I agree with Mitt Romney:

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk. In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

I’ve been listening to C-SPAN radio coverage of the Congressional hearings on the way home from work yesterday and today.  Some good points made, but I haven’t heard any of the legislators talking about a “managed bankruptcy,” which makes the most sense to me.  Mr. Romney hits the nail on the head: the government should guarantee that financing will be available to fund bankruptcy restructuring, and do whatever it can to guarantee that warranties will be honored.

And that’s it.   

Last year, General Motors paid their UAW employees an average of $71 an hour (wage plus benefits).

The equivalent figure for Toyota (in their U.S. plants) was $47.

Any questions?

Will the Democrats have the cohones to include significant concessions from the UAW in their bailout plan?

Stop laughing, I’m serious.

If not, we would be PRINTING BILLIONS to merely delay the inevitable bankrupcy.

Raise your hand if you are in favor of this.

I am voting for Obama tomorrow because:

- Sarah Palin as President of the United States is a scary thought.  John McCain made a huge gamble with his VP pick.  He lost.  Anne Applebaum:

The appointment of Palin — inspired by his closest colleagues — turned out not to be a “maverick” move but, rather, a concession to those Republicans who think foreign policy can be conducted using a series of cliches and those in his party who shout down the federal government while quietly raking in federal subsidies.

- The anti-intellectualism of the pro-Palin right wing is deeply offensive to me.

- Although I still have serious problems with Obama’s 20 year relationship with his former pastor, I think that Obama is 51% decent guy and only 49% opportunist.   

- Although Obama is inexperienced, I believe he is smart enough to surround himself with other smart and more experienced people, and smart enough to take their advice.

- We have a large budget deficit.  The candidate with the more realistic revenue plan gets major points in my book.  The previously fiscally responsible McCain has drunk a little too much “no-tax” Kool Aid. 

- Our health care system is broken.  I am a raving liberal in this respect: I think that all American citizens should have at least some basic health insurance.  Emphasis on “basic” so we don’t break the piggy bank.  I think Obama’s health care plan is a good one overall.  Of course the devil is in the yet-to-be-worked-out details. 

- There is something to be said for electing the candidate the rest of the world wants to vote for.  No country in Europe would elect a black man for dogcatcher (because they are bigger racists than we are), but they all want Obama as the next President of the United States. In the “post-American world,” Obama will start on second base when dealing with our friends.  

- And as for dealing with our enemies, see number 4 above. 

I just got a robo call from the Republican Party of Virginia.

The voice was garbled and stuttered, like audio on an underpowered computer trying to play a video.

The GOP can’t even do robo calls right.

Oh, how the mighty make a big thud when they fall

Ted Stevens, “lion” (a.k.a. bully) of the Senate, is found guilty of seven felony counts

Here is the most depressing bit:

“In another state, he would be toast,” said Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “In Alaska, you gotta make him a significant underdog.”

Wonder if he is capable of doing the honorable thing and quitting his Senate race.

Once every couple of months, my fav columnist Robert Samuelson reminds us to keep our eye on the entitlement reform ball.  Both candidates are kissing up to AARP, but McCain retains a smidgen of integrity:

Look at the September-October issue of AARP the Magazine, which has a “voters’ guide.” In it, Obama and McCain receive the opportunity to check boxes agreeing or disagreeing with AARP’s positions on 11 issues. Obama checked agreement on 10. He’s not an agent of change but a staunch defender of the status quo. Indeed, he would expand subsidies to the elderly by exempting from federal income taxes anyone 65 and over with $50,000 income or less. McCain pandered, too. In his video, he praised AARP effusively. He didn’t mention benefit cuts. But he hedged. He said today’s system is “broken” and shouldn’t be inflicted on future generations. In the voters’ guide, he didn’t check “agree” or “disagree” but merely described his positions. The hint is that, as president, he might try to curb retirement spending. There’s a precedent; McCain voted against the Medicare drug benefit.

