Michelle Obama is launching a national campaign to fight childhood obesity by promoting messages that encourage a healthy lifestyle. It's no doubt that many Americans watch too much TV, eat unbalanced diets, and don't partake in enough physical activity. Michelle Obama is initiating a plan that will help educate children about obesity and teach them (and parents) the necessary steps to curb childhood obesity. This initiative will hopefully earn support from around the nation with a success level similar to what the CGI endures spearheaded by former President Bill Clinton and aide, Doug Band, while working to solve world issues.
Yet another area where the U.S. trails the rest of the world. Via Paul Waldman at TAPPED:
But a new report on global broadband shows that the country that invented the Internet, the microchip, and most of what makes our global digital village possible ranks a pathetic 18th in broadband speeds. The top spot is taken, as usual, by South Korea, where their smoking fast connections give them an average speed over three times as fast as what our pokey little modems give us. We also don't score too well when it comes to broadband penetration (the proportion of households that have broadband, as opposed to the actual speed people are getting). Our slow broadband is also really expensive. So that's nice.
We trail countries like Romania, Sweden and the Czech Republic. And on a year-to-year basis, all the countries in the top 10 saw a boost in speed. Ireland topped the list with a 73 percent gain. What about the United States? We were hit by a 2.4 percent decline in speed.
Waldman says they are multiple reasons we lag so far behind, but "the most important one is probably that we don't have enough big government. With a combination of public infrastructure investments and regulations forcing ISPs to share lines, other countries have driven down prices and driven up speeds."
Republicans have been too busy giving tax breaks to the rich and taking care of their corporate cronies over the past couple of decades to care about our public infrastructure. Thankfully, the stimulus bill President Obama signed in February provides $7.2 billion for projects that will increase the spread of broadband. He also instructed the FCC to come up with a plan to achieve universal high-speed access.
Those are good first steps, but something also needs to be done about bringing the price down or making it available for free to low income individuals. Voters depend on the media for information about our democracy and that information shouldn't be limited only to those who can afford to buy it.
This flu season has certain seen its fair share of surprises and antics. There has been a more significant and unavoidable sense of tension and anxiety this flu season, mostly due to the media's depiction of a doomsday scenario regarding the Swine Flu. Amidst the air of speculation and skepticism are parents, families and senior citizens doing their best to obtain tangible science regarding inoculation.
Clarifying who is "high-risk", when and if to receive shots, its effectiveness and its safety continue to be hot topics from citizens all around the country. With so many rumors and contradictorily reports on the H1N1 Flu virus, the Chicago Tribune recently posted an article titled, "swine flu answers.
The Michigan Chamber of Commerce's keynote speaker lied in an attempt to discredit President Obama's efforts to bring the 2016 Olympics to our country and the White House called him and Fox News on it. As they point out, "hosting the Olympics has been a source of pride and unity for the country, but once again Fox News' Glenn Beck program has shown that nothing is worthy of respect if it can be used as part of a partisan attack to boost ratings."
Lie #1:
RHETORIC: BECK SAID VANCOUVER LOST $1 BILLION WHEN IT "HAD THE OLYMPICS." Glenn Beck said, "Vancouver lost, how much was it? they lost a billion dollars when they had the Olympics." [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]
REALITY: VANCOUVER'S OLYMPICS WILL NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL 2010. Vancouver will host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games from February 12 - 28, 2010 and March 12-21, 2010, respectively. [Vancouver2010.com, accessed 9/29/09]
Lie #2:
RHETORIC: CHICAGO IS CLOSING THE GOVERNMENT SEVERAL DAYS A WEEK BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO BE OPEN. Beck's guest Caddell said, "Chicago is closing the government several days a week because they cannot afford to be open. They are going to go and reward -- this is the biggest scandal." [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]
REALITY: CHICAGO HAS HAD ONE REDUCED-SERVICE DAY IN 2009, AND WILL HAVE TWO MORE ON THE FRIDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING AND ON CHRISTMAS EVE. [...]
