Open thread: Obama’s Chip Diller speech in Ohio

posted at 12:41 pm on June 14, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

As Barack Obama prepares for his “reframing” speech in Ohio at 1:45 ET today, Republicans on Capitol Hill have already produced a response to his likely strategy of whining about dealing with a do-nothing Congress.  John Boehner has a simple visual retort — standing next to a large table completely covered in jobs bills passed by the GOP-controlled House that the Democratic-controlled Senate has refused to consider. Of course, as Boehner reminds us, Senate Democrats haven’t even passed a budget in more than three years:

With President Barack Obama set to take his message on the economy to John Boehner’s backyard, the Republican House Speaker landed a preemptive blow Thursday with a video blaming Senate Democrats for a congressional logjam that has stalled bills meant to create jobs.

In the video, the Ohio lawmaker points to documents covering his desk, identifying them as House-passed legislation now blocked by the Democratic-held Senate.

“This isn’t just our work — it’s your work in progress,” Boehner says.

“You see, we’re going to keep adding to this pile, and we’re going to keep calling on President Obama and Democrats in the Senate to give these jobs bills a vote,” he says.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney isn’t letting the opportunity to pass, either.  He will deliver his own speech on the economy in Ohio, which is scheduled to start five minutes after Obama starts speaking, at 1:50.  That assumes, of course, that Obama will actually begin his speech on time, as Gabriel Malor pointed out on Twitter:

The Associated Press reports on the battle of Ohio shaping up today,and the delicious karma:

Sharpening the choice for the nation, President Barack Obama and Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney are offering dueling visions of how to fix the economy, framing in their most direct terms the fierce debate that will decide the November election. In a flash of campaign drama, the two are giving major speeches at nearly the same time Thursday from the same state, battleground Ohio. …

Romney will talk about cutting regulation and spending, overhauling the tax system, doing away with Obama’s health care overhaul and supporting a major oil pipeline known as Keystone XL. Setting his own expectations for Obama, Romney told donors in Cincinnati: “He’ll speak with great rhetoric and eloquence. But actions and records speak a heck of a lot louder than words.”

Without doubt, Romney and Obama have starkly different visions of economic rebirth, the issue of top concern for voters. To hear them tell it, Obama thinks Romney’s jobs philosophy is a failed notion of just cutting taxes and gutting regulation, while Romney says the president is a big-government defender who is stifling the free market at the cost of economic acceleration.

Of the two, Obama is carrying more of a political burden because, as the guy in charge, he is saddled with a lumbering economic recovery. Romney can largely blame the incumbent – just as Obama, as a candidate, benefited from blaming President George W. Bush.

One interesting factoid: the White House doesn’t have this speech on the President’s official schedule.  In fact, they don’t have anything on the schedule for Obama today, including an official event at the World Trade Center site to get briefed on progress.  Talk about lowering expectations

Let’s keep this as an open thread.  For fun, I’ll give you this preview of President Obama’s speech:

Maybe that’s a little too negative.  It’s probably more like this:

This lyric might actually appear in the speech: “I hope you learn it note for note, like good little children.”

Update: From the comments, we might expect a little lot of this, too:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

Do you mean the money you borrow to get your nails done every week and you have nothing left on your EBT card to pay for groceries?

Yup, we know that personal appearance and fashion are totally immaterial to advancement within the market. There’s absolutely no reason to make investments in self in order to advance oneself. That’s why no one wears suits or nice pant suits in the business world. Nor do they get haircuts, use product, apply makeup, buy watches, leather satchels, purses, nice shoes, matching socks, cufflinks. You got it bud!

libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Shop at Goodwill until you can afford nicer things!

TN Mom on June 14, 2012 at 4:35 PM

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on June 14, 2012 at 4:31 PM

as grandpa said “you’re either in the wagon pulling the wagon or nowhere near the wagon and I only got time for one group of the three….”

harlekwin15 on June 14, 2012 at 4:35 PM

TN Mom on June 14, 2012 at 4:35 PM

er uh hello is this thing on….

*wimbeldon glances from side to side*

It has uh come to my uh tention that er uh there are those of us who want to help people with manicures as an investment in our number one er resource and there are those who want to go back to the stone age of uh demanding poookie trim his own nails…..and that’s why I want the American people to invest in a nailclipping for pookie fund…

//sunny king

harlekwin15 on June 14, 2012 at 4:37 PM

stout77 on June 14, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Does wealth = power or not?

libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 4:25 PM

You mean George Soros didn’t upload the answer to your frontal cortex this morning along with the other talking points?

