There's A Hydrogen Powered Car In Your Future-- If You Live Long Enough

The History Channel has been ultra-parsimonious with online clips from their series The Men Who Built America and there are so many bit and pieces I wish I could share here-- like how Rockefeller, Carnegie and J.P. Morgan sat down in 1896 and decided populist Democrat William Jennings Bryan was too dangerous to their financial empires and they would have to underwrite stealing the election for corporate whore William McKinley. Another few scenes I have searched and searched for on YouTube-- in vain-- show how ruthless Oil Baron John D. Rockefeller, when confronted with the rise of a new energy source-- electricity-- tried every trick in the book to discredit it, undermine it, and destroy the industry in its crib.

I drive a 2009 Toyota Prius. I love it for the fuel efficiency-- I fill up once a month-- and because it's quiet and does everything I want a car to do. But I always feel kind of funny driving a car that isn't made in America. Lee Rogers, the guy who ran against Buck McKeon last year, has been trying to talk me into getting a Chevy Volt, a fully-electric car, which is what he drives. He even did a guest post about the Volt for us last April. And my friend Daisy-- plus a neighbor down the street who has one-- have been trying to persuade me that the way to go is the new Tesla sedan. It does zero to sixty as fast as a BMW M5... but its effective range is 265 miles per gallon.

The financial (and other) incentives in states like California make it a no-brainer to buy an electric car and I'm on the verge of trading in the Prius and picking between the Volt and the Tesla. The question raised yesterday by Reuters got my attention though. They're asking if electric cars are heading towards another dead end. Actually, the article isn't asking; it's asserting. They claim hydogen-powered cars will overtake electric cars. No one is mentioning John D. Rockefeller but the conventional wisdom is that "consumers continue to show little interest in electric vehicles, which dominated U.S. streets in the first decade of the 20th century before being displaced by gasoline-powered cars... [due to] high cost, short driving range and lack of charging stations."

The public's lack of appetite for battery-powered cars persuaded the Obama administration last week to back away from its aggressive goal to put 1 million electric cars on U.S. roads by 2015.

The tepid response to EVs also pushed Nissan's high-profile chief executive, Carlos Ghosn, perhaps the industry's most outspoken proponent of battery cars, to announce in December a major strategic shift toward more mainstream gasoline-electric hybrids, which overcome many of the shortcomings of pure EVs.

The move was widely seen as a tacit acknowledgement by Ghosn that his all-or-nothing, multibillion-dollar bet on EVs is falling far short of his ambition to sell hundreds of thousands of battery-powered Nissan Leafs.

Instead, Nissan plans to follow rival Toyota Motor Co, the world's largest purveyor of hybrids, which now is poised to leapfrog pure EVs altogether to pursue what might be the next big green-tech breakthrough: pollution- and petroleum-free fuel-cell cars that convert hydrogen to electricity.

Vice Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, the "father of the Prius" who helped put hybrids on the map, said he believes fuel-cell vehicles hold far more promise than battery electric cars. "Because of its shortcomings-- driving range, cost and recharging time-- the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for most conventional cars," said Uchiyamada. "We need something entirely new."

In the race to identify the Next Big Thing in automotive technology, the stakes are enormous.

For example, Nissan, with French partner Renault, has committed $5 billion for development and manufacture of EVs and batteries-- a risky bet that could take years to pay off-- while Toyota has spent an estimated $10 billion or more over the past 16 years to develop, build and market an ever-expanding range of hybrids, led by the popular and now profitable Prius.

While neither Nissan nor Toyota is likely to pull the plug on electric cars, it is clear from their recent moves that both companies are looking beyond EVs to meet future transportation needs.

Both automakers began advanced green-car engineering programs in the mid-1990s, with Toyota introducing the first-generation Prius hybrid and Nissan unveiling the battery-powered Altra in late 1997.

Toyota brought the Prius to the United States in 2000, but it took Nissan another 10 years to follow the low-volume Altra and other modest electric-car projects such as the Hypermini with the handsomely funded 2010 launch of the Leaf.

With Uchiyamada overseeing continuous refinement of the Prius, Toyota took a 10-year lead in the green-car derby. Along the way, though, Toyota effectively subsidized billions of dollars in development, manufacturing and marketing costs through the first two generations of the Prius, according to former Toyota executives.

While it took the Toyota hybrid six years to catch fire with U.S. consumers, the latest sales data points to the widening chasm between the two companies' radically different approaches to electrification.

In the past year, Toyota has broadened its hybrid portfolio to 12 models, including four versions of the Prius, now in its third generation. Toyota in 2012 sold 327,413 hybrids in the United States and 1.2 million globally. Worldwide sales of its hybrids now approach 5 million.

The Prius accounts for more than half of those sales, making it the most successful green car in history and one of the few exceptions to the public's yawning indifference to green vehicles and technology. The Leaf, on the other hand, has been the rule rather than the exception.

Nissan unveiled the Leaf two years ago and to date has sold just under 50,000 worldwide. It sold 9,819 last year in the United States, well under its target of 20,000.

As part of a year-end sales push, Nissan slapped incentives of almost $6,000 on the Leaf, and in January slashed the starting price by more than $6,000, to $29,650. Some Nissan dealers in Los Angeles are advertising Leaf lease rates as low as $199 a month with $1,999 down, according to industry research firm TrueCar.

"When new technologies are launched, sales do not grow as quickly as everyone expects," said Mitsuhiko Yamashita, Nissan executive vice president and head of research and development. But "with EV technologies continuously improving and with prices falling, there is a possibility that sales could explode."

That isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

Nissan may be mildly encouraged that the Leaf is the best-selling pure EV in the United States. But total EV sales last year were only 14,687, representing 0.1 percent of total U.S. sales of 14.5 million. In comparison, hybrid sales in 2012 climbed to 473,083, or roughly 3.3 percent of the market. And of every three hybrids sold last year in the United States, two were a Toyota or a Lexus.

Fueled by government subsidies and tax incentives, hybrid sales in Japan have rocketed to 40 percent of the industry total, with the Prius a top seller. Hybrids, however, have been far less popular with consumers in such major markets as Europe and China.

The outlook for pure electric vehicles is even more cloudy.

At the moment, Ghosn's heady 2009 prediction that electric vehicles would capture 10 percent of the global market by 2020-- 6 million battery-powered cars a year or more-- doesn't seem remotely within reach.

Yet the gradual tightening of global fuel-efficiency standards from 2020 on is forcing automakers to assess their options, including the application of advanced technology.

Says Nissan's Yamashita: "It is not possible to meet (future) regulations unless vehicles are electrified."

The harsh reality of the market and the public's underwhelming demand for EVs, however, illuminate Nissan's recent decision to shift more of its green-tech investment into hybrids.

In December the company announced it plans to introduce 15 new hybrids globally by early 2017.

At the time, Ghosn said, "We are going to continue to heavily promote electric cars, but at the same time, we are business people, we are pragmatic people. We will also develop and deliver hybrids because there are markets and consumers that require hybrids."

Last September, Toyota publicly walked away from plans to build several thousand electric cars, scaling back projected volume to a mere 100 battery-powered minicars.