Lie #3:
RHETORIC: VALERIE JARRETT [who is accompanying Obama to Copenhagen] WILL BENEFIT FINANCIALLY. Beck asked, "Is it possible that she is going to benefit if the Olympics come to Chicago?" Caddell responded, "Well, that's the word. She has certainly had a lot of dealings going on in real estate." [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]
REALITY: UPON ENTERING GOVERNMENT, VALERIE JARRETT DIVESTED ALL HER REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT HOLDINGS EXCEPT FOR A SINGLE INVESTMENT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OLYMPIC BID. Valerie Jarrett divested all her investment real estate holdings upon entering government except for a single real estate holding that she was unable to sell. This single real estate investment has been determined by White House Counsel and the independent Office of Government Ethics to present no conflict of interest in performing her duties as a White House advisor. It has nothing to do with the Olympic bid.
Our country is the throes of the Great Recession and the Olympics could generate $22.5 billion in economic activity and create 315,000 new full-time jobs. It makes me wonder why Glenn Beck hates America, and why business chambers embrace a liar like him.
Health care reform is about more than helping the uninsured. President Obama is on the road today talking about reform and how it will help consumers. These are the highlights:
No Denials for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurers would be banned from refusing coverage based on medical history.
No Huge Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurers would be bound by annual caps on charges for out-of-pocket expenses
Preventive Care: Insurers would be required to cover checkups and tests like mammograms or diabetes screenings.
No Drops in Coverage for Major Illnesses: Companies would be barred dropping or diluting coverage for those who become seriously ill.
No Gender Disparities: Companies could not charge differently based on gender.
No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage.
Expanded Coverage for Young Adults: Family plans would cover people through age 26.
Renewal Guarantees: If premiums are paid, policies have to be renewed even if new illnesses emerge.
Obama calls these "health insurance consumer protections to make sure that those who have insurance are treated fairly and insurance companies are held accountable."
In my case, "no denials for pre-existing conditions" hits a nerve. My husband works in the auto industry and his employment is tenuous, along with his health insurance. If he loses that, it's scary to think we might not be able to get new coverage, particularly at our ages. We're too young for Medicare, but old enough that problems like high blood pressure and arthritis are starting to pop up.
It's probably safe to say President Obama could have been more tactful last night.
"The Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody [Skip Gates] when there was already proof that they were in their own home."
Tactful or not, police officers are no different from the rest of us - some of them do a good job and some of them don't. (See here, here and here.) In this case, I agree with the president that the police acted stupidly (and unprofessionally).
It should have been handled differently according to this former policeman.
I was an auxiliary police officer for 20 years, 11 in Michigan where a wise chief told us never, under any circumstances, were we to arrest someone for disorderly conduct. He said that if we couldn't find a more serious charge it was up to us to calm the person down. Otherwise he told us that using this charge was just an easy way to end a situation with a disruptive citizen without using the skill we were supposed to have to de-escalate. ...
As far as I'm concerned the police should have used their skills to de-escalate. This is part of their training.
It's possible Skip Gates blew up and got confrontational, but that doesn't justify arresting the man for breaking into his own house. As the president also said, "I think it's fair to say...any of us would be pretty angry." That seems like a reasonable assumption.
I actually have experience with "profiling" and can identify with Gates. Not too many people know this, but I have a disability that limits my walking distance so I use a wheelchair in public. About 15 years ago, while shopping at Lechters Housewares with my then 14-year-old daughter, I noticed that a salesclerk kept following behind us as we moved through the store. (My daughter was pushing me.) I assumed she was waiting to see if we needed any help so I turned around, told her we'd be fine and that she didn't need to wait on us. Her answer? I have orders to follow customers in wheelchairs to make sure they don't shoplift. I was flabbergasted. Had I been standing up, I probably would have fallen over!
