U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's top choice to lead the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, CNN reported on Wednesday, citing multiple sources.

The Democratic governor, a supporter and campaigner for Obama's presidential campaign, had been reported to be on a short list of people to fill cabinet posts in the new administration.

Assuming she makes vetting and is confirmed, Janet will make a fantastic Secretary of DHS. Some of the skills and abilities I pointed out as qualifications for AG will serve her very well as Homeland Security.

Napolitano is well versed and experienced with constitutional law and civil rights, having been mentored as the hand picked protege of one of the country’s great Constitutional scholars and authorities, John P. Frank, one of the two legal fathers of the Miranda decision. She has sizable long term experience not only as the Arizona Attorney General (a huge office), but also as chief executive of an entire state government as Arizona Governor. Of critical significance, she was the US Attorney for the District of Arizona for six years under President Clinton, prior to her terms in state office as Arizona's AG and Governor.

The job ahead is going to, in addition to the legal skills, require someone with Federal experience and the established ability to manage a giant bureaucracy. Janet Napolitano has a very rare combination of background and experience to fit that bill. The attention to bureaucratic detail, not just in Washington DC, but in all of the 93 US Attorney district offices is going to have to be immense. Wholesale institutional change needs to be implemented, and malefactors rooted out.

Janet Napolitano has this ability in droves over any other candidate discussed for AG. She is spectacularly good at bureaucratic detail and getting big entities working as an efficient team. Janet has an incredibly feel good aura around her, and it is contagious to those working with and for her. She is a master team builder, both in terms of efficiency and competence as well as morale and attitude. Janet has already exhibited her turnaround skills in her transformation of the Arizona Executive branch, which was in shambles when she took over.

Additionally, as governor of a critical border state, and head of the National Governor's Association, Napolitano will have the credibility and experience with state governors that is necessary for many of the operations and coalitions that form the backbone of the DHS operation.

The best news of all is that there will finally be an honest and competent person in the critical post that Michael Chertoff has been defiling the last few years. It will will be good to bury the tenure of Skeletor and put that era behind us once and for all.

Janet is a first rate choice. She will make us, America and the Obama Administration proud.

So if GM goes bankrupt in January, as may happen, it may well have to sell itself off (unless the government guarantees the same kind of financing that it is refusing now). And I believe one company is one of the most likely--and indeed sensible--buyers: Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation, or SAIC, the Chinese company with which GM partners to do business in that country. 

Apparently, the Chinese thought so too.

Chinese carmakers SAIC and Dongfeng have plans to acquire GM and Chrysler, China’s 21st Century Business Herald reports today. [A National Enquirer the paper is not. It is one of China's leading business newspapers, with a daily readership over three million.] The paper cites a senior official of China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology– the state regulator of China’s auto industry– who dropped the hint that “the auto manufacturing giants in China, such as Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) and Dongfeng Motor Corporation, have the capability and intention to buy some assets of the two crisis-plagued American automakers.” These hints are very often followed with quick action in the Middle Kingdom. The hints were dropped just a few days after the same Chinese government gave its auto makers the go-ahead to invest abroad. And why would they do that?

A take-over of a large  overseas auto maker would fit perfectly into China’s plans. As reported before, China has realized that its export chances are slim without unfettered access to foreign technology. The brand cachet of Chinese cars abroad is, shall we say, challenged. The Chinese could easily export Made-in-China VWs, Toyotas, Buicks. If their joint venture partner would let them. The solution: Buy the joint venture partner. Especially, when he’s in deep trouble.

How's that bridge loan looking now, Richard Shelby? You want your Japanese manufacturers to be competing against cars assembled in China?

Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

Unlike that recommendation, his second recommendation is very sound.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Chrysler's Nardelli may make $1 million a year, GM's Rick Wagoner makes $2.2 million a year, and Ford's Mulally makes $2 million a year, plus truckloads of bonuses. I absolutely agree these guys should take a pay cut (and all but Mulally said yesterday they'd be willing to take them--Nardelli said he'd be willing to follow Lee Iacocca's $1/year example). But it is more likely that these guys will take pay cuts in case of a bridge than in bankruptcy. (Also, some of them have put real limits on executive compensation and benefits already.)

Aside from these two suggestions, though, breaking a promise to our seniors and cutting the pay of top executives, every suggestion he makes is something that at least one of the Big Two and a Half are already doing.

Mitt predictably starts--after spending a long paragraph talking about how his Daddy turned an auto company around--by calling for new labor agreements.

new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors

Which is, of course, what the UAW negotiated. Last year. While wages and benefits haven't yet been entirely equalized, they will be, probably by 2010.