Both Japanese automakers, meanwhile, have forged new alliances to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars, Toyota with BMW and, in a deal announced last week, Nissan with Daimler AG and Ford Motor Co.

In the meantime, despite massive investments in battery technology and vehicles, even the most ardent EV adherents seem a bit ambivalent about the future of battery cars.

"We don't regret it yet," says Nissan's Yamashita of the company's multibillion-dollar gamble on EVs. "We might in a few years. No, we probably won't."

Meanwhile, a report out of the U.K. predicts that they expect to have 1.6 million hydrogen-powered cars on British roads by 2030. Daimler, Ford and Nissan are all working to develop a common fuel cell system that could lead to affordable fuel cell cars by 2017. Car companies have been working on this though, for 60 years, before oil man George W. Bush screwed the whole innovation thing up, causing U.S. automakers to cede their early lead in hybrids to the great financial benefit to Toyota.

In a hydrogen fuel cell car, hydrogen gets drawn through a catalytic membrane: an electron gets stripped from the hydrogen to power the car. The waste product-- water-- goes out the tailpipe. The crucial component is a thin membrane laced with expensive elements that helps conduct the chemical reaction. The fuel cell stack, in theory, can weigh less than batteries. Filling fuel cell cars-- assuming a refueling station is nearby-- takes minutes, not the hours needed for a typical EV.

Like all electrics, fuel cells cars are also efficient. Internal combustion engines are often 15 percent efficient. That heat coming off your car engine? It’s waste heat, fuel you bought but didn’t use productively. Fuel cells can be 50 percent plus efficient.

When you think of all of those factors, you ultimately come to the conclusion that fuel cells are still in play because, well, it’s a cool idea. Harnessing energy through chemical reaction has been a dream since Sir William Grove invented the first fuel cell in 1839. (Note: some automakers like BMW have developed hydrogen cars that run on combustion, but we’re talking about hydrogen fuel cells here.) Fuel cells are arguably akin to nuclear power and geothermal. They really represent a whole new way of harvesting energy. With combustion, we’re really burning plant matter that baked for eons.

Are there challenges? You bet. Chemical companies today create hydrogen by cracking methane, a process that results in a tremendous amount of greenhouse gases. Hydrogen is a notoriously challenging gas to deliver down pipelines. Catalytic membranes get fouled and fail.

“The present hydrogen fuel cells are losers… Losers,” Nobel Laureate Burton Richter told me in 2009. “They have to go back to the R&D lab.”

The cost of hydrogen fuel cell cars also remains astronomical. I drove a GM prototype in L.A. once. I asked how much it cost while driving down Sunset Boulevard. “About a million,” the GM spokesperson said.

But how do they drive? Easily the best car I have ever driven was an F-Cell Mercedes.

The road is hard, but fuel cells represent one of the few avenues where innovation can open the door to astounding changes. And at a minimum, it gives engineers something to shoot for.

OK, now I better pick between the Tesla and the Volt.

Hey, it's Heckuva Job Brownie! Here to tell the president that we are NOT "in it together"

Remember the Heckuva Jobber? Yes, Brownie's back, and running off his mindless mouth! Our colleague Zappatero dug out this clip to go with his DailyKos post (see below).

by Ken

Remember how all those Bush regimistas who were so busy sitting on their fat asses -- except for the mangler-in-chief himself, of course, who was busy cutting cake with Young Johnny McCranky -- so they could turn the natural disaster in New Orleans to a man-fanned if not actually man-made catastrophe? It sure is a good thing they were all so thoroughly shunned and prosecuted for their criminal incompetence!

Especially that point man for the thieving ineptitude of right-wing governance, Mikey-Mike "Heckuva Job Brownie," the man who so proudly played with his tiny wienie while the city was being strangled. You figure along about now Brownie should be facing his first parole hearing, and you have to hope they're not going to think seriously about letting him out of the slammer. Let him serve every last second of his sentence.

What? He's not in the slammer? You mean he got off somehow? Huh, not even indicted? Well, thank goodness, the miserable little turd has had the sense to take a vow of silence. Man, if he ever had the nerve to open his mouth in public again . . .

Oops again. Our Colorado-resident colleague Zappatero reported yesterday on DailyKos that not only has the Heckuva Jobber gotten access to a radio microphone at Denver's 850 KOA News Radio, but he actually talks about subjects other than the only one he's familiar with: his own turditude.

And Tuesday night he polluted the air waves with his "thoughts' (for want of a better word) on the president's speech to auto workers in Detroit, reminding them that Republicans has been not only ready but eager to drive a stake through the heart of the American auto industry. Of course, as he pointed out (for internal links, see the onsite version of Zap's post),

[...]It’s been funny to watch some of these politicians completely rewrite history now that you’re back on your feet. These are the folks who said if we went forward with our plan to rescue Detroit, “you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.” Now they’re saying they were right all along. Or worse, they’re saying that the problem is that you, the workers, made out like bandits in all of this; that saving the American auto industry was just about paying back unions. Really? Even by the standards of this town, that’s a load of you-know-what.

* About 700,000 retirees saw a reduction in the health care benefits they had earned.

* Many of you saw hours reduced, or pay and wages scaled back.

* You gave up some of your rights as workers.

* Promises were made to you over the years that you gave up for the sake and survival of this industry, its workers, and their families.

You want to talk about values? Hard work –- that’s a value. Looking out for one another -– that’s a value. The idea that we’re all in it together –- that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper -– that is a value.

That very night our boy the Heckuva Jobber mouthed off on-air. Zap quotes this chunk of the podcast transcript:

@2:40 BO: "Hard work, that's a value.".

@2:42 MB: "What?"

@3:06 MB: "And we're not all in it together."

@3:56 MB: "In terms of getting people a hand up. What's the difference between a hand up and a hand out?"

@4:40 MB Lies about the intent of the statement "I am my brother's and sister's keeper." That good Christian purposefully misinterpreted the Bible, I guess.

@5:20 MB "Say that to Lewis and Clark, say that to the Founding Fathers."

@5:48 MB "They did it without you. And they did it without the Stupid Government."

Did you ever think you'd live to see the day when Heckuva Job Brownie would be flapping his gums ridiculing "Stupid Government"? Is he deaf as well as stupid? Really now, you can't make this stuff up!

I was pleased to see that Zap pounces on the Lewis and Clark bit. "Lewis and Clark did have a little bit of government help, I dare say," he interjects, and he quotes a couple of paragraphs from the Wikipedia article on the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

Where, you have to wonder, did the Jobberman even hear about Lewis and Clark? More to the point, how did he not manage not to hear that it was entirely a government-sponsored expedition, undertaken at the personal initiative of President Thomas Jefferson, in large part as a follow-up to the government's massive, trans-continent-reaching Louisiana Purchase, also done at President Jefferson's initiative.

How does a piece of doody like Heckuva Job Brownie dare to open his mouth when he has nothing available to shoot out of it except his bottomless ignorance and malicious lies? And, oh yes, scumbag ideology. Here's Zap (again, links onsite):

Of course Michael Brown doesn't want to be his brother's keeper. He showed us that when he was FEMA Director under George Bush. Those are the rock-solid values of today's Republicans: no questions asked, no doubt that about their selfish concerns, no regrets when they fuck things up and their fellow Americans die.

For Republicans like Michael Brown, we are not all in this together. For today's Republicans, it's perfectly clear you are on your own, come hell, high water, or both.

You can only hope that Brownie has the sense to shuffle back to his cell muttering, "I'm a frigging disgrace, I'm a frigging disgrace." Oh wait, he's not in a cell, is he? I keep forgetting.

Which just leaves one question. I understand that we can't stop Heckuva Job Brownie from talking, 'cause we've got free speech here in the U.S. of A., and we're might proud of it. But why is anybody listening?

#

Everyone's Ganging Up On Poor Widdle Willard

Yes, as the press is reporting this morning, Willard averted a disaster in Michigan yesterday. He took 41.1% of the vote in the state where he grew up and where his father was a beloved governor. Santorum's extremism drove Republican women towards Romney. And in Arizona, Romney won every single county. But news of his two victories had to share the national headlines with Olympia Snowe's announcement that she's retiring next year and with a stupendous populist speech by President Obama to the UAW. And, what a great Obama speech it was! I wish he'd govern more the way he speaks-- at least when he speaks like this. And, notice, he never says "Romney," "Mitt," "Willard," or even "weird." But everyone knew exactly who he was talking about. Here's part of it:

You helped write America’s story. And today, you’re busy writing a proud new chapter. You’re reminding us that no matter how tough times get, Americans are tougher. No matter how many punches we take, we don’t give up. We get up, we fight back, we move forward, and we come out the other side stronger than before.
 
You are showing America what’s possible. So I’m here today to tell you one thing: you make me proud.
 
Take a minute to think about what you and the workers and families you represent have fought through. Just a few years ago, nearly one in five autoworkers were handed a pink slip.  00,000 jobs across this industry vanished the year before I took office. And as the financial crisis hit with its full fury, America faced a hard and once unimaginable reality: two of the Big Three-- GM and Chrysler-- were on the brink of failure.
 
The heartbeat of American manufacturing was flatlining. And we had a choice to make.
 
With the economy in complete freefall, there weren’t any private companies or investors willing to take a chance on the auto industry. Anyone in the financial sector could tell you that. So we could have kept giving billions of taxpayer dollars to the automakers without demanding real change or accountability in return. But that wouldn’t have solved anything. It would have just kicked the problem further on down the road. The other option we had was to do nothing, and allow these companies to fail. In fact, some politicians said we should. Some even said we should “let Detroit go bankrupt.”
 
Think about what that choice would have meant for this country. If we had turned our backs on you; if America had thrown in the towel; GM and Chrysler wouldn’t exist today. The suppliers and distributors that get their business from those companies would have died off, too. Then even Ford could have gone down as well. Production: shut down. Factories: shuttered. Once proud companies chopped up and sold off for scraps. And all of you-- the men and women who built these companies with your own hands – would’ve been hung out to dry. 
 
More than one million Americans across the country would have lost their jobs in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. In communities across the Midwest, it would have been another Great Depression. Think about everyone who depends on you-- schoolteachers and small business owners; the server in the diner who knows your order and the bartender who’s waiting for you when you get off. Their livelihoods were at stake, too. 
 
And so was something else. How many of you who’ve worked the assembly line had fathers and grandfathers who worked that same line? Or sons and daughters who hope to? These jobs are worth more than just a paycheck. They’re a source of pride. They’re a ticket to a middle class life. They make it possible to own a home, to raise kids and send them to college, to retire. These companies are worth more than just the cars they build. They’re a symbol of American innovation; the source of our manufacturing might. And if that’s not worth fighting for, what is? 
 
So no, we were not going to take a knee and do nothing. We were not going to give up on your jobs, your families, and your communities. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We said the auto industry would have to truly change, not just pretend that it did. We got labor and management to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Everyone involved made sacrifices. Everyone had some skin in the game. It wasn’t popular. And it wasn’t what I ran for President to do. But I ran to do the tough things-- the right things-- no matter the politics. 
 
And you know why I knew this rescue would succeed? It wasn’t because of anything the government did. It wasn’t just because of anything management did. It was because I believed in you. I placed my bet on American workers. And I’d make that same bet again any day of the week. Because three years later, that bet is paying off for America. Three years later, the American auto industry is back.
 
Today, GM is back on top as the number one automaker in the world, with the highest profits in its 100-year history. Chrysler is growing faster in America than any other car company. Ford is investing billions in American plants and factories, and plans to bring thousands of jobs back home. All told, the entire industry has added more than 200,000 new jobs over the past two and a half years. 200,000 new jobs.   
 
And you’re not just building cars again. You’re building better cars. After three decades of inaction, we’re gradually putting in place the toughest fuel economy standards in history for our cars and pickups. That means the cars you build will average nearly 55 miles per gallon by the middle of the next decade-- almost double what they get today. That means folks will be able to fill up every two weeks instead of every week, saving the typical family more than $8,000 at the pump over time. That means we’ll cut our oil consumption by more than 2 million barrels a day. 

...Because I’ve got to admit, it’s been funny to watch some of these politicians completely rewrite history now that you’re back on your feet. These are the folks who said if we went forward with our plan to rescue Detroit, “you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.” Now they’re saying they were right all along. Or worse, they’re saying that the problem is that you, the workers, made out like bandits in all of this; that saving the American auto industry was just about paying back unions. Really? Even by the standards of this town, that’s a load of you-know-what. About 700,000 retirees saw a reduction in the health care benefits they had earned. Many of you saw hours reduced, or pay and wages scaled back. You gave up some of your rights as workers. Promises were made to you over the years that you gave up for the sake and survival of this industry, its workers, and their families. You want to talk about values? Hard work-- that’s a value. Looking out for one another-- that’s a value. The idea that we’re all in it together-- that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper-- that is a value.
 
But they’re still talking about you as if you’re some greedy special interest that needs to be beaten. Since when are hardworking men and women special interests?  Since when is the idea that we look out for each other a bad thing? To borrow a line from our old friend Ted Kennedy: what is it about working men and women they find so offensive?

 This notion that we should have let the auto industry die; that we should pursue anti-worker policies in hopes unions like yours will unravel-- it’s part of that same old you’re-on-your-own philosophy that says we should just leave everyone to fend for themselves. They think the best way to boost the economy is to undo the reforms we put in place to prevent another crisis, and let Wall Street write its own rules again. They think the best way to help families afford health care is to undo the reform we passed that’s already lowering costs for millions of Americans, and go back to the days when insurance companies could deny your coverage or jack up your rates whenever and however they pleased. They think we should keep cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans so that billionaires can keep paying lower tax rates than their secretaries. 
 
I don’t think so. That’s the philosophy that got us into this mess. And we can’t afford to go back.  Not now. We’ve got a lot of work to do and a long way to go before everyone who wants a good job can find one. We’ve got a long way to go before middle-class Americans regain the sense of security that’s been slipping away since long before the recession hit. But over the last two years, our businesses have added about 3.7 million new jobs. Manufacturing is coming back for the first time since the 1990s. Companies are bringing jobs back from overseas. The economy is getting stronger. The recovery is speeding up. And now is the time to keep our foot on the gas.
 