Was I angry? You betcha, but I'm the type of person who busts into tears when I get angry. The yelling comes later. Anyway, the clerk took one look at my face and felt compelled to defend management's policy. She explained that disabled people in wheelchairs are a higher security risk because we can hide kitchen gadgets down by our sides or sit on stuff in order to smuggle it out.
Needless to say, I wasn't too pleased that she treated me like a criminal. I left the store and took my business elsewhere. Lechters went out of business in 2001, proving that there is cosmic karma!
I don't know if racial profiling was the motivation behind Gate's arrest or not, but I can understand how a black man might feel in a situation like that because of my experience. Trust me. It's not a good feeling.
There has been a lot of talk this week about the surprising move by Walmart to publically support President Obama’s health care reform plan, supposedly positioning themselves as a
leader in the fight to bring health care to all Americans. As we mentioned in a post on our blog
yesterday, this might be easier to swallow if Walmart had any history of leading by example. Instead, they usually do just the opposite.
Given
Walmart’s long record of trying to build a positive
reputation on ineffective work-arounds to health care coverage
for employee, the recent revelations about sacrificing quality for cheap perescription drugs, and their deceptive PR campaign that severely overstated their workers’ health
care coverage, it’s not hard to understand our skepticism. [get the details in the extended entry]
Governor Granholm was in Washington, DC today to discuss high-speed rail with Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and I liked what she had to say:
Gov. Jennifer Granholm didn't just come to the White House grounds today to plug for money for a high-speed rail line in the Midwest that could eventually connect Detroit to Chicago.
She's also making a case that if President Barack Obama's serious about making rail a priority for the U.S., it's going to mean someone needs to make more high-speed rail cars.
And when it comes to capacity - what with the plant closures Chrysler and General Motors are looking at in Michigan with their bankruptcy restructuring - the state's going to have plenty.
"We have lots of capacity in Michigan and workers who know how to make things," she said after meeting with Vice President Joe Biden, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and a group of governors pitching to have the Obama administration invest in high-speed rail in their regions.
That's similar to what I said yesterday, although I was speaking primarily about General Motors.
Interesting fact. I was checking out Ray LaHood's blog and came across the following:
Do you know the Spanish have a goal of establishing high-speed rail stations within 30 kilometers of 90% of all Spaniards by 2020? Now, that's ambition.
That's not just ambitious, it's remarkable! Of course, the naysayers here at home say we're not like Europe and people will never ride trains. But I say, "If we build it, they will come."
My husband has family in Bedford, England, outside of London, and even though they have two cars and enough money to buy gas for them, they ride the train as much as possible. It saves them the stress of navigating through traffic and gives them a chance to sit back and relax.
I'm all for reducing our dependence on foreign oil, creating jobs, and relaxing while riding the train. One question, Governor. I have family in the Copper Country. Do you see high-speed rail between Flint and the U.P. anytime soon?!
Remind me never to play poker with President Obama. I have a feeling he's good.
After receiving $25 billion in taxpayer-funded TARP funds, greedy J.P. Morgan Chase decided to play hardball with the auto task force when it came time to negotiate over debt recovery before and during the Chrysler bankruptcy. According to the WSJ:
President Barack Obama's auto task force heard a blunt message early this spring from J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., the largest lender to Chrysler LLC. In any deal to remake the troubled auto maker, Chrysler would have to repay its lenders all $6.9 billion it owed.
"And not a penny less," said James B. Lee Jr., vice chairman at the bank, in a call to auto task-force boss Steven Rattner on March 29.
The next day, Mr. Obama called the banker's bluff. The president stepped before a podium to announce that Chrysler could face a disorderly bankruptcy or even liquidation. His meaning was clear: If that happened, the lenders would get nowhere near $6.9 billion.
A few hours later, Mr. Lee called Mr. Rattner back. "We need to talk," he said.
