Sunday, May 10, 2009

Godfather Obama and the UAW

This past week has shown us that President Obama will do anything to protect the UAW. The President is willing to break the law, strong arm banks with TARP money, and use the "…full force of the White House press corp…" to destroy any dissent. The President isn't interested in doing what is right, or what is legal, but what protects the UAW.



As Chrysler heads into Bankruptcy court, we should all pay attention. GM (commonly referred to now as Government Motors) is likely to head the same way, and we may see more TARP companies or banks go into bankruptcy before it's all over. Whatever happens to Chrysler is going to set precedent for future bailouts and bankruptcy's.



President Obama attempted to force a bankruptcy down the throats of Chrysler's creditors that violated contracts those creditors had in place. He hasn't given up on this and is actively working on it. Secured creditors loaned money to Chrysler with a contract that stated if Chrysler sold off its assets, these secured creditors would be paid back, dollar for dollar, before any other creditor is paid back. President Obama is attempting to violate this contract simply because it suits his political will. He believes these creditors should only get 28 cents for every dollar they loaned Chrysler. The UAW would get 55% of the entire company.



In a related story, you may have read that some of the banks that received TARP money want to pay it back to the Government. President Obama won't let them. Why? The stated reason is that these banks need to pass a "stress test" to prove they are sound enough that they don't need the money. This is way above and beyond simply bailing out banks. When last I looked, President Obama has no experience running a bank, or a company. Who is he to decide when a bank can or can't pay back the money? More importantly, this money isn't the President's money. The money loaned to these banks, and to the auto industry, is tax payer money. The President is suppose to be a steward of the tax payer's money. Right now, he is failing at that job. Instead of protecting the tax payer, President Obama is controling these banks so they won't object to his version of Chrysler's bankruptcy. Imagine if President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Karl Rove had cooked up a scheme like this...



Perhaps the most disturbing part of this entire story is the threat by President Obama to destroy Chrysler's creditors in the press if they don't submit to his will. This is the classic Chicago political move of "making them an offer they can't refuse". One creditor has gone on the record stating they were threatened by the White House. How many more creditor's have been threatened and are afraid of President Obama, Press Secretary Gibbs, and the Democratic PR machine? These thug style political manuevers got him elected in Chicago, and he is trying to use them to get what he wants now.



President Obama's tinkering with the auto industry threatens property and contract law in our nation. The precedent it starts is that if you have a contract, its only valid as long as the current President says so. This is not the way our government is allowed to operate under the U.S. Constitution.



There are a number of good articles covering this. I have provided links below to the most recent ones I have read.



The Big Business of Big Labor from the Washington Examiner


Chrysler Bankruptcy Exposes Dirty Politics from CBS News


An Offer You Can't Refuse by the Economist



If you think I am simply a crazy conservative, go read those three articles and see if you still think so.


12 comments:

the anonymous guy said...

Citing three opinion pieces to back up your own opinion is not crazy. It's just sad.

All three of the "articles" you cite are clearly labeled *opinion* pieces.

As a refresher, from the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language (the factual, non-opinion edition):

opinion piece n. an article in a newspaper or periodical expressing the opinion (freq. one which is controversial or biased) of the writer on a particular item of news.As for your opinion: today you say that Obama is the hammer-strength godfather who wields power like a mafia don.

Next week, I'm confident your opinion will be that he's the French-loving, arugula-munching, pointy-headed wussy you always told us he'd be.

That's the cool thing about opinions. They're all about freedom... from reality.

Andy D said...

Your quote defines an "opinion piece" as an article. Please pay more attention to grammar and definitions before you attack me for citing an opinion piece as an article. I was not labeling any of the three article as unbiased news coverage. I thought articles critical of the Obama administration appearing at CBS News and the Economist were interesting.


I don't remember calling him a French-loving, arugula-munching, pointed headed wussy. However, there is a chance he will do something next week to prove he is, so I will wait and see what next week brings.

Thank you for your insightful comments, Anonymous Guy.

the anonymous guy said...

The government is controlling our minds through cell phone towers.

I'm not crazy.

See.

pack04 said...