We will not settle for a country where a few people do really well, and everyone else struggles to get by. We’re fighting for an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. We will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony profits. We’re fighting for an economy that’s built to last-- one built on things like education, energy, manufacturing things the rest of the world wants to buy, and restoring the values that made this country great: Hard work. Fair play. The opportunity to make it if you try. And the responsibility to reach back and help someone else make it, too.

Any time Obama says anything about "an economy built to last," that's a slap in the face to the Romney predatory rape and pillage business model. But there are less subtle way to slap the shit-eating grin off Willard's face as well. Yesterday Gingrich had two of his campaign surrogates, both far right ex-congressman, Bob Walker (R-PA) and J.C. Watts (R-OK), sign a letter the campaign drafted for the media pointing out the dangers of letting a lowlife like Romney seize the White House. Is this how Republicans talk about each other these days? You bet!

Dear Publisher and Editorial Page Editor:

We write to you about what we regard as an existential threat to the integrity of the American political process.

First, however, we wish to make clear that although the signers of this letter are members of Newt Gingrich’s leadership team our immediate concern is not to seek your endorsement of his candidacy for the presidency, however much we might recommend and hope for such a result. Instead, our reason for this letter transcends any one candidate or election.

Over recent decades numerous voices have been raised about the dangers of massive amounts of money spent in the service of negative or false advertising, much has also been said about the threat that this might pose to voters’ right to accurate information about issues and candidates as well as to the civil discourse so essential to democracy.

And while obviously abuses of this sort have occurred, the fact remains that over time the truth has power and does tend to prevail. Furthermore, freedom of speech means having to sometimes tolerate the abuse of that right, any robust democratic system is by nature going to be flawed or untidy and unfair practices or untruthful claims sometimes have to be endured.

Still, when abuses of the democratic and electoral process happen that does not mean the voice of conscience shouldn’t be heard and heeded. Speaking out against attempts to corrupt the democratic process is historically a role that America’s newspapers have seen as their own. And it is in this capacity-- your role as democracy’s watchdogs-- we appeal to you now.

As you are aware Feb 7th saw a series of setbacks to the Republican front-runner Governor Romney. Indeed, the returns in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri were historic in nature. Never before had a GOP front-runner lost so badly this far into the nomination process, let alone in three states and on the same day. In Colorado, Governor Romney was not only defeated by 5 points in a state he won with 60% four years earlier but this setback came at the hands of a candidate whom he had outspent by 40 to 1.

These results were widely interpreted as voter rejection of Governor Romney’s "scorched earth" campaign tactics-- tactics that has meant $20 to $25 million spent in attacks on our own candidate, Speaker Gingrich. As you also know, these advertisements and a spending advantage of 5 to 1 are widely credited with having eliminated wide Gingrich leads both in Iowa and Florida. Moreover... Governor Romney’s tactics have deeply depressed voter turnout, with the only exception South Carolina where Speaker Gingrich’s victory in breaking through Governor Romney’s paid media storm resulted in a 22% increase in turnout. (So too, counties in Florida where Speaker Gingrich won showed an increase in voting while Governor Romney had the opposite effect.)

Now if these television advertisements had been an attack on the Gingrich record that would be one thing. Instead Governor Romney chose to run and temporarily profit from blatantly untrue TV spots, with one spot that Romney publicly defended drawing four "Pinocchios" from the Washington Post for false charges (e.g. Gingrich was "fined" for ethics violations as Speaker) or making claims like "Speaker Gingrich had to resign in disgrace" cited by the Wall Street Journal as false.

Governor Romney’s negative attack mentality, unfortunately, is a reflection of his own persona. We include documentation of numerous instances of Governor Romney resorting under pressure to the use of falsehoods-- five of them are from a single presidential debate in Jacksonville on Jan 26. Please understand, we believe that if you closely examine the record you will see that we are not discussing here lapses of memory. We are saying that the evidence is clear that Governor Romney has a near Pavlovian reflex of lapsing into falsehoods in order to rearrange reality to his liking. The record shows that when publicly challenged or at a loss for an answer, Governor Romney shows a deeply engrained habit of mendacity.

Nowhere is this better seen than in Governor Romney’s decision to follow the course suggested by attack-ad maestro Stu Stevens and opposition researcher Matt Rhoades and secure the nomination by means not of energizing party conservatives with policy positions but attack ads aimed at rivals and predicated on the politics of personal destruction.

As you are also probably also aware the Romney forces are purchasing massive amounts of advertising time in your own state to continue their false attacks.

Thus the purpose of this letter is to ask you to look at the facts we include and if you agree about the threat they pose to the integrity of the electoral process we ask that you use the mighty voice of America’s newspapers to warn voters about Governor Romney’s attempt to use money and mendacity to secure the Republican nomination.

We ask you to speak out against a candidate with a great sense of entitlement and very little sense of accountability. We ask you to protest a candidacy and a campaign without a conscience. We ask you to censure and thwart a way of politics that if left unchallenged could corrupt our electoral process and democratic system for a generation.

So, as we said and as expected, Mormons in Arizona helped Romney win big there-- 47.3%-- and he won narrowly (by around 3%) against Santorum in the Michigan popular vote, although may have actually lost to Santorum in terms of convention delegates. In the final days of the primary, Santorum scared Republican voters away with his unabashed fanaticism and religious-war rhetoric. This primary is going to go on for a lot longer than anyone expected and it seems to be helping one candidate and one candidate only: Barack Obama. As Rachel Maddow pointed out last night, even a cloddish Romney surrogate like Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, was on TV disagreeing with Romney's most basic economic stands:

Landslide Victory For Gary Peters' Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009

Yesterday Gary Peters' (D-MI) Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009, HR 3246, passed the House with an overwhelming bipartisan majority, 312-114. Only one Democrat, conservative oil millionaire Harry Teague of New Mexico joined the GOP leadership in opposing. The call for mindless obstructionism from John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mike Pence fell on deaf ears when it came to 35% of the Republican House Caucus. 62 of their members crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats. The hard-core sociopaths and teabaggers like Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Mean Jean Schmidt (R-OH), Steve King (R-IA), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), David Dreier (R-CA), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Paul Broun (R-GA), Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Tom McClintock (R-CA) Lord Boustany (R-LA), and Dan Lungren (R-CA) all stuck to their knee jerk obstructionist stance.

Although they did vote for the bill in the end, several of the most reactionary of the Blue Dogs and their fellow travelers joined with the Republicans to try to kill the bill with a motion to recommit, habitual aisle-jumpers like Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL), Parker Griffith (Blue Dog-AL), Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS), Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS), Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID), and Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD).