The banker's about-face was a vivid example of the government's tightening grip on a humbled financial industry. Pulling a trick from the hedge-fund playbook, the government used its leverage as the sole willing lender to Chrysler, either in bankruptcy court or out, to extract deep concessions from some of the country's biggest banks.
h/t to Epicurean Dealmaker who explains that the WSJ made it appear that almost all the lenders involved understood exactly what type of game they were playing:
Many of the lenders believed the administration wouldn't let Chrysler file for bankruptcy. "The plan was to call the government's bluff. The game was to game the government," said a manager of a distressed-debt fund.
Gaming the government is essentially the same as gaming the taxpayers. The good news according to E.D. is that the system worked exactly as it should.
The government simply did what any hedge fund driven by fiduciary duty and self interest would have done if it held the reins: it dictated the terms it wanted to see, and it told the creditors to pound sand if they didn't like it. The creditors, on the other hand, seemed to sally forth onto the field of battle without fully considering who was supplying their reinforcements (the Treasury), where they were fighting (in the forum of public opinion, as well as the arena of commerce), and the outside chance that their primary opponent might be smarter than a bag of hammers (and therefore realize and exploit its advantages). In return, they got schooled, but good.
Oh, yeah, he also had a comment for the whiners complaining about the government's involvement in economic affairs:
Deal with it. Buck up, and move on. Find a less lopsided game to play in.
Because I can guarantee you the government and 95% of the people who elected it to power don't give a rat's ass that you're going to lose money on your Chrysler bonds.
This is how Pete Hoekstra and the GOP plan on rebranding their party (video below).
House Republicans want to know: Do you feel safer?
In a remarkable video just released by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and ranking intelligence committee member Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), images of Obama "bowing" to Saudi officials and shaking hands with Hugo Chavez are interspersed with footage of the Pentagon exploding and terrorists doing bad things. All of it is back-dropped by frightening music.
Um, guys, maybe you should have consulted GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio before using the fear-mongering card again. Via Greg Sargent:
"What are we, in a time machine?" the pollster, Tony Fabrizio, asked scornfully in an interview with me moments ago. "We just got clobbered in two successive elections and lost majorities in both Houses, and the leadership appears to keep on playing the same cards." [...]
"Most people are looking to DC to see how they're going to solve the financial and banking crisis," Fabrizio said. He noted that these attacks do not make people feel targeted by "an imminent threat," adding that trafficking in them means "you risk looking out of touch and irrelevant."
Fabrizio added that voters would watch these attacks and ask, "What the hell are these guys talking about?"
Ouch! And Hoekstra wants to be our governor? He should heed what his campaign website says: "...the usual crowd in our state's capital has not led, it has misled."
Talk about misleading. People are scared about losing their jobs, homes and pensions, thirty-two percent of Americans are scared about becoming homeless, and everyone is scared about losing their health care.
Fabrizio is right. We have lots of reasons to be scared, but Obama showing respect to other world leaders isn't one of them.
...in a blazingly short amount of time, the Administration has forged a deal that could save thousands of jobs at Chrysler--the major banks are on board, the UAW has made more significant concessions. But all that may come crashing to a halt because of a few hedge funds who are holding the entire car industry hostage because, boo-hoo, they aren't getting enough out of the deal. What a spectacle.
Spectacle? Yeah, in a Bonnie & Clyde or Godfather sort of way.
As Tasini points out, the president lived up to his pledge, the UAW accepted concessions...
On top of concessions already given in 2005, 2007 and 2008, the UAW members have agreed to accept cuts in pay and benefits.
And even the major debt holders were on board.
Led by J.P. Morgan, the banks holding 70 percent of Chrysler's debt agreed to a deal that would effectively mean they would have to write-off a health chunk of change.
Everyone sacrificed and the administration even tossed more cash on the table and it still wasn't enough for the greedy hold outs.
Three of the bank-debt holders on the bank-steering committee, Oppenheimer Funds, Perella Weinberg Partners' Xerion Capital Fund and Stairway Cap Management, told J.P. Morgan and the other large lenders on a bank call Tuesday that they wouldn't support the deal and would advise other lenders not to support it.