Samuelson’s advice to the younger generation:

You need to appeal to the shame and guilt of older Americans by reminding them that their present self-absorption is not a victimless exercise. Only if older Americans act on their rhetorical pledges of worrying about their children will the political climate change. If you — the young — don’t stand up for yourselves, believe me, your elders and your politicians won’t.

Wonder if the financial meltdown will finally get anyone serious about entitlement reform. 

After the election of course …

9:08: Lower taxes for everyone!  Hope the Chinese will be nice enough to keep paying our bills for us.

9:11: McCain is repeating himself, and is, for the first time in the debates, acting like a 72 year old.  Which, when noticeable, makes us all think harder about that VP pick of his. 

9:13: McCain: “If no-one likes taxes, let’s not raise taxes on anyone.”  Zowee.  That statement wins the populist demagogue award for the night.  So far.

9:15: Obama: “We have been living above our means … I have been a strong proponent of pay-as-you-go” … first acknowledgement of fiscal reality, 15 minutes into the debate. 

9:21: McCain: “Senator Obama, I’m not President Bush … if you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.”  McCain is getting warmed up and now looks a whole 5 years younger.

9:25: Bob Schiefer: “Are you willing to say to each other in person what your campaigns are saying in your ads?” … McCain is scoring points on the public financing issue, and refuting negative Obama ads.  McCain is making better points, even though his campaign has gone more negative than Obama’s.

9:32: Everybody wants to talk about health care.  But no one is actually talking about their health care plan.

9:36: Obama is doing a good job burying Ayers and ACORN.   

9:39: McCain is still going after Ayers.  This is painful to watch.  My bride just said, “I think I just made up my mind”

9:43: Obama wins the VP contest.  Because nothing either candidate could say would change the fact that Biden is prepared to be President and Palin is not. 

9:47: Points for McCain re: Obama’s comment about unilateral renegotiation of NAFTA.  Also dealing with nuclear waste.  Obama is making motherhood, apple pie, and electric car comments.  Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth about free trade.  Now he is making misleading comments about the Columbian free trade agreement.  This is my single biggest problem with Obama’s policies — if you are in bed with big labor, you are unable to speak the truth on trade issues.  And this could tank our economy (assuming it survives the current crisis).

10:00:  Tie game on health care.  Both candidates are making the same misleading statements about the other’s health care plan that they have been making for months.  The good news is that both candidates are offering significant health care reform that makes sense compared to the status quo.  Obama’s is more risky but has a higher potential if successful.  Question is, which has more chance of becoming law? 

10:07:  McCain thinks abortion law should be left up to the states.  I did not realize this.  I knew he was “pro-life” but didn’t know he actually wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.  This is a big problem for me.  Meanwhile, Obama’s “common ground” comments on abortion reflect my views.  

10:18:  Education question for Obama: where is additional money for head start going to come from?  On the other hand, I’m all for his plan to give college grants in exchange for national service (as opposed to giving grants for nothing).

10:24:  McCain doesn’t know Michelle Obama’s name.  Another senior moment.  Another reflection on the concept of President Palin.  

10:30: Neither closing statement makes any waves.

10:31: McCain is apparently incapable of a calm, collected handshake with a respectful eyeball-to-eyeball connection at the end of the debate.  How come?

Overall: Another draw … but I’m still leaning Obama.

Rays stomp the BoSox 9-1 to lead the American League Championship Series 2 games to 1

Boston Red Sox 2008 payroll: $133M

Tampa Bay Rays 2008 payroll: $43M

Official Dead Armadillos flaming moderate baseball philosophy: Always root for the most efficient team

… your boss asks you to go to a conference in Las Vegas and you try to talk him out of it

Anne Applebaum gets the prize for best sound bite on the op-ed page today:

Washington, however stuffy it may once have been, is no longer in need of “a little bit of reality from Wasilla Main Street.”  Washington is in need of expertise, management experience, long-term thinking and more political courage — from wherever in the country it happens to come. More to the point, Washington needs people who think like national politicians and not like spokesmen for the local business executives who fill their reelection coffers and the local party hacks who plan their campaigns.  Let’s be frank: The “bailout” bill was passed last week not because members of Congress decided it would work but because it was stuffed with the pork, perks and tax breaks without which no piece of legislation, however important to the nation as a whole, can now pass.  Maybe it’s unfair to call that “small-town” thinking, but it sure is small-minded. And small-mindedness, not snobbery, is the dominant mind-set of 21st-century Washington.