Mitt's next idea is to get rid of management--recruit new guys from unrelated industries.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

I wonder whether Mitt told Mulally--recruited two years ago from the unrelated Boeing company--and Nardelli--recruited just last year from Home Depot and GE--that he considers them real auto industry insiders? That leaves Rick Wagoner as the sole auto industry insider of the three. Mitt? You want to fire Wagoner, be my guest. Though that's going to be just as easy to do as a condition of a bridge as it would be in bankruptcy.

Though you might want to think twice about firing Wagoner, since he's doing precisely what Mitt wants--investing in long-term products.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years.

Of course, as Jonathan Cohn persuasively argues, the Big Two and a Half are much more likely to be forced to focus on short-term profitability in bankruptcy than if they're working through a bridge with strings attached. So if you want long-term vision, you're better off advocating a bridge, not bankruptcy.

Finally, after advocating for renegotiating union contracts and pension guarantees, Mitt then insists you shouldn't renegotiate contracts with dealers.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

The American manufacturers have way more dealers right now than their sales can support; those excess dealers are one significant cause of price-cutting that eats at profit margins and destroys brands. Furthermore, our country will not be able to move toward electrical cars without changing the profit calculations of the dealers. There will be no automobile turnaround without renegotiating dealer contracts. Sure, renegotiating these contracts might be easier under bankruptcy (if bankruptcy were viable, which it's not), but that's the one thing that Mitt doesn't want to do.

In short, Mitt offers one good idea (cuts in executive salaries), one horrible idea (renege on pension promises to retirees), and refuses to do one more thing that needs to happen to turn around the auto industry.

I don't know whether he's just this dumb, this unaware of what has been going on in the auto industry for the last half decade. Or whether he just wanted to get on the NYT op-ed page so he could call for cutting union wages.

But I don't understand how this festival of stupidity is going to help him run for President in 2012.

When it comes to the netroots, Barack Obama has the long arm-short arm syndrome. He has taken much from us in terms of support, voice, momentum, money, footwork and energy. Obama has given little, if anything, in return to the netroots. Unless you count disdain and scorn. And pokes in the eye with a blunt stick.

Let's go through a bill of particulars, starting with oh, say, today:

Eric Holder: Eric Holder is a horrid choice for Attorney General. Looseheadprop knows this and gave her take earlier. Holder conspired with his friend Scooter Libby to get a pardon for Marc Rich; Obama must have been mighty impressed by that. Or maybe he was more impressed with Holder's ability to skate his Republican/Bush bigwig friends at Chiquita Brands for their complicity in paying millions of dollars to rightwing death squads in Colombia that murdered union leaders and workers. Uh, and then Chiquita paid off the other side. While they were probably smuggling narcotics for the CIA. Another excellent entry on the resume for Obama I guess. Oh, and Holder was not very popular with the career rank and file at DOJ when he was there; he was seen as very divisive. So we got that going for us. Just what is needed for the rotting carcass at DOJ that Bush/Cheney is leaving.

In short, hey, seriously, if you like the corporate apologist, rich people coddling, torturing approving and covering, illegal wiretapping loving, breakdown in the career ranks bullshit DOJ of the last eight years, you will absolutely love Eric Holder. He will, of course, be nominally better that Mukasey. If that is good enough for you, he is your guy! Thanks Barack!

Joe Lieberman: As y'all might have heard, Rape Gurney Joe Lieberman was ejected from the Democratic Caucus, er stripped of his DHS Chair, .... Oh, hell, Harry Reid kissed the sucker on both cheeks and thanked the back stabbing little prick for being magnanimous.

Now, how exactly did we come to the point to where the guy who bolted the party and actively campaigned side by side, hand in hand, for the better part of two years for the race baiting Republican shame-meister John McCain? Who caused this love to be given to one of the netroots' most hated men? Uh, that would be good old long arm-short arm Barack Obama.

Obama didn't just shaft the netroots though, he stuck the shiv in the American people by engineering Lieberman's retention of his DHS Chairmanship. That man should not be allowed in the same universe as that committee. The American people are entitled to a man that will do the freaking job. A great American city was drowned. People are dead. Tens maybe hundreds of thousands are effectively still homeless. Billions of dollars were wasted. He. Did. Freaking. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Say goodnight New Orleans, and tell Barack Obama thank you!