No my friend, knowledge is power. Probably why you’ve fallen for the powerless victimhood preached by the left. Here’s some knowledge for you: If you put $380.98/month into an account generating a 7% rate of return, you would have $1,000,000 in your account after a 40-year career. Probably not much more than your monthly cell phone/cable bill. But I can see how an economic illiterate like yourself might feel as helpless as you do.

stout77 on June 14, 2012 at 4:41 PM

what is to become of kids raised in households makin 3.34 an hour?

libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 3:48

PM

What is to become of the 21 kids the guy fathered with 15 mothers?? Memphis TN, link at drudge.

Cc: Old Country Boy on June 14, 2012 at 4:31 PM

TN Mom on June 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Yup, we know that personal appearance and fashion are totally immaterial to advancement within the market. There’s absolutely no reason to make investments in self in order to advance oneself. That’s why no one wears suits or nice pant suits in the business world. Nor do they get haircuts, use product, apply makeup, buy watches, leather satchels, purses, nice shoes, matching socks, cufflinks. You got it bud!

libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Personal appearance can be maintained without going into debt, the rest of the things you talk about are about your vanity, nothing more. It is no wonder that you are so lost in the world. I would hire someone who is smart and dependable over some over dressed idiot who thinks they are fooling people into thinking because they dress to the nines they are doing well. I know people like you, and you really aren’t fooling anyone. You really are hopeless.

Night Owl on June 14, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Schadenfreude on June 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM

You’re welcome. I Googled it, and that is what came up first. Can’t vouch for it beyond that.

novaculus on June 14, 2012 at 4:47 PM

harlekwin15 on June 14, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Pookie would be a lot better off if she would take her education seriously, accept personal responsibility, and then buy her own nail salon….

TN Mom on June 14, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Conservatives don’t want people to have more freedom, they just want them beholden to/dependent on other authorities. ?

libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM

No, your side wants people to be beholden to Big Government. And hence Dependent on Big Government.

Comedy Gold.

Del Dolemonte on June 14, 2012 at 4:48 PM

If the fools went all thru school refusing to “act white” by learning the 3 Rs, then it should come as no surprise that their take home ain’t “acting white”

Oh so this is about anti-black racism. Got it.

libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 4:11 PM

No, you Assumed it.

Del Dolemonte on June 14, 2012 at 4:49 PM

libfreeordie, why are you letting the
 

“Turnout for Democrats in the recall election was way low, especially considering the incredibly low turnout in Milwaukee.” -LFOD

 
/
 

The turnout in Milwaukee has been so heavy the city Election Commission had to send extra poll workers to several sites to handle the long lines.” – AFL-CIO

 
thread die before citing your source?

rogerb on June 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM

rogerb on June 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM

be nice he self-sourced….

all he had to do was look at the graveyard and the lack of legions of dead voting meant “turnout is less than normal”…..

harlekwin15 on June 14, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Look at it this way, how would prices skyrocket if every job held by an illegal worker was paid the American minimum wage?

libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Funny. You just made the conservative/libertarian argument for elimination of the minimum wage. Thank you.

Minimum wage prices that unskilled labor out of the market and forces goods to be produced at higher prices than their actual market values. Gee, why do all those illegals get hired? Could it be because they can be paid under the table at less than minimum wage and therefore allow the producer or service provider to properly price his goods/services at a price that the consumer is willing to pay for it?

You should check out the comparison of unemployment in the black communities against the minimum wage rates. It’s quite revealing.

gravityman on June 14, 2012 at 4:54 PM

where do you get it in your head that the concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands leads to less corruption stud?

harlekwin15 on June 14, 2012 at 4:11 PM

From conservatives who have cheered the accumulation of greater and greater wealthy by a smaller and smaller cadre of capitalists.

libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Well, first of all, the number of millionaires in the US increased by 600,000 in 2010, the last year figures are available. So the number of capitalists is in fact growing.

And that number will keep growing, unless your Party has its way.

Comedy Gold, Kid!

Del Dolemonte on June 14, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Does wealth = power or not?

libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 4:25 PM

You mean George Soros didn’t upload the answer to your frontal cortex this morning along with the other talking points?

stout77 on June 14, 2012 at 4:41 PM

George Soros actually tried to Buy the 2004 Presidential Election for the other JFK.

And the over the last few years (after buying a healthy chunk of Halliburton, much to uppereastside’s heartache), Soros has been trying to buy US State Attorney Generals’ offices. Of course we all know why.

Del Dolemonte on June 14, 2012 at 4:59 PM

be nice he self-sourced….
 
harlekwin15 on June 14, 2012 at 4:53 PM

 
Probably just an anomaly. Surely libfreeordie’s posts on this thread are sound.

rogerb on June 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Whether these immigrants were legal or illegal is immaterial to whether they represented a below subsistence form of labor within the capitalist system. Capitalism can not survive without them.

libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 3:33 PM

So, do you think the Soviet workers handed their paychecks by the government all lived in dream houses with nice cars and fancy stuff? Or could it be they lived in sh*thole apartments and stood in long lines for the simple nessecities of bread and toilet paper?

It doesn’t matter if it’s capitalist or socialist/communist… whether it’s private sector or government… the manager of the business NEVER wants to pay more than he has to for labor in order to produce the desired product.

gravityman on June 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM

So basically he’s admitting he can’t fix something done by someone they call a moron? Got it.

I remember averaged 5% unemployment over those god awful 8 years…..

Wagthatdog on June 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Wagthatdog on June 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM

remember when a nation that was(on paper) 40% more wealthy was full of “barely employed burger flippers”???

yeah evidently people must have lost their taste(or ability) to pay for the beef….

harlekwin15 on June 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM

There is an old adage about this: “Don’t wrestle with pigs. All that will happen is that you will get dirty, and the pigs will like it.”

Old Country Boy on June 14, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Don’t insult the good clean pigs.

Schadenfreude on June 14, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Ah so your preference is that Americans be paid what illegal labor makes. And which Americans would take those jobs?

libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 3:28 PM

The ones that dont have jobs now! $1 > $0.

Of course, if the business were able to pay that lower wage, then the cost of production would go down. And then a smart business owner, now having a lower cost, would lower his prices to take business away from his competitors. And as prices come down, those people who accepted those lower wages would suddenly have greater buying power with their dollars, thereby increasing their standard of living on that same wage.

It’s not rocket science.

gravityman on June 14, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Wow, who would have thought a worthless piece of crap recycled talking points speech would garner 522 comments?

Bmore on June 14, 2012 at 5:12 PM

it all boils down to ‘merit’. liberal’s can’t stand the idea of making/breaking based on one’s work ethic, determination, abilities, and many other factors. They are so insecure, so absolutely unable to comprehend ‘self-reliance’, whether they admit it or not, their mental makeup will only allow them to reject capitalism.

They can’t even *think* w/o turning to a group, committee, authority figure of some sort, etc. They gotta vote on what ply TP to buy. That’s the truth. All of these factors are the reason why it’s so easy for someone with a God complex to waltz in and become Stalin, Hitler, etc..

In case everyone here wasn’t aware in all totalitarian systems it’s always the individuals who won’t fall in line with whatever the accepted/dictated group think is that get sent off to die.

preallocated on June 14, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Where did you get it in your head that just because a community is “local” that its kind or good?

libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Local government does not mean good government. Good is not the advantage of local government.

The advantage of local government, and what presumably makes it “good” (read: more responsive to the needs of it’s particular community), is that 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 voters can hold their local government far more accountable than 300,000,000 voters can hold the federal government.

Federalism… what a concept.

gravityman on June 14, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Wow, who would have thought a worthless piece of crap recycled talking points speech would garner 522 comments?

Bmore on June 14, 2012 at 5:12 PM

You can thank your boy lfod for his insincerity, obtuseness, and sheer idiocy.

tom daschle concerned on June 14, 2012 at 5:25 PM

The advantage of local government, and what presumably makes it “good” (read: more responsive to the needs of its particular community), is that 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 voters can hold their local government far more accountable than 300,000,000 voters can hold the federal government.

Not to mention the fact that truly crappy ideas for government and corrupt tyrants can only affect a relatively small number of people, who can leave the local area for somewhere else if they’re unhappy. Like all the Californians leaving for Texas, for example.

If California, which presumably is the progressives model for the whole country, is paradise, why are all the ne’er do wells who only want free stuff without working migrating there, and the productive people leaving?

mr.blacksheep on June 14, 2012 at 5:32 PM

One, thanks to everyone for commenting and watching the speech for me so I didn’t have to – I owe you one.