I'm not a financial expert, but I think that's just dumb. Tasini thinks it's dumb too.
Even if the hold-out hedge funds refuse to make a deal by midnight tonight, forcing Chrysler to file for bankruptcy, they are unlikely to do any better in the swift bankruptcy proceedings envisioned. Do the geniuses at Perella et al. think that a bankruptcy judge, looking at a deal that has the blessing of the U.S. Treasury, the banks holding 70 percent of the debt, and the the union representing tens of thousands of workers (not to mention Fiat, which is waiting in the wings to scoop up Chrysler) will dramatically alter the outlines of the deal? No.
But, here we are: American workers, the Administration and the public generally is being held hostage by a few deal makers who run the very kind of financial firms that evaporated trillions of dollars in wealth. [emphasis mine]
And they wonder why a majority of the public believes corporate America (and particularly the financial industry) needs a new moral direction.
Americans United for Change has a new ad running on cable for a week highlighting how the "Party of NO" has continued to turn their back on important middle-class priorities in Congress so far this year. Healthcare for children? NO. President Obama's jobs and economic recovery plan? NO. Equal pay? NO. Watch:
A note about equal pay for women. According to CAP, women's pay continues to lag behind men's.
The typical woman worker has to toil for all of 2008 and then four more months into 2009 - until April 28th - to earn what the typical man earned in 2008 alone. While some of the pay gap can be explained by differences in the jobs that men and women hold, the skills they bring to the workplace, or time out of the labor force, most of the gap is not due to these factors.
I don't keep up with gay rights as much as I should, so I was surprised to read that Deb Price now writes the first nationally syndicated column on gay issues. Good for her. I only know her work in the Detroit News. (Does anyone else find it ironic that she writes for them?)
Anyway, outside of reading quite a bit about gay marriage in recent months, I didn't realize the Obama administration has been reaching out to the gay community in so many ways. Here are some highlights from Price's recent column, including a mention about the hate crimes legislation that lawmakers will be voting on later this week.
The Obama White House invited gay leaders to the health care and fiscal responsibility summits, the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the executive order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls, and an online town hall. Gay parents were encouraged to bring their kids to the Easter egg roll. [...]
The White House outreach has included Mara Keisling of the National Center for Transgender Equality and Rebecca Fox of the National Coalition for LGBT Health. [...]
And Obama is salting gay talent through his administration. Most noteworthy is John Berry, confirmed by the Senate as director of the Office of Personnel Management. That puts a gay man in charge of the 1.9 million federal employees, including overseeing their benefits.
Other appointees include Emily Hewitt, an ordained Episcopal priest, as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. A peek at Hewitt's biography on her official court site shows the comfort Obama's gay choices feel: "Chief Judge Hewitt is married to Eleanor Dean Acheson."
Obama tapped Fred Hochberg to chair the U.S. Export-Import Bank, Harry Knox to serve on the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and Nancy Sutley to chair the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Price also reports that Obama told two leaders of the Human Rights Campaign that he intends to sign the hates crimes legislation when it reaches his desk, and he supports the need for a federal ban on job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Hate Crime Legislation (H.R. 1913) was introduced by John Conyers and has 42 sponsors. The House Judiciary Committee is set to vote on the bill this Wednesday. Language in the bill includes "sexual orientation," which has some "family groups" going bonkers. The Traditional Values Coalition released this statement:
"The so-called hate crimes bill will be used to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, business owners, Bible teachers, Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, Christian counselors, religious broadcasters and anyone else whose actions are based upon and reflect the truths found in the Bible."
It'll be interesting to see how Republicans vote. Will they pander to extremists or vote to send the message that violent hate crimes have no place in our country?
Sen. Debbie Stabenow was on the Ed Show Monday night and Rep. Gary Peters was on last night. They discussed a possible GM bankruptcy, which could jeopardize the pensions of 670,000 retires, with 335,000 seeing benefit cuts.