The FISA Lie: Barack Obama gave his word (likely to cravenly gain credibility with Russ Feingold, Wisconsin Democratic primary voters, and the netroots) that he was against retroactive telcom immunity and would filibuster any attempt to pass it through the Senate. Then, when his nomination was all but assured and the bill came up for a vote, Barack Obama showed his colors and shoved the shiv once again in the raw bloody back of the progressives and netroots. Obama turned on a dime and not only did not filibuster, it was his lead that Pelosi and Reid followed in ramming the craptastic FISA Amendments Act through with retroactive immunity for the Bush/Cheney criminals. Heckuva job Baracky! It is an action that is second nature for Obama; he literally seems to enjoy it. Hard to understand how Obama was not seen as a con man on the spot; mostly the desperate netroots needed a few more blade strokes I guess. Well, we have those now; can we start calling the progressive bashing Obama out for what he is yet?

More Particulars: Here are some more greatest hits from Barack Obama the progressive hater: Campaigning for Barrow in Georgia and against the wonderful progressive candidate, wobbliness on the auto bailout, lack of interest in pursuing torture and war crime offenders in the justice department and throughout the government, appointment of ultimate DLC centrist hack Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, agreement to offshore drilling and dissing of clean coal technology.....

The list is getting awfully long. Almost as long as Barack Obama's arm that he used to take our money and efforts to get himself elected. All we have seen is the short arm he has used to punch us in the face and collect street cred with villagers for having done so.

It is sickening. It is so bad that even Pat Buchanan (see video above) is feeling sorry for the progressive netroots and is calling on President-Elect Obama to at least have the mercy to throw a little bone. Looks like it will be a damn small bone.

Heckuva job Barack!

Interesting, Jim Bunning (crazy-KY) favors some bailout--so it sounds like he's siding with this constitutents like McConnell. 

Carper states that a GM bankruptcy wouldn't be Chapter 11, would be Chapter 7. Also notes that the auto industry has done a lot of the reorganization they're being called to make now--also mentions the UAW's concessions.

Liddy Dole (forcibly retired--NC) says it's all Fannie and Freddie's fault. There she is! Bust the unions!!

Menendez asks for them to take a responsibility--notes that the climate crisis should not come as a surprise. Slams them for opposing the CA exception on emissions.

Corker (a mix of auto companies-TN) actually comes off as fairly moderate.

Sherrod Brown: We need to help industries that make things.

Allard (retired by choice-CO): says that bailing out Detroit will be unfair to other workers in the industry.

Bob Casey: What is the cost of doing nothing? Invest in American worker. 

Bob Bennett (used to be ew's boss, sort of-UT): I'm not going to lecture, the Big Three is reducing capacity as quickly as they can. In favor of finding cash to continue. "Hourly workers are going to have to have their contracts renegotiated downward." [Though to his credit, that's not busting the union.]

Tester: I like iron. I like iron a lot. I had a hard time finding a pickup that was built in the US. That distresses me. I traded off a 2004, I took a loss of 3-4 MPH. That's ridiculous. [I agree, Tester!!] We've got to spend the money in the US--not in Canada. No matter how much money we put forth, if the business model isn't changed, you're going to fail.

Martinez: Failed business model. Use the energy funds.

Bayh: Michigan is greater Indiana. We've been taking steps, none of which appear in your Econ 101 text book (lists banks, insurance, credit cards, Fannie and Freddie). We should have invested in Lehman Brothers. If we allow 10s of thousands of ordinary Americans to lose their job, it will have unintended consequences, some of them severe. Probably not the right moment in our economic situation to allow that to take place. 

Crapo: We have to use the Committee process.

Stabenow:

I have to confess. Senator Stabenow is a pretty good Senator. But until this point of her speech, I wasn't convinced. She sounded like a booster--which her audience isn't going to buy. But she's reviewing the investments our competitors make (Germany, South Korea, China, etc) into their national car industry. And talking about the suppliers who also supply the military.  [Also, she's mis-stating the CAR study, which purports to calculate all job losses.] Her note that the PBGC is going to be on the line ought to get people thinking, as well. Notes that UAW has taken a 50% cut for wages for new workers. Labor cost gap between domestic and foreign automakers will be eliminated by end of UAW contract. Eliminated 50% of companies liabilities for health benefits. "Somebody has to make something in America. Credit Default Swaps aren't going to do it." We need to make sure we're not moving from foreign dependence on oil, to foreign dependence on technology, to foreign dependence on manufacturing.

Ron Gettelfinger: Starts with warning that PBGC would be responsible for pre-Medicare auto retirees. What the UAW has done. Commitment that retirees would not have to contribute to healthcare. Negotiate health care fund. Talks about safety record and quality records. "There is [sic] a lot of misconceptions out there about our unions." Have lost 47,000, and all but eliminated jobs banks.

Mulally (Ford): [I was at Dearborn the day after Mulally was hired. A lot of people complained about his payment package. But I do think he has made good decisions.] Well on our way to building a new Ford. Is there a competitive future for our auto industry. Is a bridge loan better than inaction. The answer to both of these is yes. As a newcomer to this industry, I have seen this in a different light. Boeing, transform commercial airplane business. More aggressive transformation. Aggressively restructure. Closing 17 plants and shedding 51,000 jobs. Balanced line-up. The best or among the best fuel economy with every new vehicle. Will introduce two new hybrids. Fusion hybrid beats Camry hybrid by 6 MPG. Enlarged production at truck plant and converting fuel efficient small cars.  We were profitable in the first quarter and were on our way to profitability. Eliminated all raises and bonuses. [That's going to help.] Suggest loans be structured in revolving format, to protect taxpayers. Must prepare ourselves for deteriorating economic environment. Domestic auto industry highly interdependent. 

Nardelli (Chrysler): Consumer loans, wholesale purchase, and Chrysler obligations, $4-5 billion/month. What happens with bankruptcy: We believe that retail sales will plummet dramatically, sales fell 37%, consumers leery of buying product from manufacturers not in existence. Our factories would be idled for significant period of time while we negotiated contracts with thousands of suppliers, would turn the whole financial equation upside down, where we'd have to buy COD and then build and wait for funds. Cost would be significantly higher in a Chapter 11 process than what we're asking from this committee. We cannot be sure we'd emerge from bankruptcy. Welcome govt as a shareholder. Cerberus would forgo any benefit from the upside that would happen with a govt loan. Taken out 30% of installed base. Reduced fix costs by $2.2 billion. Furloughed 32,000 employees (12,000 salaried employees). Through first half, exceeding targets. 

Wagoner (GM): Starts by describing his constituents, including employees, stockholders, retirees, and GM owners. GM has made a lot of progress. Since 2005, reduced fixed cost by 23%. Expect to reduce more. Between 2003-2010, reduce US hourly labor costs from 18B to 6B, President Gettelfinger has worked with us to have a competitive labor situation. Addressed pension and retiree cost in the US. Now matching or beating foreign competitors on productivity, quality, safety, and by 2010 will beat them on labor costs. Advanced propulsion technologies. More than twice nearest competitor in number of cars with 30 MPG cars. Running all out to get the Chevy Volt to market as soon as possible. We've addressed what we think were competitive short-comings, felt we were well on the road to turning around the American business. What exposes us to failure now is not our business plan, it's the global failure. America's real economy. We'll use this bridge to pay for essentials and taxes. In the process, we'll continue to reinvent the automobile by developing technologies like those in the Chevy Volt. The cost of bankruptcy would be catastrophic. This is about saving the US economy from a catastrophic collapse. It will produce enormous benefits later.

Morici (speaking against the bailout): It would be better to go through bankruptcy to produce cars at costs enjoyed by their competitors. Circumstances are different than 1979, when the US bailed out Chrysler. Today the Detroit 3 have achieved remarkable progress. But they still don't have costs quite as low as their Japanese competitors. There is no such thing as competitive enough in the auto industry. Either the costs are the same or they're not. Sooner or later one of them will walk down that path. I ask you to consider the example of AIG. Government ownership. Is $25 billion enough in the grand scale of things. Without a new labor agreement, the Detroit will lag in innovation. GM makes about the same number of cars as Toyota, it has a smaller development fund bc of the cost it bears. If you have less money to develop product, you will have less good products. If Chapter 11 is put off, the industry will continue to shrink. Chapter 11 is viable--they can't go out of business completely and then there be adequate cars to be sold. Talks about policy issues that could make it easier--but they won't work. Congress could give substantial support to the automakers. I would condition that on sharing patents. We could have a clunker trade-in program. There are things we can do to improve the efficiency of cars on the street. 

Dodd: There's no question that authority to use the TARP exists. Paulson--what is the point. What are the financial implications? Is there systemic risk?

Nardelli: Over 7-8B outstanding debt--those suppliers would be helpless in recovery of those funds. Dealers, over a billion of dollars of inventory in lots. Of top 100 suppliers, 96 are common to other companies. 

[I don't think Nardelli knows what "systemic risk" means. Maybe he should let someone else who knows what it means answer.]

Dodd: What mistakes did the industry make?

Mulally: The real run rate--the real demand rate--we're assuming that there is a lower run rate. 

Dodd: what might that be?

Mulally: We don't know, separating out the slowdown, we're going through vehicle by vehicle, possibility that over the long term less than 17 million.

Nardelli: Eliminated 4 vehicle nameplates--designed for Europe and sold in US. Chief customer officer. Improve performance, reliability, fit and finish. Move to remedy. Warranty costs gone down 25%. [Wow] Having spent time in housing industry, unbelievable bubble. Mistake Chrysler made, responding to customer that wanted bigger vehicles, chased that demand up. Moving as fast as we can to make it much more balanced profile. 

Wagoner: 03-05 period, fueled by low cost credit, under looser terms than would have been appropriate, wealth taken out of houses, trade up and buy vehicles. Within the industry, we had a structural issue. We have a lot of employees, obligations on healthcare, pressure to keep revenue quite high, had to reduce structural costs. We're all going to have to adapt to more realistic credit terms, less leasing. Energy prices have plummeted, but we don't believe that's going to last. A more likely trend volume probably 15.5 million,  and it could be lower. Planning business on much lower business than that.

Dodd: Let me respectfully suggest--you were providing the sources of credit. Some acknowledgment that that was going on in the auto industry. GMAC was provding that cerdit. Any acknowledgment that it was going to end up in this situation.

Gettelfinger: We have been tracking loans (about to say they managed it okay). Consumer payment on auto bills has been pretty good. 

Nardelli: Our credit company at the time didn't tell people you shouldn't buy a bigger vehicle. As Rick indicated if you look at delinquency, they're up, but not like housing industry. 

Mulally: we didn't offer easy credit, combine low interest prices, with low fuel prices, did incentivize big buying. 

Shelby: Why should we believe you can restructure now when you couldn't under more benign conditions. A lot of people think the model has failed. What would you do with the money if you were able to get $10 billion? What would you do with it specifically?

Wagoner: What's different? Our capacity in 2005 was 5 million, now that number will be 3.3 million--we've taken a huge chunk of capacity out. 

Shelby: Well why aren't you making money?

Wagoner: Costs to restructure. Hopefully we won't have to decrease another 30-40%. Market has plunged bc people can't get credit. 

Shelby: You weren't making money when you had cheap money a year ago.

Wagoner: When you take away charges for restructuring.

Shelby: What have you spent on restructuring. 

Wagoner: If we look at business going forward: 12 million next year, 13 the following, level out at 14.5 - 15. We can be profitable. 

Shelby: What would you say to people who've said "we've heard that before"?

Wagoner: I would take as evidence coming out of the labor agreement last year. Got good products. 

Shelby: Ford? And how are you going to pay this money back?

Mulally: We set out to build a sustainable business. The most important thing was make products that people valued. Best in quality, best in fuel efficiency, best value. Leverage all global assets, best in class small vehicles around the world. Bring online smaller more efficient vehicles. Improve quality--statistically equal or better than our Japanese competitors. On fuel efficiency, participate in energy indpendence act. We would be world class at fuel efficiency. Safety, Ford has more 5 star ratings than any other brands. 

Nardelli: Harbor report. 

Shelby: Familiar with that.

Nardelli: Spot on Toyota. As Ron said, our hours our pay per hour will be competitive, on vehicle production standpoint, we will be globally competitive. Consolidate dealers. Put brands under one roof. Taken structure down, assuming more conservatively than the other fellows. 11 million next year. Delayer organization expand employee control. Adding $400 on fit and finish. 

Shelby: What if you don't pay it back?

Morici: If you go to China where they've got a clean slate, they can compete with the Japanese. So long as you're downsizing, you'll have special charges forever. Chrysler is on par with Toyota. Ford is not by large margin, GM is not by 2/3 of that. It's not that they are not capable managers, but burdened by history. Must be on par with Honda in IN and work rules that puts them on par with Honda in IN. It is possible to accomplish drastic change. 

Shelby: How many model lines? How many are profitable?

Wagoner: 60.  About half are profitable. For lower cost vehicles it's harder to make money. That's changing.

Mulally: On brands, we have divested all other brands. We're losing money now, larger vehicles make more money. We'll be able to make money on all.

[Shelby doesn't know what he's asking here]

Nardelli: Three brands, 20 lines, eliminated several already. Newest products, new minivan, journey, truck, liberty, making money on variable cost basis. 

Carper: Notes that the Durango plant is operating way below capacity. Lay out confluence of events, to 2010, when labor savings really kick in. Carper has a Town and Country Minivan with 210,000 miles on it. Morici, what is unrealistic about what I just suggested?

Morici: Unrealistic that on sustainable basis that we'll sell 16 million any more. As a consequence they will be selling minivans. With the kind of buyouts the contract requires, an expanding group of manufacturers in the southeast--that's what's wrong with the margins.

Gettelfinger: Labor cost savings incremental, 50% pay cut, put them in 401K healthcare. For all employees. COLA and wage concessions in billion dollar range.

Carper: How do we tell taxpayers it's a good deal for them? 

Wagoner: between dealers and suppliers, affects every state. Take our commitments to ensure it's paid back and with interest. Expectations something addition, whether it's warrants or whatever. 

Carper: New administration in 63 days, 7 hours, and 4 minutes. Infrastructure development. Focus on hydrogen infrastructure? 

Bennett: Public capital would be patient in finance. I see the parallel here. We're being asked to put public capital into the auto industry, in the belief that as patient capital, it can be paid back over time. We have a contrarian here who says it's not going to happen.

Morici: Cost structure not aligned. I was working out. If labor cost differential was zero, your hypothesis would be correct.

Bennett: We're being asked to put public capital in, is it going to work. Even if wage is spot on, and all the other elements are the same as Honda of IN. 

Dodd: I want to know the total amount.

Menendez: Really hammering them on total numbers they'll need. 

Menendez: I hope you won't oppose CA's request for a waver.

Corker: We've got one of most important businessmen here, a dealer with about 300 employees. (I bet money I've been there...) I don't think you'd all be considered viable. Chrysler barely has a heartbeat. You've all created a pact, but you won't tell us what you've each asked for, though I think you did tell Mr. Levin. I'd like Gettelfinger to tell us which of the three should survive. I just want the numbers.

Gettelfinger: From best to worst? Ford, Chrysler, GM.

Corker: I've been a card-carrying union member, I don't have a problem with unions, well I do of course with card check. 

Wagoner: 80% of consumers would not consider buying a GM car if it were in bankruptcy. (Sounds like Chrysler was 95%, just guessing.)

Dodd defends union for paying people in layoffs. 

Casey: How would you spend the money, and on environmental question, fuel efficiency. How far advanced are you--a status report?

Mulally: We can make it a year, but we want the bridge in place so we can get it if we need it. As to environmental, we're making the combustion as efficient as possible while putting research in plug-in, electric, and then hydrogen. 

Tester: I've got to pee! And will this money be spent in the US?

Yesses all around.

Tester: Wagoner, you're in business in Russia, how can we be sure we're not sending this to Russia.

Wagoner: We're profitable overseas, they send money back here.

Mulally: We do bring profits from overseas back to the US.

Tester: Do you really need the money? If you can take money from other areas? Can't you do that in the short term?

Mulally: The reason we're here, with all the markets slowing down worldwide, we're giving you a status of the companies.

Wagoner: We have tried to repatriate the money from different countries. That played out over the last 60-90 days in W Europe, playing out now in Brazil, we have been very profitable in Brazil this year, but that's slowing down. 

Tester: Strings attached. CAFE standards. Any problem with that?

Mulally: We're going to meet CAFE.

Tester: mileage increase in trucks is minimal. I'm talking half tons. If you get those up your CAFE would go up significantly.

I agree, Tester, knew I liked you!!

Tester: you'd be opposed to string attached for bailout.

Tester: Lee Iaccoca took one dollar compensation. Would you be willing to do that?

Nardelli said yes. Wagoner said he already cut his salary 50%. Mulally hedged. 

Good question--seems we need to come back to that. 

Morici: Strings--the best would be to the nine largest banks.

Tester: has the $300 billion helped you?

Wagoner: We have been able to use the fed window, but not beyond that.

Nardelli and Mulally: No, none.

Dodd for Mikulski: Tax deduction for buying a new car?

Nardelli: We wouldn't turn down the help, but before you get the crisis, you have to buy a vehicle, the FICA scores are too high to qualify. Our biggest immediate challenge is to get, we must get the financial companies healthy. And certainly then the tax credit would be beneficial. 

Dodd: Executive compensation are pretty rich. [starts describing them] If we're going to be talking about an assistance here, it's very important that you understand teh public's reaction to this, it is the concern that people have that some people are subsidizing this. I can't tell you what sort of reaction we'd get from the public if they could be sure they're not going to pay to subsidize exorbitant salaries. 

William Ockham points to a new report on Rove and Bolten's refusal to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify about the firing of nine US Attorneys. The report itself mostly repeats old arguments, integrated with the results of the DOJ Inspector General's report on the firing.

Which means that the purpose of the report is more interesting--to me at least--than the content. The report basically advances the Senate case against Bolten and Rove, after the House's attempts to get Bolten and Miers and, arguably, Rove to testify were thwarted by the Appeals Court's stay on the House lawsuit. Since the House expires at the end of their term, their suit against the White House also expires. But the Senate doesn't. In other words, I believe this report  lays the ground work for continuing the battle in January. Rove may not be out of the woods yet, for having to testify about his wrong-doing on the US Attorney purge.

That said, I'm just as interested in the Republican response to Leahy's move, though.

Senators Arlen "Scottish Haggis" Specter and Chuck Grassley have decided that--though they originally voted to hold Bolten and Rove in contempt--they don't want to be a part of this report moving forward.

Although we supported the Committee’s efforts in the U.S. Attorney removal investigation, including the contempt resolutions voted upon last year, we cannot join the Majority in this Report. We both voted in favor of the contempt resolutions regarding Messrs. Bolten and Rove after staff and Member consultation produced resolution text that: (1) had bipartisan support; (2) identified every fact and element necessary to charge contempt of Congress under 2 U.S.C. § 194; (3) was consistent with Committee precedent; (4) contained no surplussage that could arguably jeopardize or undermine the enforceability of the Committee’s action; and (5) was fair to the due process rights of the prospective contempt defendants. However, so much time has passed that the matter is now somewhere between moot and meaningless. Had there been any intention to pursue Senate action, these procedural steps would have been taken soon after the resolutions of contempt were approved. The filing of this report—fourteen months after Attorney General Gonzales resigned, eleven months after the contempt resolutions were approved and a mere two months before a new administration takes office—will likely prove superfluous.

Did they see enough in the DOJ Inspector General's report to get worried about where this is leading? Do they recognize that--with a likely 59 Democratic Senators next term, one of the two of them may well be the deciding vote to either filibuster or vote in favor of contempt? Regardless, they seem more concerned with disowning their interest in finding out the background to the US Attorney firings than they do about setting precedent for oversight. 

Barack Obama, you'd do well to make note of that.

And, just for shits and giggles, there's the response of the wingnut crowd on the SJC: Senators Kyl, Sessions, Brownback, and Coburn. They use their dissent to Leahy's report as an opportunity to cite Democrats denying a need to subpoena Bill Clinton about a blowjob. Woohoo! And even more amusingly, they take several pages--sourced almost exclusively to Powerline Blog--to claim that vote fraud is real and dangerous and very very evil. Including such wisdom as:

ACORN tends to target areas where it believes that it can register Democratic voters, such as parks, public-assistance agencies, and liquor stores

Just in case you were wondering, that's what the Republican caucus in the Senate has come to, parroting Powerline to retroactively justify the US Attorney purge, while ignoring Republican governors Charlie Crist and Tim Pawlenty's statements denying vote fraud is a problem. No wonder the Republican party is in trouble--they give Powerline more credibility than two of their most prominent governors!

I'm also fascinated by the role of Mitch McConnell--with McCain's electoral embarrassment and John Boehner's imminent ouster, the leader of the Republican party. McConnell, of course, represents an auto state--a pretty fascinating auto state, in fact, one that has a bunch of union manufacture of American products, as well as non-union manufacture of efficient Japanese cars. So does Mitch lead the opposition to the bailout--and oppose the interests of thousands of his constituents? Or does he support it, presenting an awkward defection for the Republican campaign to break the unions?

Apparently, if you're Mitch McConnell, you chose option "C," none of the above. Instead, if this article from McConnell's state is any indication, you hide.

The article cites,

• William Parsons Jr., who organizes the annual Global Automotive Conference in Kentucky
• Ken Troske, director of the University of Kentucky's Center for Business and Economic Research
• Toyota spokesman Mike Goss
• Laurie Harbour-Felax, an industry observer and president of the Harbour-Felax Group
• Kristin Dziczek, a researcher at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich

And of course,

• Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala

But no mention of the hometown Senator and the most powerful Republican in the country, Mitch McConnell.

I've got unconfirmed sightings of Mitch in a spider-hole in Iraq, but I'm still working to confirm that report.

• Short-term Operating Plan – The automaker must submit a short-term operating plan that describes the intended use of the loans, including the commitment of resources to develop a long-term restructuring plan and repayment of the loan to taxpayers with interest.

• Long-Term Restructuring Plan – By March 31, 2009, loan recipients must submit to Treasury an acceptable restructuring plan for long-term viability and international competitiveness, including meeting enhanced fuel efficiency standards and for advanced technology vehicle manufacturing,and restructuring of existing debt. 

• Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance – All executive compensation restrictions from TARP apply to loan recipients for the duration of the loan plus the following additional restrictions:
  • No bonuses to employees making more than $200,000 (which Treasury will adjust for inflation).
  • No golden parachutes under any circumstances.
  • No compensation plan that could encourage manipulation of reported earnings to enhance compensation.

• Warrants – Treasury must obtain warrants from each loan recipient (or economic equivalent in the case of a privately held firm) equal to 20 percent of the loan or such greater percentage as may be determined by Treasury in consultation with the Oversight Board. 

• Dividends – Recipients may not pay any dividends for duration of the loan.

• Acceleration of Repayment for Failure to Comply – If a company receiving a loan fails to prepare an acceptable restructuring plan, the Treasury can demand accelerated repayment of the loan.

• Terms of Loans:  
  • Term:  7 years (or longer as may be determined by the Oversight Board). 
  • Interest Rate: 5% for first 5 years and 9% thereafter.
  • Super Seniority: All other obligations and liabilities of a recipient will be subordinate to the loan—putting the taxpayer in the first position for repayment.
  • No prepayment penalty.

I'm most interested in requirement for the March 31, 2009 long-term restructuring plan. The demands on fuel efficiency should be more precise. And the emphasis on "international" profitability--rather than "domestic" profitability is a bit of a gimmick, IMO. GM will be able to show international profitability a lot quicker than it will be able to show domestic profitability because of its ongoing legacy costs and the health care costs that it bears but some of its competitors don't. 

I'm going to go read the draft bill now--what are your thoughts on this?

This should be fun.

After all, it's telling enough that the government doesn't want us to see the search warrant application. And one of the reasons the government didn't want to release the materials is because it wants to keep the identity of a confidential informant secret; I do hope we'll be able to tell whether they had something more than people who had analyzed the writing on the envelopes to point to Hatfill. 

But given how flimsy the government's case against Ivins remains, I look forward to seeing what they were thinking back earlier in this process.

Pro-Bailout

Carl Levin (and Jennifer Granholm and the rest of the MI delegation, both Democrat and Republican): Particularly given John Dingell's current focus on retaining his Chairmanship, Levin has taken the lead on championing a bailout for the auto industry. Levin has said he would be willing to discuss hard conditions on the industry--and already advocates more oversight than the financial bailout--though he has not committed to all the oversight some would like.

Barney Frank: Frank will submit the counter-part to Levin's bailout proposal today. He advocates even stronger conditions than Levin and than the conditions place on the finance bailout.

Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama: Both the Speaker and the President-elect first floated a unique bailout but now (presumably realizing a unique bailout won't get done), want money from TARP. Both have advocated significant oversight and conditions on any bailout. Both are trying to prevent the $25 retooling fund be turned into a bridge loan, because they want to make sure the retooling happens as well.  

George Voinovich: Unlike John Boehner, Voinovich is putting his constituents ahead of ideology. Given that he is up for re-election in 2010, he may be thinking of how the populist Sherrod Brown trounced Mike DeWine in 2006.

Middle Ground

George Bush: Bush supports a bailout, but would like to use the $25 billion that was supposed to be used for retooling factories to produce more efficient cars rather than tapping into TARP or providing new funds.

Mitch McConnell: Like Bush, McConnell would be willing to consider supporting a repurposing of the $25 billion targeted for energy efficiency, but not new funds. McConnell is in a fairly tough place on these issues. While I'm sure he'd love to bust the UAW, he's got a bunch of auto plants in his state--with a remarkable mix of both Japanese and American manufacturers. Significantly, two key Ford plants in KY will be idling for 5 months over the holidays.

Kit Bond: Bond, who like Voinovich is up for re-election in a swing state in 2010, wants to save the jobs of Missourians, but wants to look tough at the same time.

Anti-Bailout

Richard Shelby: Shelby is the lead opponent of any kind of bailout and will, if pushed, demand a series of totally unrealistic conditions to try to thwart any kind of bailout. Partly, Shelby holds this position because as a good Republican he'd love to bust the UAW. More importantly, though (and something that the media appears either uninterested or unaware of), his stance, if successful, would give the major foreign manufacturers in his state a big competitive advantage. Of note, Shelby likes to say the Big Three have a failed business model, but he fails to disclose that most of the cars built in his state are the same behemoth SUVs and Trucks that most people believe are a big part of the failed Big Three model.

John Boehner: Boehner opposes the bailout, claiming the plan doesn't move the auto industry back towards competitiveness. I assume this is code for "free me of the UAW," since many of Ohio's workers are union auto employees.

Jim Cooper: Democratic Blue Dog Congressman from TN opposes the bailout, calling for conditions on it. TN is another state with auto manufacturing--both the old Saturn plant and Nissan and Volkswagen plants.

John Kyl: In addition to Richard Shelby, Kyl was the other Republican attacking a bailout yesterday. Kyl, of course, is the second-ranking Republican in Senate leadership after Mitch McConnell. I take his appearance on the Sunday shows to be a bit of a surrogate for McConnell, who doesn't want to take the lead on opposing a bailout, though that's just gut feel.