Two, why is anyone arguing with Libdumbthendie? I knew he was a leftist but never realized he was a marxist. You will never get it through to him – so you are wasting time, under his worldview 80% of us would still be farming 40 acre tracts and bartering with one another. He doesn’t understand capitalism because he foolishly believes it is all about screwing labor as opposed to making labor more efficient in its use of capital.

So please stop – its painful to watch and a waste of productive time. Let’s face it – absent some crazy twist, Obama has just continued his string of utterly stupid actions and probably just sealed his unelection. This will cost Libdumbthendie his current teat and he is none too happy about that.

Zomcon JEM on June 14, 2012 at 5:35 PM

tom daschle concerned on June 14, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Some folks just never learn, no matter how much teaching is done. ; )

Bmore on June 14, 2012 at 5:48 PM

I’m too late to the party; libfree’ already left.

Maybe another time . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on June 14, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Many moons ago got a job as a brick-tender. Having a beard and long hair they busted my butt. Showed up the next day and every day until the job was finished. They eased up because I had worked for and “earned” their respect.

Kids today have no idea about work ethics and the respect it garners. As someone upthread said they all want to go from college to Wall Street banker.

marinetbryant on June 14, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Kids today have no idea about work ethics and the respect it garners. As someone upthread said they all want to go from college to Wall Street banker.

marinetbryant on June 14, 2012 at 6:06 PM

.
I’m putting the blame for the “lack of work ethic on parents”, for not working with their kids at home. Our current American culture began immediately after WWII to gradually stop teaching our kids at home about manual labor. The idea was for kids to go to school, and learn from the school teachers everything they needed to know about getting a “white-collar” job in the “new job market”. While not in school, kids were pointed towards the TV and told to entertain themselves while parents went about their life FREE from the burden of having to raise their children. That’s what school taxes are for; to take care of raising the children, so the parents don’t have to anymore. Today’s urban and suburban children don’t do anything outside of school but play and watch TV.
That’s what I blame for the “absence of work ethic” that many of my fellow Americans display daily. It’s not just the kids.
.
However, the responsibility for the stupid idea that anybody is going to “go from college to Wall Street banker”, is totally on the individual idiot harboring that belief.
Even if some parents try to put that notion into their children’s head when they’re younger, it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that this kind of thinking is “an illusion of grandeur”, and nothing more.

listens2glenn on June 14, 2012 at 6:42 PM

The black plague is back, btw.

Schadenfreude on June 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Yeah, we know. He’s been in the White House for 3 1/2 years.

Mark1971 on June 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Now, that’s just pure-dee funny. I don’t care who you are.

Solaratov on June 14, 2012 at 7:22 PM

libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 2:52 PM

You don’t really understand the difference between legal and illegal immigrants, do you, libby?

And, since you don’t understand that, then you cannot understand why Americans would be opposed to ignoring a criminal class (ie: illegal) of aliens; while welcoming LEGAL immigrants.
To be opposed to a criminal class does not automatically mean that we are opposed to non-criminals.
You leftoid drones, however, just love you some illegal types.

Solaratov on June 14, 2012 at 7:33 PM

When is Romney, or any other GOPer, going to raise a stink re: Obama’s (& Bush) bailing out the UAW via TARP?

Danny on June 14, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Oops.

Danny on June 14, 2012 at 7:55 PM

I dunno’ this libiot is beyond embarrassing.

I’m surprised it can figure out how to feed itself, let alone have the ability to vote.

Geesh, it has outdone itself today in sheer stupidity.

cozmo on June 14, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Oh, c’mon now. S/he/it has done a ‘fabulous’ job of trying to deflect the conversation away from ‘the speech’. S/he/it doesn’t care how stupid it looks as long as it does its masters’ bidding.

