“I don’t know anything about cars.” – Edward E. Whitacre, Jr., Newly Annointed Chairman Of GM

I

really can’t believe I’m in America, reading in American media what an American president is doing to an American enterprise.  But I am.  It is true.  The government has named a new chairman for General Motors.  Not the GM board of directors, not the shareholders, but Steven Rattner, Obama’s car czar, who knows about as much about cars as the new chairman, Edward Whitacre.

This is far more radical than anything I thought Obama would be able to pull off, even in eight years, let alone 14 weeks.  Following on yesterday’s SCOTUS decision which said, basically, a contract is no longer a contract so investors can expect no protections, the critical condition of glorious American capitalism could not be more apparent.  I worry that it will not survive until 2010′s mid-term elections.

Whitacre was picked for two reasons.  The published one is that he guided AT&T through the transition from land-based wire telephone carrier to a leader in the wireless industry.  The Obamaites see a similar future for GM, with it transforming from a market-driven car company to a government-driven car company, manufacturing cars Big Brother wants us to drive, whether we want to or not.

The unspoken reason for his selection is because Whitacre can be counted on to do what government tells him to do, as was evident when he quickly (and rightly) acquiesced to government pressure to open AT&T’s hardware to the feds for post-9/11 surveillance purposes.  Not all telcom CEOs folded so quickly to government pressure, and since folding to government pressure is what’s in store for GM, Whitacre will make an ideal Obama-era chairman for the company.

The appointment should infuriate the Left.  Besides being a lackey to George Bush’s gestapo security machine, Whitacre received a peon-snubbing $158.8 million retirement package from AT&T and was involved in some pretty brutal corporate downsizings (probably in no small part due to shifting jobs overseas).  Oh, and let’s not forget that under his tenure AT&T censored (oops!) a Pearl Jam concert right when the band was blasting George Bush.

But Daily Kos has nothing posted on him as of his hour.  Democratic Underground? Mum.  [By the way, I typed "democraticunderground" instead of "democraticunderground.com," and was redirected to one of those stupid sponsored-link pages.  Guess who came out on top?  Barbara Boxer!] As for Huffington Post, which as I predicted in a tweet earlier today leads with how Homeland Security foresaw today’s attack on the Holocaust Museum in its report on right-wing radicalism, it also couldn’t find a reason to cover – let alone criticize – Whitacre’s appointment.

Of course not.  They know what’s going on.  Their long-awaited revolution is happening and they don’t want to crow about it too early because suddenly they’re very concerned about the enemy getting wind of our intentions.  Not al-Qaeda – tell them anything - they don’t want their enemy, normal Americans, to wake up to what’s going on.  No, they want to be much further down the road to economic ruin in the name of wealth redistribution before they haul out the red flags and have a victory parade.

No Comments yet »

H

ere’s the second lead story from AP in on Yahoo this morning:  Senate Reviews Closing of GM, Chrysler Dealerships.  I didn’t know how to gear up for this story.  Would it finally reveal to readers of the mainly marginalized media what blog-readers have known for some time: That Chrysler dealerships owned by friends of the Dems have been spared while those owned by friends of the GOP have been decimated?  Or would it reinforce my media cynicism and say nothing of these charges?

Are all bets in?

The latter.  Not a peep. In fact, in its 13 paragraphs, it quotes two Dem Senators and no GOP senators.  It focuses on job losses and whether enough time has been granted the dealers to close up shop, but ignores the 800 pound gorilla – much to the benefit of the Obama admin.

No Comments yet »

R

ay LaHood has caught Obama fever and it’s wracked him so badly that you’d never know our new Transportation Secretary is (was?) a Republican, or that he once understood, quite literally, what plays in Peoria, the congressional district he represented until the One gave  him the Nod.  Now suddenly a righteous evangelist for bikes over cars, he’s no longer interested in keeping government out of our lives; instead, he’s working to use government to, as he puts it, “change our behavior.”

I prefer a different spin:  He’s using government to force change on us.  As George Will lamented recently,

But LaHood is a Republican, for Pete’s sake, the party (before it lost its bearings) of “No, we can’t” and “Actually, we shouldn’t” and “Not so fast” and “Let’s think this through.” Now he is in full “Yes we can!” mode. Et tu, Ray?

Will sat down for lunch with LaHood a while back to ask him about his newfound love of transformational government, and LaHood was not about to cover up his newfound giddyness over having the power to rip people out of the cars they love and stick them on bicycles:

Indeed, about three bites into lunch, the T word lands with a thump: He says he has joined a “transformational” administration: “I think we can change people’s behavior.” Government “promoted driving” by building the Interstate Highway System—”you talk about changing behavior.” He says, “People are getting out of their cars, they are biking to work.” High-speed intercity rail, such as the proposed bullet train connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco, is “the wave of the future.”

Yes, my fellow Americans, one day you’ll take a train or your bike to the soccer game, riding the inherently inferior transportion of the future to the inherently boring game of the future. Sigh. I remember when the transportation of the future was the Jetson-mobile, larking its way through the clear, clean skies. Now the car of the future is the bicycle?! A mode of transportation that went out of style in 1910?

