A Financial Times reporter who endorsed Obama but worried about his economic policies has taken a fresh look at the President-elect's post-election economic policy ideas, and doesn't like some of the big ticket items he sees. [See related blog entry by Jeff Poor here]
In his November 10 op-ed "The choices that confront America," British journalist Clive Crook reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's openness to bailing out Detroit's floundering automakers (emphasis mine):
The greatest danger of all is that the valid case for a strong stimulus takes under its wing spending proposals that create an ongoing obligation, have no true investment rationale, and represent a waste of public money now and in the future.
The bail-out currently being sought by the big US carmakers falls squarely into this category. Managers and unions have conspired for years to drive US-owned, US-based car manufacturing into the ground. Now they seek public subsidy to pay for investments they should have undertaken in any case, and to sustain wages and benefits that comparably qualified workers in other industries cannot hope to enjoy.
Why a worker in a US-owned car factory deserves more generous treatment than any other kind of US worker escapes me. Asking those other workers to pay for these privileges seems to add insult to injury. Perhaps President Obama will be able to explain.
In his column running the day before the election, Crook expressed that if he were able to vote in the United States, he'd cast his ballot for the Illinois senator, but added that he hoped to hear some straight talk that the Democratic Party's backers in Big Labor don't exactly like to hear:
His political style is that of a Clintonian New Democrat - with its rhetorical moderation, pro-enterprise talking points and calls for co-operation with political opponents. But his economic analysis often harks back to a more old-fashioned kind of liberalism, with its emphasis on redistribution, regulation and national priorities.
[...]
A great deal of creative destruction - including "shipping jobs abroad" - is the price you pay for long-term economic vitality.
Perhaps Mr Obama agrees. If he had said so, I could cast the vote I do not have with greater enthusiasm.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters. You can follow him on Twitter here
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Unlike a car that's a lemon
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 17:44 ET by stancoyleUnlike a car that's a lemon you can return to the car dealership, you are stuck with what you bought in this election. The gates are not even open yet and people are already getting buyer's remorse! By summer this political lemon will taste pretty sour!
Where the hell was this
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 17:44 ET by RESTLESS 1Where the hell was this kind of analysis before the election????
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
he finally took the red pill
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 17:53 ET by katainkentunfortunately he's too late.
member of the Conservative Independant Witness Protection Program since Nov. 5, 2008
My brother, an Obama voter,
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 17:56 ET by Chris NormanMy brother, an Obama voter, went nuts over the proposed application of financial bailout funds to the auto industry. Any other liberal proposals that he doesn't like he dismisses as, "Oh, they'll never do that". Evidence that many Obama supporters project on to him anything they want to see or believe. I asked him about the proposal to take away the secret ballots for union votes - his reply? "Oh, they'll never do that...".
Do you think Bush would
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 18:05 ET by balboaDo you think Bush would bail out the automakers?
Would that make it okay
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 18:11 ET by Chris NormanWould that make it okay if Bush would bail them out and do you now have a "What Would Bush Do?" bumpersticker?
Who knew? (everyone but
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 18:16 ET by SlicksterWho knew? (everyone but the libtards).
No, I'm just curious, with
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 18:25 ET by balboaNo, I'm just curious, with the previous bailouts (well, except for Lehman Bros.) if he'd continue to do the same or if he'd draw the line.
Oh, please. You're doing
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 18:32 ET by Chris NormanOh, please. You're doing what you always do. Trying to play "Gotcha!" with us - as if we supported everything Bush has done.
Honestly, not trying to do
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 18:36 ET by balboaHonestly, not trying to do that. Risky to play "gotcha" if I don't know the answer coming, which I genuinely didn't. Plus I know many people on this site have already been critical of Bush's economic policies.
Chris your intial post describes exactly what balboa has said
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 18:46 ET by Dee Bunkmany times he says stuff like "they'll never do that or even if they do it won't be that bad".
It's so comforting that people like balboa are okay with OUR rights being taking away because it won't be that bad for him. He thinks we should be happy with what ever little scrap we are given from Obama.
Who cares if they take away talk radio cause we can go stand on a corner and say anything we want. Well, almost anything - If we want to be critical of Obama we'll have to make sure we have a history that's never had a mistake or paid any late bill otherwise we'll be smeared. Regular citizens will get more scrutiny than Obama himself got and we don't have any power.
He thinks we should be
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 19:03 ET by balboaHe thinks we should be happy with what ever little scrap we are given from Obama.
Wow, imagine my surprise that I never said that...
Who cares if they take away talk radio cause we can go stand on a
corner and say anything we want. Well, almost anything - If we want to
be critical of Obama we'll have to make sure we have a history that's
never had a mistake or paid any late bill otherwise we'll be smeared.
Regular citizens will get more scrutiny than Obama himself got and we
don't have any power.
What I like about this analysis is that it isn't too over done.
See - Balboa's still wearing his tinfoil hat - we have proof
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 19:12 ET by Dee Bunkof an average citizen being smeared by Democrat operatives for Obama using government computers and he thinks it's silly to worry that it could happen to another average citizen who gets in Obama's way.
We're just supposed to believe he only did that stuff to win an election. We're just silly rabbits to think that it might be indicative of how he'll treat people who cross him. I do have to say that I agree - he won't be harsh on the average person until it seem that he's losing popularity. As long as he remains popular, we all have nothing to worry about.
Balboa will never have anything to worry about. He will be in his la la land watching American Idol because Obama won't come after that. Who cares if political speech is limited? As long as there's American Idol and Hollywood can say what ever they want - the world is just A Okay for balboa.