A question for you anonymous guy. If these opinion pieces are actually correct and the President is using threats to force companies to take less so UAW could get more would you be okay with that?

the anonymous guy said...

Pack: in general, no. I don't have a problem with blue collar workers coming out better than wealthy creditors when companies go broke.

I live in a neighborhood with plenty of wealthy people who work for failed companies that have been bailed out in the last year--and they're still driving their new BMWs, vacationing in Europe, sending their kids to elite schools, and building million-dollar-plus houses. I don't know union guys living like that.

The opinion pieces Andy cited clearly take the side of rich creditors. I'm with the less wealthy working folk. But it's hard to tell, based on the biased nature of the writing, what relationship the pieces actually have to reality.

And Andy: I assume that if you decide next week that Obama is a total pansy, you'll of course also take back all our accusations about him being an iron-fisted mafia boss.

I hate to give strategy advice to people I disagree with, but, dude, your criticisms of the president will work better if they are actually coherent.

Andy D said...

Anonymous Guy,

You are more than welcome to take whichever side you wish. I think if we are going to have an honest discussion, there is plenty of blame to go around for why these auto companies are going out of business. The problem is that President Obama is trying to use heavy handed tactics to violate contract law. That alone is a bigger issue than whether or not auto executives, union executives, or creditors drive around in big cars.

If the President is able to negate contract law, why would any company or investment firm do business with a company that has government investments? As an investor, or creditor, you don't know when or if the government might simply step in and void your contract.

If the law isn't something you wish to support, and you need something touchy feely, think about this: Many of the creditors that you seem to feel should get shafted lent money to these auto companies when no one else would. They are the reason Chrysler and GM have stayed out of bankruptcy long enough for the government to step in and bail them out. These creditors don't just represent "fat cats" they also represent retirement and pension funds of teachers and every day people.

Personally, I believe the best thing that could happen to Chrysler and GM is for them to go through bankruptcy court. Let a bankruptcy judge look at the various contracts and decide how much the UAW and other creditors should get based on the law, and not based on who gave how much money to what campaign.

You may not like my arguments against President Obama. You are well within your rights to do that. But do you really want the government to look at industry and be able to decide who wins and who loses with no regard for the law? Would you have this opinion if a Republican president stepped in and simply voided all contracts between union workers and Chrysler? What if that President threatened to use the White House press corp to attack anybody who spoke out against him? I don't think you would support those tactics. That would be wrong, and what President Obama is trying to do is wrong. And if you don't like that scenario, you must be intellectuality honest and admit that the government shouldn't be involved in dictating how Chrysler's bankruptcy will proceed simply because the President feels the unions deserve more than the creditors.

the anonymous guy said...

Hey, we actually do agree on the main point here--probably for different reasons, but that's ok:

I, too, think the auto companies ought to be allowed to go bankrupt. And the same is true for the investment banks. (That's one recent area where I think many liberals and conservatives might find some interesting common ground...)

pack04 said...

from the typed words on a website provided by CBS News: These creditors are...University of Kentucky, Kraft Foods' retirement fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, pension funds, teachers' credit unions, and so on.

I have a pension fund and my wife is part of a teachers credit union. I am pretty sure we are not driving huge cars and sending our kids to elite schools.

American PEOPLE paid money THEIR MONEY (taxes and investments)to an American company to help it stay afloat. What is the UAW paying into Chrysler? So rather than getting OUR money back, like the contract says, the president is demanding that it go to a group of people who are close friends with the President.

Since you seem to be in the mood of giving your money away to people with less than you and you live in a neighborhood with wealthy people (I will assume you are also wealthy, at least more so than I since I do not live in one of the neighborhoods), let me give you my address and I'll be waiting on your, I mean my, cash.

the anonymous guy said...

My neighborhood (and my relatively wealthy, fairly liberal state) does indeed pay out significantly more federal tax money than we receive back from the federal government. Enjoy!

Andy D said...

I think that's great Anon. Now if we could just teach you the difference between Charity and Thievery.

pack04 said...

MY STATE TOO!!!!

health insurance quotes said...

we all need to make our voices heard on this issue