Solaratov on June 14, 2012 at 7:58 PM

From Heritage.org:

President Obama told the United Auto Workers (UAW) in February not to listen to critics of the auto bailout who said union members “made out like bandits—that saving the auto industry was just about paying back the unions.” “Really?” Obama said. “I mean, even by the standards of this town [Washington], that’s a load of you-know-what.”
New research from Heritage labor economist James Sherk proves that it was, in fact, a load of truth.
The Treasury Department estimates that taxpayers will lose $23 billion on the auto bailout. Sherk and co-author Todd Zywicki find that none of these losses came from saving jobs, but instead went to prop up the compensation of some of the most highly paid workers in America. They write:
We estimate that the Administration redistributed $26.5 billion more to the UAW than it would have received had it been treated as it usually would in bankruptcy proceedings. Taxpayers lost between $20 billion and $23 billion on the auto programs. Thus, the entire loss to the taxpayers from the auto bailout comes from the funds diverted to the UAW.
The Obama campaign is touting the bailout in Michigan this week, crowing about saved-or-created jobs. What the bailout actually saved was the UAW’s heavily padded compensation packages; what it created was a massive taxpayer loss.
The UAW was a significant factor in the automakers’ decline: It had raised Detroit’s labor costs 50 percent to 80 percent above other automakers, such as Toyota and Nissan. In 2006, General Motors paid its unionized workers $70.51 an hour in wages and benefits. Chrysler paid $75.86 an hour. Added to mistakes by management, these labor costs were a major reason the automakers went bankrupt.
However, through the bailout, the Obama Administration insulated the UAW from most of the sacrifices unions usually make in a bankruptcy—at taxpayer expense.
GM and Chrysler owed billions to a trust fund they had created to provide UAW members with gold-plated retiree health benefits. In bankruptcy, these funds should have been paid proportional to other unsecured creditors. Instead, while the Administration paid other creditors only a fraction of what they were owed, it gave the UAW trust fund assets worth tens of billions—including partial ownership of both companies. The U.S. Treasury should have received these assets.
Bankruptcy law also enables reorganizing companies to improve their post-bankruptcy situation by renegotiating union contracts to competitive rates.
If the UAW had been treated normally under bankruptcy law, the automakers’ average labor costs would have fallen to the same levels as the foreign-based carmakers, approximately $47 an hour. While this is still 40 percent higher compensation than the average manufacturing worker, it would have reduced UAW members’ standard of living. And the Administration wouldn’t allow that. So while the UAW accepted huge pay cuts for new hires, the Administration kept the pay structure of existing UAW members at GM intact.
Even Stephen Rattner, President Obama’s “car czar,” has admitted that “We should have asked the UAW to do a bit more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay.”
As a result, even after the reorganization, GM still has higher labor costs ($56 an hour) than any of its foreign-based competitors.
The average American worker—whose taxes paid for the bailout—earns $30.15 an hour in wages and benefits. Few Americans have the ability, as UAW workers do, to retire in their mid-50s before they can collect Social Security. Fewer still receive retirement health benefits in addition to Medicare, as UAW workers do. Yet their tax dollars went to subsidize UAW pay and benefits.
Had the government treated the UAW in the manner required by bankruptcy law, taxpayers would have broken even. The program would have amounted to bankruptcy financing instead of an outright bailout. The Administration could have kept the automakers running without losing a dime.
Instead, more than $26 billion went out the door and into the UAW’s pockets. Let’s put that in perspective: The amount of the subsidy given directly to the UAW was bigger than the budget of the entire State Department. It was bigger than all U.S. foreign aid spending. It was 50 percent more than NASA’s budget.
None of that money kept factories running. Instead, it sustained the above-average compensation of members of an influential union, sparing them from most of the sacrifices typically made in bankruptcy—a bankruptcy they contributed to. President Obama engaged in special interest spending at its worst.
The Administration did not bail out GM and Chrysler. It bailed out the United Auto Workers.

Danny on June 14, 2012 at 7:59 PM

The Administration did not bail out GM and Chrysler. It bailed out the United Auto Workers.

Danny on June 14, 2012 at 7:59 PM

.
Right-on.

listens2glenn on June 14, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Heritage.org:

blog.heritage.org/2012/06/13/morning-bell-auto-bailout-was-really-just-a-uaw-bailout/