Again, well-reasoned, well
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 19:22 ET by balboaAgain, well-reasoned, well thought-out analysis. Very rational.
American Idol is a casual show for me, not a definite.
again - not well-reasoned - not well thought out
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 19:30 ET by Dee Bunkzero analysis and irrational. Par for the course with Balboa - nothing but platitudes - ever
So I gotcha balboa - don't worry about anything - Obama is the messiah and the heavens have opened. You don't have to reply to me - I know all your answers already. They are all based on hopes and dreams and ignore reality.
No, Dee, but I'll tell you
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 21:50 ET by balboaNo, Dee, but I'll tell you what my hopes and dreams aren't based on: fear, anger, and hyperbole.
If I'm wrong about Obama, and all that free speech is destroyed, I'll be the first to admit it.
wrong - balboa - you don't think anything hurts free speech
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 22:07 ET by Dee Bunkif it's supported by the Dems. You've already said that. You don't think the fairness doctrine threatens Free speech. You don't think secret ballots threaten free speech either. It's all okay to you if a Dem proposes it - unless it were something that threatened one of your T.V. shows. You only care about letting profanity have a voice but think political diversity is unimportant.
It doesn't matter IF Rush is still able to broadcast -it's still not right. A company should not be forced to put an unprofitable program on the air in order to keep their profitable one. Period.
You will only see it as a threat IF Rush disappears of the face of the earth. That could happen - that's the extreme - but it doesn't mean scraping away at our already grossly unfair playing field doesn't threaten our free speech.
you don't think anything
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 22:18 ET by balboayou don't think anything hurts free speech if it's supported by the Dems.
Another thing I never said. That's all you've done, is make up things or infer positions or fear the worst.
Did I quote you balboa? I don't think so
Tue, 11/11/2008 - 00:05 ET by Dee BunkI have not made anything up. I inferred that from things that you have said. You have said that you don't think The Fairness Doctrine or the Secret ballot harms free speech, you also don't think the treatment of Joe the Plumber or Sarah Palin are threats to free speech.
If none of those things bother you, I can't imagine what free speech issue would. You don't like the FCC limiting swear words and nudity and violence and other than that it seems to not be a very important issue to you. Unless maybe if it were to target Democrats.
My fearing the worst is irrelevant. The point is what is right and fair in terms of Free markets and free speech. Whether or not the worst actually happens doesn't matter. What's important is that the worst could happen.
You live in a dream world if you think there are no Unions out there who will use intimidation techniques if they can see everyone's ballot. You also live in a dream world if you think it's fair to impose a "fairness Doctrine" on radio but not T.V., the internet, & movies. You also live in a dream world if you think Joe the Plumber was just a one time fluke and that the Obama campaign would never target another average citizen if they asked a question that resonated with people.
As I've said, the Fairness
Tue, 11/11/2008 - 01:15 ET by balboaAs I've said, the Fairness Doctrine doesn't seem necessary, so all that gobbledy-gook about me only caring about swearing and nudity is just that. If it comes back, it would completely depend on how it was written and how the courts interpreted it as to how it would affect free speech. I'm sorry I'm not as concerned as you are. In fact, I actually don't think it's going to be a big concern of Obama's administration.
Secret ballots. I've done a lot of reading online. I can absolutely see how eliminating secret ballots would negatively affect union votes. BUT, I've also read that EFCA wouldn't actually eliminate secret ballots.
But no, I don't think the treatment of JtP and SP are threats to free speech.
"Do you think Bush would
Tue, 11/11/2008 - 00:39 ET by ckc1227"Do you think Bush would bail out the automakers?"
I think he just might....and he will be just as wrong for doing it as Obama and company will be.
You can't unring a bell, and the bailout bell has been rung. Financial entities were just the beginning.
Yes
Tue, 11/11/2008 - 10:46 ET by VonuIf he were up for re=election. Look at his Rx drug boondogle before 04.
The Electoral College hasn't even met
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 19:11 ET by katiejaneand people are already having "buyers" remorse. Gee - Obama just might do all those liberal things they convinced themselves he wouldn't do? That governing from the center is starting to become a memory. Suprise, suprise.
Did this guy just wake up?
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 19:36 ET by I want my country backOkay how stupid is this guy that he couldn't see this is exactly what Obama would do? These people crack me up.
Unions
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 21:31 ET by BeanManThis is called Union payback. The UAW will be and has been the death of the big three.
Since government is coercion, politics is largely the exercise of deception regarding the intended use of coercion - George Orwell
BeanMan... ...Bingo! "Am
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 21:37 ET by bigtimerBeanMan...
...Bingo!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Actually, the big union payback will be...
Tue, 11/11/2008 - 09:21 ET by JohnMcGrew...the "card check". In the meantime, bailing out the "big 3" is a no-brainer during a disgusting period in our history where most of our leaders have abandoned any sense of restraint at giving away our financial future to fix todays short-term problems. (They've completely forgotten the real long term time-bombs like Medicare, Social Security, and other unfunded government obligations) The "billion" has become the new "million" in terms of profligate spending.
A beaten and lame-duck Bush and a victorious Democratic Congress will be more than happy to dump umpteen billion more on an industry that for the last decade has found it cheaper to sell cars at a loss instead of laying people off because of brain-dead contracts they signed 25 years ago. They'll do this because they know that if the "big 3" go bankrupt, union contracts for tens of thousands of union jobs will evaporate, never to be seen again.
Where have all the adults gone?