The DC press corps apparently read Will’s column, so when LaHood appeared a few days later at the National Press Club, they pounced, according to CNS:

At the National Press Club on Thursday he attempted to respond to George Will’s column and to explain his vision for using the power of government to change people’s transportation behavior and to change the nature of American residential communities.

“We want to really–and notwithstanding the fact that George Will doesn’t like this idea–the idea of creating opportunities for people to get out of their cars–and we’re working with the secretary of HUD, Shaun Donovan, on opportunities for housing, walking paths, biking paths,” said LaHood. “If somebody wants to ride their bike, if–to work or to the place of employment or to other places–mass transit, light rail–creating opportunities for what we call livable communities.”

The moderator of the press club event asked LaHood: “Some in the highway-supporters motorist groups have been concerned by your livability initiative. Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars?”

LaHood answered: “It is a way to coerce people out of their cars.

“Yeah,” he continued, “I mean, look, people don’t like spending an hour and a half getting to work. And people don’t like spending an hour going to the grocery store. And all of you who live around here know exactly what I’m talking about. You know, the dreaded thing is to have to run an errand on a weekend around here or to try and get home at 3:00 in the afternoon or even 5:00 in the afternoon.

Someone tell LaHood people don’t like having to ride a bike through rain, snow or dark of night to work.  Or having to go to the grocery store every day because the trunk on the ol’ Schwinn just isn’t all that big.  Or having to get shoved into a crowded subway, where the pervert du jour can rub up against you. Or having to pay $75 for a cab because the boss kept you late and you missed the last train. 

Someone tell LaHood that the minute streetcars, then cars, made it possible to get out of the idealized planners’ vision of a compact urban core, we did, fleeing by the millions to suburbs, where we continue to live because we don’t like crack dealers on the street corner, gangstas in our kids’ schools, and car alarms going off at 3 a.m.

One reporter asked LaHood to respond to conservative concerns that he’s just another fascist know-it-all loon he’s supporting government intrusion into our lives.  His response?

“About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people’s lives,” said LaHood. “So have at it.”

Meanwhile, GM bond-holders did not respond warmly to government mandated depreciation of their bonds, forcing the automaker to the brink of bankruptcy.  The GM that emerges could be as much as 70 percent government-owned.  And who, then, would become a pivotal decision-maker for GM’s future?  Roy LaHood, the man who lives to make cars less attractive than bikes and subways.

It’s a brave new world.  Full speed backwards! 

2 Comments »

D

ale at Okie on the Lam, besides doing the nifty accompanying artwork, has turned over a rock (with help from The Truth About Cars) that I’m mighty glad is now turned, so we can see all the creepy crawlies underneath:

In the upcoming “deal” that will keep General Motors afloat, at least for awhile longer, the federal government will “own” 50% of GM’s stock. I’m betting that it will be at least 51%, gotta have that undeniable control don’t ya know? Along with Cadillac, GMC, Buick and Chevrolet, the feds will be getting control of OnStar — that little ditty of a “communications” package that has been installed in most GM vehicles in the past decade. So what? Well, consider this:

“The Truth About Cars” wrote that “OnStar’s computer knows where you were, when you were there, and how fast you went. It knows if and when you applied the brakes, if and when the air bags deployed, and what speed you were going at the time. It knows if and when your car was serviced. OnStar operators can determine if you have a passenger in the front seat (airbag detection). … under certain conditions, OnStar can switch on your GM car’s microphone remotely and record any and all sounds within the vehicle (i.e. conversations).” …

Voice-monitoring capability is marketed as OnStar Hands-Free Calling. The use of this type of capability by law enforcement is subject to legal debate and some technical impediments. OnStar maintains that it is unable to “listen to, view, or record the content of calls”. However, a 2003 lawsuit revealed that systems such as OnStar can be used for eavesdropping on passenger conversations.

Also, it’s possible for them to deactivate your vehicle — What? You thought that they could only unlock the doors?

NSA wiretaps? We don’t need no stinkin’ NSA wiretaps.

Still, the same liberals who support the ACLU think it’s all merry and bright to have government up to its armpits in private business. Go figger.

No Comments yet »

It took AP five paragraphs to get around to reporting this little tidbit about the latest GM restructuring program:  When the dust settles, the government will own 50 percent of the company and private sector shareholders will own … one percent.

Terrific! We can now expect GM to turn out such excellent automotive excellence as the Lada (pictured) and Zil from Russia, or the much unloved Trabant from East Germany. There are just so many examples of the excellence that comes from government in the marketplace it’s no wonder the Obama admin is rushing headlong into the car biz.

Car buffs will note a marked similarity between the Lada and the Fiat 124, first introduced in 1966.  Well, that’s because the Soviets had Fiat build a plant in the Soviet Union to crank out 124s under the Lada ВАЗ-2101 and Lada 2101 name from all the way up to 1984.