President Obama told the United Auto Workers (UAW) in February not to listen to critics of the auto bailout who said union members “made out like bandits—that saving the auto industry was just about paying back the unions.” “Really?” Obama said. “I mean, even by the standards of this town [Washington], that’s a load of you-know-what.”
New research from Heritage labor economist James Sherk proves that it was, in fact, a load of truth.
The Treasury Department estimates that taxpayers will lose $23 billion on the auto bailout. Sherk and co-author Todd Zywicki find that none of these losses came from saving jobs, but instead went to prop up the compensation of some of the most highly paid workers in America. They write:
We estimate that the Administration redistributed $26.5 billion more to the UAW than it would have received had it been treated as it usually would in bankruptcy proceedings. Taxpayers lost between $20 billion and $23 billion on the auto programs. Thus, the entire loss to the taxpayers from the auto bailout comes from the funds diverted to the UAW.
The Obama campaign is touting the bailout in Michigan this week, crowing about saved-or-created jobs. What the bailout actually saved was the UAW’s heavily padded compensation packages; what it created was a massive taxpayer loss.
The UAW was a significant factor in the automakers’ decline: It had raised Detroit’s labor costs 50 percent to 80 percent above other automakers, such as Toyota and Nissan. In 2006, General Motors paid its unionized workers $70.51 an hour in wages and benefits. Chrysler paid $75.86 an hour. Added to mistakes by management, these labor costs were a major reason the automakers went bankrupt.
However, through the bailout, the Obama Administration insulated the UAW from most of the sacrifices unions usually make in a bankruptcy—at taxpayer expense.
GM and Chrysler owed billions to a trust fund they had created to provide UAW members with gold-plated retiree health benefits. In bankruptcy, these funds should have been paid proportional to other unsecured creditors. Instead, while the Administration paid other creditors only a fraction of what they were owed, it gave the UAW trust fund assets worth tens of billions—including partial ownership of both companies. The U.S. Treasury should have received these assets.
Bankruptcy law also enables reorganizing companies to improve their post-bankruptcy situation by renegotiating union contracts to competitive rates.
If the UAW had been treated normally under bankruptcy law, the automakers’ average labor costs would have fallen to the same levels as the foreign-based carmakers, approximately $47 an hour. While this is still 40 percent higher compensation than the average manufacturing worker, it would have reduced UAW members’ standard of living. And the Administration wouldn’t allow that. So while the UAW accepted huge pay cuts for new hires, the Administration kept the pay structure of existing UAW members at GM intact.
Even Stephen Rattner, President Obama’s “car czar,” has admitted that “We should have asked the UAW to do a bit more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay.”
As a result, even after the reorganization, GM still has higher labor costs ($56 an hour) than any of its foreign-based competitors.
The average American worker—whose taxes paid for the bailout—earns $30.15 an hour in wages and benefits. Few Americans have the ability, as UAW workers do, to retire in their mid-50s before they can collect Social Security. Fewer still receive retirement health benefits in addition to Medicare, as UAW workers do. Yet their tax dollars went to subsidize UAW pay and benefits.
Had the government treated the UAW in the manner required by bankruptcy law, taxpayers would have broken even. The program would have amounted to bankruptcy financing instead of an outright bailout. The Administration could have kept the automakers running without losing a dime.
Instead, more than $26 billion went out the door and into the UAW’s pockets. Let’s put that in perspective: The amount of the subsidy given directly to the UAW was bigger than the budget of the entire State Department. It was bigger than all U.S. foreign aid spending. It was 50 percent more than NASA’s budget.
None of that money kept factories running. Instead, it sustained the above-average compensation of members of an influential union, sparing them from most of the sacrifices typically made in bankruptcy—a bankruptcy they contributed to. President Obama engaged in special interest spending at its worst.
The Administration did not bail out GM and Chrysler. It bailed out the United Auto Workers.

Danny on June 14, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Oops.

Danny on June 14, 2012 at 7:55 PM

We knew that when he gave the money to GM. But nobody in the LSM ran with it, because they were backing Obama.

The Rogue Tomato on June 14, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Don’t weep for me. Weep for yourselves and your children.
Have another smoke, John Boy.
Let me know when they descend.

mickytx on June 14, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Farage’s Barrage: Another One Bites The Dust

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/06/farages-barrage-another-one-bites-dust.html

M2RB: Queen, live at Wembley

Resist We Much on June 14, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Not to mention the fact that truly crappy ideas for government and corrupt tyrants can only affect a relatively small number of people, who can leave the local area for somewhere else if they’re unhappy. Like all the Californians leaving for Texas, for example.

If California, which presumably is the progressives model for the whole country, is paradise, why are all the ne’er do wells who only want free stuff without working migrating there, and the productive people leaving?

mr.blacksheep on June 14, 2012 at 5:32 PM

In the liberal mind, the answer is to stop people from leaving — take California’s model nationwide, and then punish you if you try to leave the country.

Then it will be paradise./

toby11 on June 15, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6