Both lawmakers agreed that bankruptcy should be a last resort, but Ed characterized Obama's Auto Task Force as throwing workers under the bus when it comes to their pensions. Stabenow had a different perspective:
SCHULTZ: But what about those retirees-senator, I have to ask you, what about these retirees. They didn't vote to have their benefits cut. These are your constituents in Michigan.
STABENOW: No question. If you're asking me, do I think bankruptcy is a good idea? The answer is absolutely not. I don't support bankruptcy as an option. And the reality is that taxpayers shouldn't either, because we're talking about 670,000 people with pensions with General Motors alone that would become potentially a federal responsibility. [...]
SCHULTZ: -- that if it goes to the Pension Guarantee Corporation, and people have to take a cut, I don't know how they are going to be motivated to come back and vote for the Democrats.
STABENOW: Well, first of all, people took a pay cut to get that pension, and they should not be cut in their pensions, period. People took pay cut after pay cut to keep their health care and to keep their pensions. And so there is a way to do this, even going into a bankruptcy.
Northwest Airlines, based out of Detroit substantially, went into bankruptcy, kept their pension obligations. We worked with them to help protect their pensions. They came out of bankruptcy. They kept their pension commitments. So it is possible to do that. And I am strongly urging the administration, whatever happens, to keep those pensions intact, because people have worked hard all of their lives for those.
Bloomberg reports that GM's plan is in relatively better shape than others, because it's about 87 percent-funded, but they also point out that as many as half of GM's 670,000 pension-plan participants could see their benefits trimmed if the PBGC takes over the plan. Jack Dickinson, president of an advocacy group called Over the Hill Car People says, "Nobody really knows" what would happen with GM pensions in a bankruptcy." (The DetNews has more on how bankruptcy could affect workers' pensions.)
One thing struck me in the interview above. Schultz wondered why people would be motivated to vote for Democrats if General Motors files bankruptcy. Is Ed serious? As the Free Press recently pointed out...
Moreover, the government's track record setting policy that affects the auto industry is atrocious. Car companies have been flogged for not producing enough small, efficient vehicles, but the government eschews a national gas tax that would keep demand for such vehicles high. The companies have been derided for exorbitant labor costs, but in too many instances, government trade policy doesn't help them by holding other countries to decent labor standards.
Democrats and Republicans are responsible for that track record, but Republicans have been in control of the White House for the past 8 years and in control of Congress for almost 20 years. They were the ones actively pushing their free trade, anti-tax, kill the unions, drill, baby, drill rhetoric all that time. And when the chips were down last fall and the auto industry needed help, it was Republicans who pulled the plug on the industry and voted no.
If McCain had won the election, I have no doubt GM and Chrysler would be history already and the Republicans and their US Chamber of Commerce cronies would be giving one another high-fives.
And I won't soon forget how Republicans voted on minimum wage, SCHIP, equal pay, etc. They don't even feel we should have universal health care.
A vote for any member of the GOP is a vote against the middle-class, and General Motors filing for bankruptcy won't change how I feel about them. The lawmaker who does the most for the middle-class gets my vote, and the majority of the time that's a Democrat.
Republicans believe government spending does nothing to create jobs, unless we're spending money on defense. Actually, we're better off spending money on green investments according to Robert Pollin, professor of economics.
In fact, the green-investment agenda is a highly effective engine of job creation, much more so, for example, than two favored Republican forms of spending, military outlay and the oil industry.
Thus, for a given billion dollars of spending, the Obama green-investment program will generate about 17,000 jobs. Spending the same amount on the military will produce only 8,500 jobs, 50 percent less than green investments. Spending an additional $1 billion on the oil industry -- the "drill, baby, drill" agenda advanced by the McCain/Palin campaign -- will produce only 4,500, about one-fourth the total created by green investments.
Pollin says three factors are at play to explain why investment spending devoted to the green economy creates more jobs than military or oil spending.