Before the final bill passed Eric Massa (D-NY) introduced an amendment that sets the framework for the Department of Energy to work with the private sector to accomplish the goals of the bill. It passed by one of the biggest landslides of the year, 416-14, every single Democrat plus all but 14 die-hard teabagger Republican nihilists voting "aye." When Boehner can't even hold Bachmann, Foxx and Mean Jean you know he's in trouble. Needless to say the House's worst job killing member, slippery Wisconsin extremist Paul Ryan, stuck with Boehner and Steve King. Massa, needless to say was delighted. "During this recession," he explained afterwards, "we cannot allow energy independence and American innovation to sit on the backburner and that's why I presented this amendment. I'm proud to have had the support of 415 other members of congress and such an overwhelmingly positive response speaks to the bipartisan nature of strengthening our domestic auto industry... The future of the American auto industry and thousands of American jobs rest on the ability of domestic car companies to research, develop, and commercialize new, clean, efficient technologies that will be the backbone of a new US vehicle market... Beyond support for research and development, we must follow through completely on our obligations to the American people to develop real solutions to our growing energy crisis. We cannot be satisfied with abandoning new technologies every time they leave the lab. We must help our automakers carry these technologies across the finish line or face the alternative that we have seen time and again where US research is picked up and developed by foreign competitors or loses commercial traction and never sees the light of day."

Here's Rep. Peters on the floor yesterday explaining why this bill had to be passed:

Who Says The House Can't Move Fast When It's Important?

Nancy cracked the whip and Congress jumped! The Cash For Clunkers program was such an overwhelming success that it ran out of money this week. In order to make sure people who want to trade in their gas guzzling polluters for more energy efficient cars, the House immediately moved into action to suspend the rules and pass a supplemental $2 billion appropriations bill. According to the NY Times "The House shoved other business out of the way on its last day before the August recess to rush through a measure to address the cash shortage of the car program." It was all over and done by 1:30 this afternoon-- and it passed overwhelmingly, 316-109. 77 Republicans joined almost all the Democrats to pass the bill.

Needless to say, most of the America-Must-Fail Club crazies-- Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), lobbyist John Boehner (R-OH), Allen Boyd (Blue Dog-FL), Paul Broun (R-GA), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA), Patty McHenry (R-NC), Mike Pence (R-IN), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Mean Jean Schmidt (R-OH), Aaron Schock (R-IL), dirigible corruptionist Pete Sessions (R-TX), and John Shadegg (R-AZ)-- opposed the measure.

The Senate, which will be in session next week, will take up the program then. A spirited debate is likely, as some senators have said they will use the opportunity to push for tougher fuel-efficiency requirements. If the Senate does not go along with the House’s version, the House might have to return to work on a compromise.

Minutes after the House vote, President Obama praised the legislators for moving quickly. “We’re already seeing a dramatic increase in showroom traffic,” he said, adding that the program helps to reduce air pollution while helping car buyers.

The sudden legislative action was prompted by the overwhelming response to the program, formally known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, which its backers say has helped not only car buyers but the struggling automobile industry.

Earlier Friday, Robert Gibbs, the chief White House spokesman, offered assurances that the administration was looking for ways to continue the popular new program, which offers $3,500 to $4,500 for people who trade in an old car for a new one with higher fuel economy.

“If you were planning on going to buy a car this weekend using this program, the program continues to run,” he said. “If you meet the requirements of the program, the certificates will be honored.”

...“Consumers have spoken with their wallets,” Representative David R. Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin of chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said in urging quick passage.

The panel’s ranking Republican, Jerry Lewis of California, complained that Democrats, who have a 256-to-178 majority in the House, were rushing the measure through with too little thought,-- “shoveling another $2 billion out the door,” in his words.

Lewis, one of the most corrupt members of Congress in history, knows that if the process could have been slowed down for a week or two, there would have been tremendous opportunities for bribery for the kinds of congressmen who engage in those kinds of activities. Karina in Speaker Pelosi's office posted all the details of the program and why it was important to get this through before the break.

More than 200,000 cars have already been bought through the program, and it is expected to spur the sale of up to 800,000 more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, while stimulating the ailing auto industry and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The funds to immediately extend the “Cash For Clunkers” program are coming from a clean energy fund appropriated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and will be returned so as to further our nation’s long term clean energy and innovation goals.

President Obama, of course, was very enthusiastic and, sensing trouble from the House of Lords-- worthless Missouri imbecile Claire McCaskill has already tweeted she's against it-- issued this statement:

“I want to thank leaders in the House of Representatives for working quickly and in a bipartisan way to pass legislation that will use Recovery Act funds to keep “Cash for Clunkers” going. This program has been an overwhelming success, allowing consumers to trade in their less fuel efficient cars for a credit to buy more fuel efficient new models. It has given consumers a much needed break, provided the American auto industry an important boost, and is achieving environmental benefits well beyond what was originally anticipated. The program has proven to be a successful part of our economic recovery and will help lessen our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving the quality of the air we breathe. I urge the Senate to act with the American consumers in mind to pass this important legislation.”

Obama should have been clearer; he didn't tell the senators how he wants them to act-- and many of them have every intention of acting very badly. McCain and DeMint, for example, have already said they intend to filibuster the bill and Dianne Feinstein sounds just as uninterested in seeing it pass.

Are Selfish, Greedy Bond Brokers Keeping The Automotive Industry From Recovering?

With all the hubbub over the automobile industry we went right to our go-to-man on the scene: Congressman Gary Peters (D-MI), whose district is home to Chrysler World Headquarters and more auto suppliers than any other congressional district in the country. Please recall that as a member of the Financial Service Committee, Gary turned the whole A.I.G. hearing around when he shattered conventional Inside-the-Beltway/Wall Street wisdom by bringing up the disparity between how the sanctity of contracts for millionaires is handled compared to how routinely disposable contracts for working American families are.

Monday Gary, who's been busy crafting legislation that would allow laid off workers in hard hit regions greater access to existing support as well as to retraining programs for displaced workers, called on the administration to force concessions not from organized labor as it pushes the 2 distressed auto companies to restructure, but from the large financial institutions that are creditors to Chrysler and GM. Here's what Gary told us yesterday about his struggle on behalf of working families in Oakland County.

“The president has announced further short term assistance for General Motors and Chrysler, and outlined a process for the auto manufacturers and stakeholders to continue the difficult work of restructuring these companies. 
 
“The success of that restructuring is in large part dependent on debt holders’ willingness to cooperate with automakers and President Obama’s aggressive support in making that happen. Make no mistake-- in Chrysler’s case, some of these debt holders are financial institutions that exist today only because of government support. In fact, the three institutions holding the majority of Chrysler’s first lien debt are among the largest recipients of taxpayer money through the TARP. 
 
“Yet these institutions now stand hypocritically unwilling to cooperate with the government to help maintain an American auto industry and protect hundreds of thousands of jobs. These large financial firms must understand that the taxpayer support they were provided isn’t about enriching them, it is meant to protect jobs, get credit flowing to consumers and businesses and get our economy back on track. That means protecting jobs and helping our domestic auto industry weather the credit crisis they created so they can start selling cars again. History shows that getting car markets moving is one of the best ways to get out of recession.
 
“The president has offered General Motors and Chrysler more time, but time alone isn’t enough.  The president must use that time to support the auto companies as they strive to achieve the lofty objectives his task force has demanded.

Gary is the kind of candidate Blue America supports. Last year we helped him defeat rubber stamp tool Joe Knollenberg. Next year the GOP is vowing to target Gary and take back the district. I know times are tough right now, but if you'd like to help a deserving fighter for working families, you won't find many as consistent and as tenacious as Gary Peters. Even a $5 or $10 contribution would be a help, here at the Blue America ActBlue page.

