Heart Happy (cathy_edgett) wrote,
Heart Happy

The Editorial Opinion of the NY Times -

Again, I place this in the category of our inability to have an accessible freeway exit 365 days a year and we don't and we live ten minutes away from a major city in the world.  Last year we were without power for five days.   When the wind blows, the power goes out.  It usually doesn't take five days for them to fix it, but every few years it does, and so the food in the refrigerator spoils and we camp a bit, live by candle and firelight and come to further appreciate the dark, as we also enjoy hanging out with our neighbors at the local Starbucks which almost always has power.  It must share a circuit with the fire station.  

Of course, this year, until the rain comes, we cannot have a fire.  Fires are banned right now because of the air quality.  If you don't pay attention to the news and know that, and you light a fire, you get a warning, and the next time, a fine, a fine of $2000.00, so it is best to stay aware.   I wait for the rain, which is predicted to arrive this weekend and possibly even bring snow to our local peaks.  

Again, I wonder why the people who work for the car companies didn't say we want to make cars that are fuel efficient, and I wonder why we locals don't demand a full moon high tide solution, but we don't.   The tides go down, just as gas prices go down,  and we forget.


What’s Plan B?

Published: December 11, 2008

Senate Republicans determined to block the $14 billion rescue package for Chrysler and General Motors have trotted out predictable rhetoric about the dangers of Big Government. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, warned on Thursday that “a government big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough to take everything we have.”

As the American economy sinks into the deepest recession in a generation — caused in large part by this sort of anti-government and anti-regulatory dogma — it would be folly to allow the ideologues to undermine efforts to pull the country out.


Let’s be clear. The rescue plan passed by the House this week won’t fix the ailing automakers that are hemorrhaging cash as sales plummet. But allowing one or more of these companies to collapse into bankruptcy proceedings could potentially cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and even greater economic havoc.

Furthermore, if the Detroit carmakers are going to survive, they will have to completely overhaul the way they do business — and start building cars that people will buy. For that, they are going to need new leadership, a rational assessment of their long record of failure and, yes, a much larger infusion of government cash.

The short-term bailout not only buys time, it uses the time to build a long-term restructuring plan. The incoming Obama administration can then decide whether to invest billions more to truly rebuild the industry.

Nobody — including the carmakers — fully understands the depth of Detroit’s problems or how much money it will take to dig them out. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, told Congress last week that rescuing the companies would cost taxpayers $75 billion to $125 billion over the next two years. And that’s probably optimistic.

As sales fall, the more taxpayer money the automakers will need to survive, and the more doubts will arise about whether it makes sense to support failing car companies that can’t sell cars.

Before it makes any decisions, the next administration will need a lot more information. The current plan calls for a government car czar who would have full access to the automakers’ finances. By the end of the year, the czar would establish benchmarks to evaluate the carmakers’ progress in restructuring.

The official would bring the companies together with creditors, workers, dealers and suppliers to hammer out a plan to restore their long-term viability. The various stakeholders would be given until March 31 to reach such a deal. And the czar could use the threat of forcing them into bankruptcy proceedings to encourage all parties to reach an acceptable agreement.

The bill has big weaknesses. Most importantly, it fails to demand that top executives of any car company receiving taxpayer money step down. These companies need new managers who are not wedded to Detroit’s failed strategies. And the bill doesn’t set any conditions to ensure automakers invest in fuel-efficient vehicles. Any long-term plan must make sure the automakers don’t simply keep making gas-guzzling trucks and sport-utility vehicles, whose popularity — unfortunately — has recovered as gas prices have declined.

We were distressed by reports late Thursday night that Senate Republicans were close to scuttling the deal. Despite all the flaws of the temporary fix, we don’t see a long-term solution without it.


  • Return -

    I haven't been here in awhile and I return today to learn there is a "new post editor". I start to try it and then go back to the old. I am…

  • It's Morning!

    I've been here at Live Journal since October, 2005. I started it to keep in touch with family and friends as I went through cancer treatment.…

  • The sun is shining!

    Where I live the sun is shining and the buds have popped out so the plum trees are waving white. We've had months of rain, record breaking rain and…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment