I was watching C-SPAN this morning. I like to tune in at least a few hours every week, and almost every morning after something goes down.
Mona Charen was a guest on Today from Washington. I hear makes a lot of appearances for parenting and motherhood, so I hate to dis her on this of all days. She's an empty head. She represents herself as a syndicated columnist for the National Review. That's not exactly true, even less so if you listen to her. If it was true, her job would be to present rigorous debate in the forum of political punditry. She didn't deserve the blanket attack against Jews from a fellow Republican call-in, but she's nearly as vile in her dismissals of Democratic and Obama actions of the past 110 days. Basically, she is boring. Check her out and vilify her on her sites and to the editors of papers she's syndicated to if the feeling strikes you. I'm sure it will. And she just does not justify our aggravation.
Now what I really want to talk about.
Stress tests seem to be an exercise of Government control over financiers. Banks are mandated to reduce costs by these stress tests. Essentially, they are told they must generate liquid assets in about a month. This should allow Geithner's team to understand how banks have previously hidden bad assets, and simultaneously help the banks to reduce operating costs.
I can understand how there appears a disconnect between my previous post and this one. Banks are local and must survive. The Difference is that auto companies can try to survive no matter what country they are in. They've informed the Treasury they will not survive unless they cut their costs, cutting jobs, and manufacture offshore. However, factory towns are decimated in the process. Here is a point where I disagree with Geithner's plan. Do we really need auto companies to survive? Banks are integral to the fabric of even neighborhoods, but wouldn't we just buy a better car if American companies could no longer produce them?
Bailing out banks helps wealthy financiers as well as middle income mortgage payers and lowest bracket survivors. Bailing out auto companies when they are doing little to nothing to protect American infrastructure, consumers, or their employees makes little if any sense. SO should the taxpayer save them?
I will continue to investigate this further, but my gut feeling is 'No.' This is meant to appease voters in Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois who thought Obama was going to swoop in and save their jobs. Unfortunately, auto companies are worried primarily about their bottom lines. Their profits should not be a government concern.
To hammer this home, I stated in my last post that Socialism has some very pertinent and useful applications in the automarket. Innovate! should be the bumper sticker that carries this point across. If American car companies don't want to share its breakthroughs (and we cannot really afford to as yet) with foreign companies, we should develop a new engine or fuel delivery or core technology that is patented on these shores, uniquely American, and marketable to the globe. This is a place where Big Government can do the job that much power is warranted for. They should mandate that these American car companies monthly or quarterly think tank their ideas until they revolutionize the personal vehicle. Treasury, Commerce, Ways and Means, Republicans and Democrats together should be force the R&D of American auto industry to meet and share this information with each other until someone breaks the riddle and gives us something both economically and practically solvent.
Maybe then we can stop with Green energy lip service and tackle the Power Grid next.
And don't forget the assuredly fatal problems of Social Security and Medicare if nothing drastically wise gets done.
Now a gay woman killing the Liberty Tree of America.
Naw, just kidding, It's Wanda Sykes being funny at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.
Happy Mother's Day.