Read the whole piece.

So we’re listening to the NBC pundits immediately after the VP debate tonight, while the families are doing the meet and greet on stage, and somebody (not Tom Brokaw) says in reference to Gov Palin’s performance that she showed good debating skills by not answering the questions she didn’t want to answer.

Excuse me? 

Has public discourse sunk so low that we are now grading candidates for national office UP for ducking questions?  God help us.

Gwen Ifill asked each candidate to discuss their achilles’ heal.  Gov Palin didn’t even pretend to start answering the question before she launched into her 27th speech on what maverics she and Senator McCain are.  Senator Biden gave a thoughtful response. 

Everyone knows that during a job interview, when you get asked about your strengths and weaknesses, you actually have to talk intelligently about your weaknesses.  Saying you don’t have any, or coming up with a really lame one, is seen as evidence that you are either a megalomaniac, or dishonest. 

Both are generally considered a bad thing. 

I’m not smart enough to figure out the economics of the credit crisis, but the political angle is fascinating.  I was listening to Senators pontificate on CSPAN radio during the drive home, and it is pretty clear from their comments that public opinion is getting to them … along the lines of ”Don’t you dare punish me, Joe Taxpayer, for the irresponsible choices of fat cat bankers and McMansion homeowners that were living beyond their means.”

No doubt two Senators in particular will soon be falling all over themselves to demonstrate how they are going to stick it to the big bad Wall Street mavins, more than the other guy is going to stick it to the bid bad Wall Street mavins. 

Will be interesting to see how they are going to do that while they are simultaneously printing $700B.

Joe Biden gave a whopping 0.3% of his income to charity last year. 

The average American household (that contributes to charity) gives about 3%.

So, the average American household that contributes to charity is 10 times as generous as Joe Biden.

I agree with this assessment of how the McCain campaign is embarrassing itself:

It’s hard to think of a presidential campaign with a wider chasm between the seriousness of the issues confronting the country and the triviality, so far anyway, of the political discourse. On a day when the Congressional Budget Office warned of looming deficits and a grim economic outlook, when the stock market faltered even in the wake of the government’s rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when President Bush discussed the road ahead in Iraq and Afghanistan, on what did the campaign of Sen. John McCain spend its energy? A conference call to denounce Sen. Barack Obama for using the phrase “lipstick on a pig” and a new television ad accusing the Democrat of wanting to teach kindergartners about sex before they learn to read …

… John McCain is a serious man who promised to wage a serious campaign. Win or lose, will he be able to look back on this one with pride? Right now, it’s hard to see how.  

I was a McCain guy in 2000.  Now McCain is letting Steve Schmidt turn the straight talk express into a parody of itself.  A big part of getting the independent vote has to do with straight talk.  Litmus test: Do I believe you believe what you are saying?  And are you talking about the issues, or are you spinning some triviality to score points with the voters that aren’t really paying attention? 

Don’t bullshit me, because that scares me … and if you do I’ll vote for the other guy just because you are bullshitting me.  I will vote for the lowest-bullshit-quotient candidate.

Combined with McCain’s not-quite-ready-for-POTUS VP pick, who had better not get anywhere near my daughters with her abstinance-only sex-ed and her “let’s teach creationism along with evolution in public schools” … I’m leaning Obama these days.

But still not off the fence.  Looking forward to the debates.  

Candidates, take note.  This proposal, written by one Republican and one Democrat, is real bipartisanship.  Practical answers to tough questions that cover the concerns of both parties.  In this case, an offshore (and ANWR) drilling proposal that funnels the cash to clean energy research:

To achieve a huge net win for the environment, the federal revenue from future oil and gas production should be placed in a trust fund and used to foster a clean energy future for America. This must supplement, not replace, other environmental commitments we have made. We should jump-start the necessary federal investments for this secure energy future by immediately issuing bonds (perhaps called Energy Independence Bonds) against this expected revenue. Issuing such bonds would guarantee that our remaining oil and natural gas revenue is actually used to establish energy alternatives. The bonds would have to be repaid with that revenue.

They also suggest that the states involved will receive enough economic benefit from new jobs and additional tax revenue, and that all the royalties should go into this federal pot.  Obviously this won’t be popular with the states affected, but I agree with the authors that “we are all in this together” and therefore national interest trumps further windfalls for individual states.

Seems like a no brainer. 

VP nominee Sarah Palin, circa mid-1980’s:

My beautiful bride, also named Sara, circa mid-1980’s:

Both support drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Both really like Salmon

Both played basketball in high school

Both are nicknamed “Barracuda”

OK, I made up that last one.  Though a few days every month, that moniker is not very far off … 

I’m a big Donald Miller fan.  Don’t miss his benediction at the DNC:

 He also posted his email exchange with Barak Obama on his new blog.

Alabama has announced that starting in January 2009, state employees will have their body mass index (BMI) measured, and obese employees that are not able to reduce their BMI to certain limits after a full year will have to pay an extra $25 a month for their health insurance.  Oh-by-the-way, single employees pay no monthly premium, and the family plan is $180 a month, so it’s not like this will break the bank.

Of course, the public health nanny state is not happy about this.  They say we should use carrots, not sticks.  They say that some overweight-but-fit people are healthier than some normal-weight-but-unfit people, so therefore it is not fair to use BMI to discriminate.

Too bad.  At some point common sense needs to enter the picture.

I attended UCLA for my Masters of Public Health, so I am a product of public health nanny state ground-zero.  I had brilliant professors who were leaders in their field, and super-talented classmates.  It was a rich academic and social experience.  I came out of it with a firm belief that we need to figure out a way to provide universal healthcare to our citizens. 

But I also came out of it with an understanding that the public health nanny state is so far on the lefty fringe that most of their policy recommendations are not grounded in reality.  They think that rich people should not be able to buy more health care than poor people — never mind that rich people can buy more of everything else.  This usually translates into “Cadillac health care for everyone” policy proposals that are unaffordable and therefore politically D.O.A. 

And, as seen in this “fat tax” example, they are not big believers in systematically incentivizing personal responsibility for health outcomes.  Because, after all, individuals really shouldn’t be held responsible for anything … just McDonalds. 

This Alabama plan is a good first step.  Hope it holds up in court.

Kathleen Parker is not happy with the fact that mega church pastor Rick Warren interviewed the candidates last Saturday:

At the risk of heresy, let it be said that setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister — no matter how beloved — is supremely wrong.

 

83% of Americans describe themselves as Christians.  And to top that, 100% of the presidential candidates describe themselves as Christians.  So it’s not a big stretch of logic that at least 83% of Americans would be interested in hearing the candidates’ thoughts on their religion.  Given that Warren was not playing any favorites, and they were both asked the same questions, I fail to see the problem.

His format and questions were interesting and the answers more revealing than what the usual debate menu provides. But does it not seem just a little bit odd to have McCain and Obama chatting individually with a preacher in a public forum about their positions on evil and their relationship with Jesus Christ?

Ummm, no.  Let’s face it, a lot of people base their presidential vote on how they like and trust the candidate.  Similar religious views, or lack thereof, is a not-insignificant part of this.  Why WOULDN’T we have a forum like this to explore candidates’ religious views?  Why hasn’t it been done before?

What does that mean, anyway? What does it prove? Nothing except that these men are willing to say whatever they must — and what most Americans personally feel is no one’s business — to win the highest office.

Wow.  That’s pretty cynical.  On what is she basing her jaded assumption that the candidates “say whatever they must?”  And I’m guessing that most Americans would disagree with her characterization of “what most Americans personally feel is no one’s business.”  

Rick Warren sums the real issue up nicely:

Faith, he said, “is just a worldview, and everybody has some kind of worldview. It’s important to know what they are.”

Bingo.