Relative labor intensity. This means more spending on people and less on machines, buildings, supplies, and energy. In weatherizing a home, the machinery and supplies needed are relatively low, while the demand for construction workers is high. Drilling for oil requires huge amounts of sophisticated machinery and relatively few people to operate that equipment. A military base employs lots of people. But it also involves heavy equipment purchases and consumes lots of energy.
Domestic production versus imports and spending abroad. With Obama's green-investment agenda, well over 90 percent of total spending will occur within the U.S. economy. Energy-efficiency measures, such as building retrofits, public transportation, and upgrading the electrical grid, can only occur on-site. Weatherization projects for buildings in North Dakota can only be done in North Dakota. The New York City subway system must be upgraded in New York. By contrast, the U.S. now imports about 50 percent of all the oil it consumes, and about 20 percent of total spending within the oil industry occurs abroad. The proportion of the military budget spent abroad is even higher.
Differences in pay levels. The average annual pay for employees associated with the green investment, including both wages and benefits, is about $52,000. This is roughly 20 percent below the $65,000 average for both the military and oil industries. This means that a given amount of spending for workers in the green-investment areas yields more job creation at lower average wages -- stretching out a given sum of wage and benefit payments.
That last point about lower average wages isn't actually a bad thing according to Pollin, because many more jobs overall are being created and more money is going into more workers' pockets.
All told, the green-investment agenda still creates far more jobs paying over $16 an hour than either the military or the oil industry does -- 75 percent more than the military and three times more than the oil industry.
And in the green economy, even many of the relatively low-paying jobs in construction and manufacturing offer decent job ladders for entry-level workers. There are fewer such prospects for advancement in even lower low-paying service-sector jobs, such as those of janitors, waiters, and health-care assistants.
President Obama's economic stimulus program includes between $50 billion and $140 billion in clean-energy spending. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the $1339 billion the world spent on the military in 2007, of which we're responsible for 45 per cent of that total, distantly followed by the UK, China, France, and Japan each with 4 to 5 per cent of the world share. Instead of increasing defense spending by 8 percent next year, the President should take the $40 billion or so difference and put it toward green investment. It'll create new industries and put more people to work, and we'll still be a superpower.
Easter Sunday is the day that Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, well at least according to the tenants of Faith. Easter can mean allot of different things to allot of people, it might mean a day to be with Family, it might mean Easter Egg Hunts, and it might mean nothing at all.
This Easter I'm thinking of a resurrection, but not just Christ. I'm seeing our Humanity being resurrected from the Bush years. For the first time, that I can remember 1,000 tickets were reserved for Gay and Lesbian families at the annual Easter Egg Hunt at the White House. Why is this so big? Because it is a sign of a changing world, a changing Government, a belief in inclusion, not separation. However that is not just it. President Obama has taken allot of heat this past week for saying the truth, that we have been ignorant and arrogant, I was proud of my President for standing up and saying things that many of us have been saying for a long time. We do not change the hearts and minds of people, by being ignorant of their needs, and neither do we change their hearts and minds by believing we are better than everyone else, as if American lives are somehow worth more than other lives.
This resurrection is however far from over. For those who have seen the film "Rendition" you know what I'm talking about. Our Humanity will not be restored until we release the innocent people who we have unlawfully put in our "secret" prison camps, under the heading "Terrorist". Our Humanity can not be fully resurrected until we end the Patriot Act, which is far from being Patriotic. Finally our Humanity will not be resurrected, until our troops are home out of harms way.
This Easter Sunday I celebrate the beginning or OUR resurrection, and I pray we don't fall short of fixing the ills of the Bush Administration.
An auto bankruptcy could cost one-third of the three million people employed in the industry and shave four percentage points from our GDP according to a Deutsche Bank analyst. I guess that's why Obama called it a "surgical bankruptcy" in his address on Monday. Losing that many people would be like losing a limb in order to save your life. That's the bad news.