Harold Meyerson looks back at the role the UAW played in building the American middle class

United Auto Workers (UAW) President Walter Reuther (right)

with former President Harry Truman at the Truman Library in 1957

"The UAW not only built the American middle class but helped engender every movement at the center of American liberalism today -- which is one reason that conservatives have always held the union in particular disdain.

"Over the past several weeks, it has become clear that the Republican right hates the UAW so much that it would prefer to plunge the nation into a depression rather than craft a bridge loan that doesn't single out the auto industry's unionized workers for punishment. (As manufacturing consultant Michael Wessel pointed out, no Republican demanded that Big Three executives have their pay permanently reduced to the relatively spartan levels of Japanese auto executives' pay.) . . .

"In a narrow sense, what the Republicans are proposing would gut the benefits of roughly a million retirees. In a broad sense, they want to destroy the institution that did more than any other to raise American living standards, and they want to do it by using the power of government to lower American living standards -- in the middle of the most severe recession since the 1930s."

-- Harold Meyerson, in his Washington Post column today,
"Destroying What the UAW Built"

by Ken

When statesmen like Bob Corker and Richard Shelby pass themselves off as authorities on the auto industry, it's nice to have Harold Meyerson shed a bit of perspective.

In 1949, a pamphlet was published that argued that the American auto industry should pursue a different direction. Titled "A Small Car Named Desire," the pamphlet suggested that Detroit not put all its bets on bigness, that a substantial share of American consumers would welcome smaller cars that cost less and burned fuel more efficiently.

The pamphlet's author was the research department of the United Auto Workers.

By the standards of the postwar UAW, there was nothing exceptional about "A Small Car Named Desire." In its glory days, under the leadership of Walter Reuther, the UAW was the most farsighted institution -- not just the most farsighted union -- in America. "We are the architects of America's future," Reuther told the delegates at the union's 1947 convention, where his supporters won control of what was already the nation's leading union.

Even before he became UAW president, Reuther and a team of brilliant lieutenants would drive the Big Three's top executives crazy by producing a steady stream of proposals for management. In the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbor, Reuther, then head of the union's General Motors division, came up with a detailed plan for converting auto plants to defense factories more quickly than the industry's leaders did. At the end of the war, he led a strike at GM with a set of demands that included putting union and public representatives on GM's board.

Meyerson notes the UAW's imprint on the social advancement movement of the mid-20th century, and points out that "for decades after Reuther's death in a 1970 plane crash, the UAW was among the foremost advocates of national health care -- a policy that, had it been enacted, would have saved the Big Three tens of billions of dollars in health insurance expenses, but which the Big Three themselves were until recently too ideologically hidebound to support."

The Southern senators so intent on destroying the UAW are prone to glossing over crucial realities about the non-union plants in their states, and of course when obfuscation won't do, they're never hesitant to just plain lie.

Republicans complain that labor costs at the Big Three are out of line with those at the non-union transplant factories in the South, factories that Southern governors have subsidized with billions of taxpayer dollars. But the UAW has already agreed to concessions bringing its members' wages to near-Southern levels [of course, if you factor in the lower cost of living in the non-union states, UAW wages would actually be lower -- Ken], and labor costs already comprise less than 10 percent of the cost of a new car. (On Wall Street, employee compensation at the seven largest financial firms in 2007 constituted 60 percent of the firms' expenses, yet reducing overall employee compensation wasn't an issue in the financial bailout.)

As Meyerson points out, "setting the terms of [a Big Three bridge] loan has become the final task of the Bush presidency, which puts the auto workers in the unenviable position of depending, if not on the kindness of strangers, then on the impartiality of the most partisan president of modern times." He concludes:

"The auto workers deserve better, and so does the nation they did so much to build."

#

Buck Stops Where, Part II

Earlier today I got carried away with the poetry of justice and made some harsh suggestions for what should be done with the decision makers (both auto executives and politicians-- and you can throw the banksters and Wall Street hucksters in with 'em) who have brought on the economic collapse of the automobile industry that is threatening to turn Bush's deep recession into a full blown Depression.

This morning on Face The Nation Chris Dodd didn't go quite as far as we did here at DWT but he did suggest that General Motors CEO Richard Wagoner be fired and that Chrysler just get it over with and merge with one of the other two companies before any federal aid is given out.

Asked if a change in leadership should be a condition of a bailout, Dodd who is helping to write the legislation, said, “I think it is going to have to be part of it.”

“Chrysler, is, I think, basically gone, probably ought to be merged,” Dodd said. Ford Motor Co. is the healthiest domestic automaker, he said.

Congress and the Bush administration are on the verge of completing a draft of legislation to provide about $15 billion to help GM, Ford and Chrysler.

President-elect Barack Obama, asked on NBC’s Meet the Press, whether the management of the automaker should be allowed to stay, said “it may not be the same for all the companies. But what I think we have to put an end to is the head- in-the-sand approach to the auto industry that has been prevalent for decades now.”

Now what about the members of Congress who voted for huge tax incentives for SUVs and voted against CAFE standards and against tax breaks for fuel efficient automobiles. Shouldn't they be fired as well?

Obama leveled with the public today about the economy. Do we just pat the crooked politicians and big-time crooks on the back, wish them well and move on? How about a recovery program? I mean they can't have spent all the billions they stole. I think a program of confiscation of all the ill-gotten gains would go a lot further than the Bush Regime's plans to perpetrate further theft with a car czar. Let's hope the lame Democrats aren't so lame as to let them get away with that too.

“If you look at the unemployment numbers... the fragility of the financial system and the fact that it’s an international system,” [the recession] “is a big problem, and it’s going to get worse... We’ve got to provide a blood infusion right now, make sure that the patient is stabilized... We’ve got to get the economy moving."

Decision Makers Get The Big Bucks... But The Buck Never Stops At Their Desks

There was a very short time between when, as a struggling entrepreneur, I couldn't imagine ever being able to pay three figures (anything over $99) a month in rent and being paid, as a corporate executive, 7 figures. Always one to look a gift horse right in the mouth, I often pondered this great implausibility. I won't bore you with all the reasons-- and justifications-- but there was one that was particularly horrifying. When corporate decision makers made bad decisions that resulted in mind-boggling losses, the bottom line had to be tightened. That translates to this: people who had no role in those decisions whatsoever and who completely lived up to their employment bargain and whose families' lives depended on their job, would have to be laid off. "Laid off" means fired without cause. Part of the reason I got those big bucks-- not to mention bonuses that I would term "criminal"-- had to do with firing people. Executives, like Mitt Romney, who actually thrived on firing people, got extra special bonuses but I think for many executives who were truly horrified to fire people, the money made it more almost acceptable, conscience-wise.

When I hear a Mitch McConnell (R-KY) or Richard Shelby (R-AL) or Jim Bunning (R-KY) bitching that the auto industry took a big gamble on SUVs instead of fuel efficient vehicles and should pay for that mistake with bankruptcies several things cross my mind. The union workers so hated and feared by reactionaries like McConnell, Shelby and Bunning didn't make any decisions about SUVs. But McConnell, Shelby and Bunning did. All three vociferously opposed tax breaks for fuel efficient vehicles; all three violently opposed CAFE standards; all three hysterically supported gigantic incentives in the tax code for the worst energy guzzling, least fuel efficient monstrosities ever invented by man. I would favor-- after proper trials, of course; please allow me to recommend Johnny Wendell of KTLK in L.A. for jury foreman-- lining up McConnell, Shelby, Bunning and their colleagues along with the auto execs against a wall and handing out blindfolds and last cigarettes. Then institute single payer health care reform and turn management of the Big 3 over to the UAW. Problem solved; Justice served.

The NY Times doesn't see it the same way. In fact, they seem very sympathetic with the poor struggling politicians whose decisions helped cause the problem and who seem to be making it much, much worse. It was smart of the GOP to have Tennessee dullard Bob Corker act as their point person at the questioning of the Big 3 executives last week. He's new in the Senate and was one of the few who wasn't around to support Tom Delay's purposefully reactionary tax policies incentivizing SUV production and forcing fuel efficient technology off shore. On behalf of the Republican Party losers Corker demanded "that the automakers make aggressive efforts to cut labor costs and reduce their overall debt obligations [pensions and health care costs] before receiving any aid."

"Cut labor costs," is always a GOP solution, but a solution that only worsens the problem. Have you ever heard a Republican say an executive makes too much money? How about a member of Congress? If workers don't make a living wage, the economy will continue to slow down; that simple. Corker is an idiot. He isn't earning anywhere near the $169,300 he's making this year-- and that's before you factor in healthcare and retirement costs, not to mention costs for former members and their widows. Unless that scenario, Corker and his colleagues are making around a quarter million dollars a year. They should be paid exactly the average salary of all the working people in America. After all, they're the ones who make the decisions. Along with Bush, Bernanke and Paulson. Dodd asked the latter two to attend Thursday's Senate hearing and they refused. Emptywheel:

These assholes, who are preparing to ask Dodd for another $350 billion of our money, refused to show up before Congress, presumably because they simply didn't want to talk about using TARP funds for bridge loans to the auto industry (note: at the hearing GAO agreed with Dodd that the auto loan request would qualify under TARP guidelines). I suppose because they simply believe the auto industry doesn't fall under their mandate to keep the economy healthy?!?!

...And all the while, Frank and Dodd are still wrestling with Paulson over whether he'll ever begin saving the homes of the 10% of homeowners who are facing foreclosure. We maybe short one President, but that's not preventing the Bush Administration from holding an economy at risk of slipping into a Depression hostage, while they try to force more conservative dogma down our throats.

Bush's latest ploy, appointing an all-powerful car czar sounds as bad as any idea the Bush Regime has ever come up with. Congress should do it's duty for a change and turn him down flat. And then impeach him.

Have You Heard Bush Telling Americans Not To Worry Lately And To Just Go Shopping Because The Fundamentals Of The Economy Are Strong?

The other day I was complaining because Toyota added $1,000 to the price of my new Prius for no reason other than that they could. I'm lucky I was able to pay it without having to cut back on something else in my life-- like a home payment or medical care. I wasn't always so lucky. There was a stretch in my life when I certainly wouldn't have made it without the help the federal government gave me with food stamps. To this day when I bemoan (silently) all the taxes I have to pay, I think about how grateful I should be that the government invested in me when I really needed it and gave me at least a year's worth of food stamps.

Nevertheless, I was saddened to read on Wednesday that in September food stamps hit an all time record-- up 17% from last year. Over 31.5 million Americans used them in September. The economy has tanked and unemployment has skyrocketed since then. And economists expect it to get much worse before it gets better. The last food stamps record-- 29.85 million people in November, 2005, was the result of emergency benefits for victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. Victims of the Bush Economic Miracle are getting hit much harder.

[A]nti-hunger groups said the economic downturn is the main reason behind the higher figures.

"It's a disturbing trend," said Ellen Vollinger, legal director with the Food Research and Action Center. She said she expects more people will turn to food stamps as unemployment figures rise and the economy remains weak.

One in 10 Americans were participating in the food stamp program as of September, said Dottie Rosenbaum, analyst with Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank.

That's approaching the all-time high of 10.5 percent of the population that used the program in 1994, and is similar to levels seen in the early 1980s, she said.

States that have seen a drop in job numbers and increase in home foreclosures such as Florida and Nevada also have seen a marked increase in food stamp use, Rosenbaum said.

Food banks are struggling to meet increased requests for food, said Maura Daly of Feeding America, a network of food banks.

"The tough economic time that our nation is facing is having a tremendous impact on the level of food assistance needed across the country," Daly said.

How do I know things are going to get much worse before they get better? I'm awake. We're just escaping from years and years of violently antisocial financial and economic policy based on greed, avarice and the law of the jungle. The NY Times reported yesterday that the retail sector is an unmitigated disaster. Should that surprise anyone after years and years of hollowing out the economy, shipping jobs overseas, destroying labor unions and redistributing the nation's wealth upward?

The nation’s retailers turned in the worst sales figures in at least a generation on Thursday, starting the holiday shopping season with double-digit declines across a broad spectrum of stores.

...The International Council of Shopping Centers, an industry group, described November’s figures as the weakest in more than 35 years. Declines were recorded in every retail segment the group tracks, with the biggest coming from department stores, with sales down 13.3 percent compared with November a year ago, and specialty apparel retailers, down 10.4 percent.

Republican members of Congress and-- I suspect-- some reactionary Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party (I can't wait to see them vote), are making a bad situation worse. Jim Bunning (R-KY) should be hauled before a court and asked to explain why he shouldn't be charged with treason. After watching Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) playing games with the auto executives on TV today, I'm inclined to think he needs the same treatment as Bunning. Corker voted for the ill-conceived Wall Street bailout for the banksters. Is it that he just hates workers? And many of the loudest advocates among the union busting Republicans who joined Corker on bailing out the banksters, agreed with him that the American automakers can go to hell. Among them are several facing re-election in 2 years: Robert Bennett (R-UT), Kit Bond (R-MO), Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and John Thune (R-SD). We need to watch this crew closely.



UPDATE: LOOKS LIKE CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS HAVE AGREE TO RESCUE THE BIG 3

That's good news... maybe. The devil, as always, is in the details. And we don't have those yet. It looks like the idea is for short term loans until Bush is back in Texas.

[I]t was the Labor Department’s report of 533,000 jobs lost in November that seemed to put a final halt to the hand-wringing on Capitol Hill and prompted the Democrats to announce that they would draw up legislation for votes next week.

“Today’s announcement of major job losses and findings from Congressional hearings from the last two days make it clear that Congress must work on a bipartisan basis to provide short-term and limited assistance to the automobile industry while it undertakes major restructuring,” Ms. Pelosi said in a statement.

She added: “Congress will insist that any legislation include rigorous and ongoing oversight to guarantee that taxpayers are protected and that resources are directed to ensure the long term viability and competitiveness of the American automobile industry.”

...But some Republicans, including Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior member of the banking committee, have said they will oppose a taxpayer financed rescue for the automakers under any circumstances.

Some conservative House Republicans have called openly for allowing one or more of the auto companies to fail and enter bankruptcy.

Rove Still Knows How To Pull The Strings... On Democrats

Rove plants a little mindfuck into the a gussied up Republican Party propaganda sheet and progressives start freaking out. In his own snide, backhanded way, Rove seemed to semi-compliment the Obama economic team. He could cover Patti Smith's classic "Pissin' in a River," by changing "river" to "punchbowl." He starts his paean to Team Obama by praising people who basically disagree with his overall view on the economy straight down the line and it then clearly turns into a couch for his attack against a viable labor movement. He claims Obama, "did not reduce confusion on a Detroit bailout by saying he supported a 'sustainable auto industry.' America already has that in 69 foreign-owned auto plants that employ 92,700 Americans. The question is this: Does Mr. Obama want a sustainable U.S.-owned auto industry? If so, will he require changes in the Big Three's management, labor agreements and cost structure in return for aid? All he'd say Monday was that the industry needed to develop a plan." That's the GOP line, no matter how many chocolates and flowers they appear to throw at the feet of "first-rate thinker" Peter Orszag and "respected monetary expert," Christina Romer. And when it comes down to the only way the auto industry will actually be made viable-- through the Republican-hated universal health care-- Rove was his vicious, reactionary, partisan old self:

The only troubling personnel note was Melody Barnes as Domestic Policy Council director. Putting a former aide to Ted Kennedy in charge of health policy after tapping universal health-care advocate Tom Daschle to be Health and Human Services secretary sends a clear signal that Mr. Obama didn't mean it when his campaign ads said he wouldn't run to the "extremes" with government-run health care.

I wouldn't worry about what Karl Rove thinks, says or writes. He's utterly irrelevant and Obama knows it. Don't jump when he tries jerking your chain.

The Bush Regime's Serial Abuse Of Consumers Is Undermining The Entire Economy

I won a little victory yesterday. Alarm companies, I found out from the California Attorney General's office, have a little scam. Ever read your alarm company contract? No, me neither; and that's a mistake. If you cancel on them you owe them for the rest of the year. I canceled; they came and took the equipment and then continued to bill me. It took 6 months-- and zero help from any consumer affairs departments-- but yesterday they finally told me to shred the bills. A blow against the Empire? One small step for mankind...

A couple days ago the L.A. Times ran a piece about how the Empire is sticking it to all of us... and in so many ways. You think your jar of Skippy Extra Chunky Peanut butter looks the same as it always did? OK, it does look the same. But if you turn it-- or almost anything that comes in a plastic container-- over you'll notice something new and improved: a big ole indentation. And that indentation accounts for 1.7 ounces less extra crunchy peanut butter. Across a wide array of products consumers are getting less for our money.

Across the supermarket, manufacturers are trimming packages, nipping a half-ounce off that bar of soap, narrowing the width of toilet paper and shrinking the size of ice cream containers.

Often the changes are so subtle that they create "the illusion that you are buying the same amount," explained Frank Luby, a pricing consultant with Simon-Kucher & Partners of Cambridge, Mass.

To shoppers it may seem like getting less, but companies say cutting quantity is a common way to avoid raising prices.

It's an age-old dilemma for manufacturers juggling prices, container sizes and profits -- at the same time coping with rising prices for ingredients and greater competition on supermarket shelves.

At international food giant Unilever, "we have chosen to reduce package sizes as one of our responses" to rising commodity and business expenses, said spokesman Dean Mastrojohn. He said the new smaller sizes are clearly marked on labels.

...Asked whether the new packaging is deceptive, Mastrojohn said only that the lower weight is clearly listed on the package.

Unilever also changed the shape of its Breyers ice cream containers, reducing the contents to 1.5 quarts from 1.75 quarts. Competitor Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream did the same, shortening its carton.

Reducing the size of the Dreyer's and Edy's Grand Ice Cream cartons was not an easy decision, spokeswoman Kim Goeller-Johnson said.

"We understand that consumers don't like to pay the same price for a smaller container," she said.

You don't say! But people are sticking to the brands they know, feeling a tiny bit of relief as the price of gasoline comes down, almost in half since July. "But even as worry about gas prices fades, it is being replaced by fear about the broader economy. Each 10-cent drop in gasoline prices puts $12 billion a year back in consumers’ pockets. Instead of spending that cash, people are trying to save it or cut their debt... [and] the fall in gasoline prices is not translating into improved fortunes for automakers, at least not yet. Consumers said they remained wary of gas-guzzling cars on the theory that prices would rise again."

And that brings us to the next rescue plan, the one for the Big Three (or Big 2.5) automakers-- and the hundreds of thousands of workers-- millions if you include subsidiary industries-- who could be thrown out of work if the Republicans sabotage a $25 billion emergency loan package.

Senior Democrats are drafting legislation that would carve out part of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout for loans to the three major U.S. auto companies in exchange for a government ownership stake in the companies.

They hope to push the measure through during a postelection session of Congress that begins Monday. General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC are lobbying feverishly for Congress to approve the aid, citing an economic downturn that has choked off sales and frozen credit.

But the idea is running into resistance from Republicans and President George W. Bush, who are reluctant to back any additional money for the struggling industry. House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio issued a statement Thursday promising to oppose any new auto industry loans.

Chris Dodd, who supports the loan, says he doesn't think the votes are there to pass it. They need every single Democrat-- even conservatives from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party like Ben Nelson and Mark Pryor, plus a dozen from across the aisle. A few Republicans in states with auto plants and auto suppliers-- especially the ones who will be facing the voters in 2010 (like Ohio's George Voinovich and Missouri's Kit Bond)-- are likely to vote with the Democrats.

Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the banking committee, said he would not support legislation to aid the auto companies and seemed prepared to let one or all of them collapse.

“The financial straits that the Big Three find themselves in is not the product of our current economic downturn, but instead is the legacy of the uncompetitive structure of its manufacturing and labor force,” Mr. Shelby said in a statement. “The financial situation facing the Big Three is not a national problem but their problem.”

On Thursday, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, also came out strongly against the idea.

“Spending billions of additional federal tax dollars with no promises to reform the root causes crippling automakers’ competitiveness around the world is neither fair to taxpayers nor sound fiscal policy,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement.

Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, in an appearance on Fox News, said: “You wonder where bailout-mania will end.”

Mr. Hensarling said American automakers should bear responsibility for their failed operations. “They are producing high-cost products that consumers don’t want to buy. And so now we have Washington on the verge of giving them a bailout simply because we have all heard of them and they have high-priced lobbyists.”

Right-wing Republicans are salivating at the thought of destroying their arch-enemies, the labor unions and don't seem to be thinking about the effect the collapse of the auto sector would have on the economy. No one would be talking about a recession-- except maybe as something to aspire to. How ironic if Bush's final two acts in the office he stole and then disgraced is to veto a rescue plan for the auto industry, sending the country into Depression, followed by a blanket pardon for all the criminals who have looted our country in the past 8 years.

Post-Bush, Obama has some excellent ideas for how to rescue the auto industry-- from itself, as well as from the dire economic conditions we all find ourselves in after the 8 years of excess under the GOP.