that go along with them. Do some research on Bush’s yearly amount of money-actually-spent compared to what’s projected for Obama 24 months from now once most of the military operations are scaled back, you’ll be surprised how less-like-the-devil Obama seems.
If you don’t feel someone should intervene to save GM (or at least, move them to some condition where they can make a profit again), I’m not sure what to say. I don’t mean to sound rude, but we’re talking about very widely held basic economic principles here, the kind of stuff that the ruskies did wrong back in ‘91 which lead to the cleptocracy they had during the following decade. Nobody stepped in to fix it when the big megalocorps started tanking, and all the cleptocrats took their cake and went home (at least, until Putin came around and started sending them to prison where they belonged) rather then clean up the messes they had made. You are free to argue that our nation -should- collapse into economic quicksand since it’s the natural result of the market conditions, but you’ll be woefully close to making a strong argument for marxism.
If you feel the constitution was intended to limit, rather then empower, I’d -again- point you to read about the articles of confederation and how/why exactly the constitution was written in the first place. We played around with weak/small federal government. It didn’t work out so well….
But hey, why stop at the federal level? Going by a strict interpretation of the NH state constitution, we should be empowering individual counties to establish trade relationships with other states and foreign nations. Surely that’s a good model, eh? After all, we wouldnt want gub’mint to grow any and start tramplin’ any rahts …