Admittedly, by 1984 the Lada was getting a bit behind the times technologically.  The Itialians had stopped manufacturing it 10 years earlier – but never changing models is a great way to keep R&D and retooling costs down, so this just could be in the future for GM.

And why, at this time of government ownership of car companies, is Fiat suddenly looking to buy up about a third of Chrysler?  Hmmmm.

Also in the offing for GM under the plan:  nearly 50 percent ownership by the unions, 21,000 fewer jobs, 13 fewer factories, 45 percent fewer dealerships and one less brand (Pontiac).  Do you get the sense that GM came into this recession fat and ill-prepared?

GM CEO Fritz Henderson made it clear where the direction for Uncle Sam Motors came from:

“The Viability Plan reflects the direction of President Obama and the U.S. Treasury that GM should go further and faster on our restructuring.”

Well, one thing you can say about Obama and Geithner – they know the car biz, with just dripping oodles of experience and lots of great ideas formed over a lifetime of learing the ins and outs.  This should be interesting.

No Comments yet »

T

wo markets – the automobile market in the U.S. and the healthcare market in England – make interesting blog fodder this morning for free marketeer and big government junkie alike.

First, to the automakers, with the NYT reporting of General Motors:

G.M., the world’s largest automaker for decades, said Tuesday that it was in such dire straits that it would deeply cut jobs, factories, brands and executive pay as part of its plea to get $12 billion in federal loans and an additional $6 billion line of credit. …

G.M.’s president, Frederick A. Henderson, said the company would be insolvent if it did not receive federal assistance, including an infusion of $4 billion in cash before the end of the year.

“Absent support, frankly the company simply can’t fund its operations,” Mr. Henderson said in a call with reporters.

To which I say, why did it take having to grovel before the US taxpayers before you would promise to do what you should have done years ago on your own, Mr. Henderson?

Had GM dealt with its bloated workforce, eliminated costs associated with keeping Buick, GMC, Saturn et. al. afloat, and stopped paying its leadership losership as if they were actually accomplishing something, insolvency wouldn’t be just around the corner and Henderson wouldn’t be begging for $14 billion.

This is both a troubling and a glorious moment for any free marketer.

It’s troubling because we’re seeing the desperate lust for government money accomplishing what the free market should have accomplished on its own. And it’s glorious because we are seeing an admission by one of the world’s largest corporations that it is NOT anywhere close to the free market, and it’s killing them. Or it should be killing them … they may yet get hooked up to financial life support.

And speaking of life support, that takes us to another NYT article, this one a much more troubling tale of government’s influence on the free market.

RUISLIP, England — When Bruce Hardy’s kidney cancer spread to his lung, his doctor recommended an expensive new pill from Pfizer. But Mr. Hardy is British, and the British health authorities refused to buy the medicine. His wife has been distraught.

“Everybody should be allowed to have as much life as they can,” Joy Hardy said in the couple’s modest home outside London.

If the Hardys lived in the United States or just about any European country other than Britain, Mr. Hardy would most likely get the drug, although he might have to pay part of the cost. A clinical trial showed that the pill, called Sutent, delays cancer progression for six months at an estimated treatment cost of $54,000.

But at that price, Mr. Hardy’s life is not worth prolonging, according to a British government agency, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The institute, known as NICE, has decided that Britain, except in rare cases, can afford only £15,000, or about $22,750, to save six months of a citizen’s life.

This is a tragic but familiar type of real life story that girds our loins as we fight against the Dems’ drive to impose universal health care in the US. But wait, there’s more:

Drug and device makers, which once routinely denounced the British for questioning product prices, have begun quietly slashing prices in Britain to gain NICE’s coveted approval, especially because other nations are following the institute’s lead. Companies have said that they will consult with NICE to help determine which experimental compounds enter the final stage of clinical trials, so the British agency’s officials will soon influence which drugs enter the market in the United States.

The British government created NICE a decade ago to ensure that every pound spent buys as many years of good-quality life as possible, but the agency is increasingly rejecting expensive treatments. The denials have led to debate over what is to blame: company prices or the health institute’s math.

After seeing the auto execs fly to DC in their three private jets and looking at Wall Street execs rake in hundreds of millions as their companies fail beneath their incompetent feet, there’s no doubt in my mind that there’s more lurking behind the cost of pharmaceuticals than legitimate R&D expenses.

Government has no moral authority to use the lives and quality of life of citizens as bargaining chips in a price war; that’s verboten. While the cruel effectiveness of NICE can’t be ignored, we free marketeers must realize that whatever NICE is accomplishing, it is not doing it in a free market. Access to pharmaceuticals is highly regulated, and the companies are using that to their advantage.

If there were a free global market for these drugs (with only patents protected), then we could take our prescription to Canada or Mexico or Khartoum for filling, picking the market where Pfiser or Glaxco offers the best price. And if that were to happen, the global price would quickly fall to the best price. That price would support needed R&D and salaries at the level necessary to provide effective managers, but it would cut out excesses.

Meanwhile, Bruce Hardy will die a little earlier and his widow will be not just sad but rightfully very angry.

4 Comments »