There is some good news though, at least for GM. An article in the NY Times reports the "government may seek to ease General Motors into what it calls a "controlled" bankruptcy, somewhere between a prepackaged bankruptcy and court chaos, by persuading at least some creditors to agree to a plan that would cleave the company into two pieces."
This is how it would work:
Under a plan being worked out by the administration, G.M. would file for prearranged bankruptcy, according to these people. It would then use a sale authorized under Section 363 of the bankruptcy code to quickly sell off the desirable assets to a new company financed by the government. These good pieces might include Cadillac and Chevrolet, as well as assets the company needs to run the business.
Less desirable assets, brands like Hummer and underperforming factories, would be left in the old company. Proceeds from the sales, including stock in the new company, would be given to the old G.M., helping to settle claims.
I mentioned Section 363 bankruptcy the other day. The goal the administration seeks is to create a new, healthier, competitive G.M. by leaving behind its liabilities and less valuable assets, which is also similar to the way the government handled Lehman Brothers last year.
The administration would also have to win support from some of G.M.'s creditors, "notably the United Automobile Workers, which would be forced to pare its health care benefits and whose pension obligations would probably remain in the old company." That's bad news, but...
There will be pressure to keep plants open, to keep employment in communities high, he said, "because typically G.M. or Ford or Chrysler are very substantial contributors to the local tax receipt flow."
They're telling us something we already know all too well. Experts are also saying history offers almost no precedent for a G.M. bankruptcy simply because no other company ever matched their size and interconnectedness.
The news for Chrysler isn't as good. Obama is prepared to let Chrysler go bankrupt and be sold off piecemeal if they can't form an alliance with Fiat.
Bankruptcy is only at a possibility at this point, but it's looking likelier by the day - or at least within 30-60 days, and there's no doubt Michigan will suffer more pain if it happens. All we can do is trust Obama. He said he would direct a comprehensive effort to lift the hardest hit areas "by using the unprecedented levels of funding available in our Recovery Act and throughout our government to create new manufacturing jobs and new businesses where they are needed most - in your communities." He also said he would fight for us and help put us back on our feet. Things look bleak now, but not hopeless. With Obama helping us, we can come through this and be made whole again.
Like DJ, I'm feeling a combination of anger and fear about our auto industry's future, but I also feel a sense of resignation. How much longer can we continue this way? We're dying slowly, one excruciating job loss at a time, and it's like torture. I'm beginning to think maybe it's time to call in the triage team, or in this case the restructuring team.
Michigan native Jonathan Cohn expands on the "surgical bankruptcy" Obama mentioned yesterday. He believes the administration is serious about that possibility, and he also notes that people involved in the debate see Section 363 of the bankruptcy code as a way for the company to continue operating without the burden of their huge debts. (Fritz Henderson was quoted yesterday as saying a "strategic" bankruptcy supported with government money would be less risky than traditional Chapter 11 protection too.) Cohn provided a link to Harvard Law Professor Mark Roe that basically explains it like this...
GM files for chapter 11. The company puts together the automotive operations, and leaves behind the legacy obligations to retired workers and the bond obligations. It takes the auto operations and sells them intact. Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code provides for these kinds of sales. This would leave behind restructuring the bond debt and the legacy claims. Whatever GM gets from the automotive sale will go to pay off the bonds and pay off the legacy claims. That part is in some ways straightforward. If it can be completed, consumers would be looking at a viable GM that has exited bankruptcy. Then the claims-the legacy claims and the like-will be resolved.
Is Section 363 what Obama has in mind? It does have some benefits. GM would continue operating without the burden of their legacy debts, or what we call pensions and lifetime health care benefits. That would help free up cash and strengthen the company, which could end up protecting jobs that would be lost if they were allowed to completely fail. But what about the thousands of retired employees? Does that mean the PBGC would assume GM's pensions and people would lose their health care? Maybe someone familiar with bankruptcy laws could fill us in and help alleviate our fears.
