It is good to know that Mr. Bush possesses enough civic virtue to wish to avoid presenting his successor to the Oval Office with a "major catastrophe" on January 20.

You take Mr. Bush's statements at face value?

I don't think Bush has enough maturity or presence of mind to know whether he will depart with grace or an infantile gesture. He hasn't manifested any mastery of his impulses.
 

This is, by my count, the third time in the last few weeks that you've given us ridiculous commentary on the market. I may have missed others. Just a week ago you asked "How much will the stock market decline tomorrow?" The market responded with an increase.

All I can say is, I hope you keep it up after January 20! Market movement used to seem rather mysterious to me, but after that date I'll know I can look here to see what Obama did to cause my portfolio's value to decline.
 

Patience Sandy. Mr. Obama is not ready to take office yet.

The One is still making a Trillion dollar Christmas gift list of new government stimulus / pork to add to the federal credit card to satisfy his various interest groups lining up at the trough.

Speaking of major catastrophes...
 

The One is still making a Trillion dollar Christmas gift list of new government stimulus / pork to add to the federal credit card to satisfy his various interest groups lining up at the trough.


It's odd that pissing away a few trillion in Iraq hasn't seemed to bother you at all.
 

If there's any justice, Obama will spit in Preznit Horsecranker's face at the inauguration, but that is only likely to happen in my imagination.

The simple fact is, of course, that we can't predict the future and don't know what Bush's legacy will be yet. This is what Bush and Cheney are using to prop up their reputations so that the torture prosecutions happen just slowly enough for Cheney to shuffle off this mortal coil in time to have lived a life of pure innocence. Even so, any prosecution would see Pinochet-like health-pleas from Cheney
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

bb:

Try $613 billion over nearly six years (as of this posting).

Chump change compared to the current potential bailout liability of $8.5 trillion before The One adds another trillion dollars - an amount that will grow exponentially as part of Obama's wish list of "stimulus" (sic) are new immortal federal entitlement programs.

To get an idea of the insanity of this Peronist like debt spree, here are other comparable programs in 2008 dollars:

The entire decade long New Deal - $500 billion

The Marshall Plan - $125 billion

Of course, our economy is much larger than back during the Depression/WWII, but you get the idea.

A trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon you are talking real money.

The really scary thing is that this bill will come due during the next generation as they have to pay for the boomers' social security and medicare costs.

Insanity.
 

There appears little doubt in the minds of most bloggers. The mainstream media people however must be on the Bush payroll or are afraid to speak their minds.
 

Try $613 billion over nearly six years (as of this posting).

Baghdad, $613 billion is only a fraction of the real cost of the Iraq disaster. And every single dollar of those trillions has been pissed away for nothing. NOTHING.

THAT is insanity. Not only have you not protested it, you have been applauding it.
 

You know, there are flat earthers, there are ID enthusiasts, there are people who want to bring back the gold standard, but there can't be too many monomaniacs who have gained as little traction for their bizarre ideas in public discourse as Prof. Levinson. I mean, this idea that presidents (at least those especially hated by academics) should resign immediately after the election just isn't going anywhere.
 

It appears that the $613 billion figure derives from a two-year-old CRS report, the latest version of which (October 15, 2008) begins, "With enactment of the FY2008 Supplemental and FY2009 Bridge Fund (H.R. 2642/P.L. 110-252) on June 30, 2008, Congress has approved a total of about $864 billion for military operations," etc. I would question the reliability of the zFacts pronouncement as a measure of current costs, and by costs I think it's important to examine what the CRS reporter took into account. See http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf.
 

Dean:

Two issues

1) Your article covers not only Iraq, but Afghanistan and all other WOT expenditures.

2) The cited appropriation extends to next summer and has not all been spent.
 

With respect to issue 1), zFacts nevertheless points to a two-year-old assessment as the source for its data. Indeed, the figure from that report for Iraq comports with zFacts' mid-FY2006 plot, around $318B. The corresponding figure from the latest CRS report is $657B. That datum implicates issue 2), although the distinction (costs versus appropriations) doesn't seem to have bothered zFacts. I would not cite to zFacts (despite its nifty little counter) for data more reliably expressed by CRS.
 

Dean:

The $657 billion figure is CRS' estimate of the Iraq portion of appropriations through part of FY 2009. I suspect that he actual amount spent to date is probably between the $657 billion appropriation and zFacts claim of $613 billion spent.

The point still stands that we have not spent trillions of dollars on the Iraq War over the past nearly 6 years and the cost of the annual cost of the Iraq War will not even begin to approach the 2008 bailouts and the additional spending spree planned by Mr. Obama for the next two years.
 

Personally, I expect a much greater ROI from the stimulus package than from the money spent on the Iraq war.

If you disagree, then it's a pity you weren't able to persuade more people to vote for the crazy spending-freeze guy.
 

The point still stands that we have not spent trillions of dollars on the Iraq War over the past nearly 6 years and the cost of the annual cost of the Iraq War will not even begin to approach the 2008 bailouts and the additional spending spree planned by Mr. Obama for the next two years.


I guess you should have convinced more people that the Iraq disaster has not been a complete waste of money.
 

Bart: My point, which doesn't really depend on whether the one to which you refer stands or falls, is that the determination of the "cost" of Iraq depends on what is being taken into account as a cost. Compare, for example, the assessment by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes. CRS evaluates one more or less well-defined assembly of factors, Stiglitz and Bilmes another. Assuming both accounts are accurate, mere recitations of cost don't suffice to determine whether a situation is a catastrophe, be it major, minor, or minuscule.
 

"I mean, this idea that presidents (at least those especially hated by academics) should resign immediately after the election just isn't going anywhere."

Got that one right, Sean; Nobody who'd wind up in the White house would ever voluntarily leave it early, you don't get that job through a lack of interest in holding it.

Anyone want to bet that Sandy quietly drops his obsession about this a few months into the Obama Presidency?
 

Have you noticed that Obama wears a flag lapel pin all the time now? Now why would that be?

Because it has become a defacto accessory for presidentin'.

What's that got to do with anything? Just this.

I am in favor of getting Ol' Shitforbrains out of office as soon as possible. But what happens if Cheney bags it, Obama gets appointed and Bush resigns?

8 years hence there will be another lame duck - named Obama this time. There will be some pressing issue, he will wear a flag pin on his lapel. There will be an outcry "But Bush selflessly got out of the way. You must resign now!"

And from then on my children every president will be expected to duck out early or his legacy will be ashes.

I don't know if that is good or bad. I know it is ad hoc and ad hoc in areas like war on terror and torture and environmental policy and ecocomic policy and the war powers act tends to suck.

Why would this ad hocness be any better?

If Bush's great adventure has taught us anything it is that in the midst of a crisis, it is not the time to make shit up.
 

Actually, it might be nice if the blog could have one or two permanent threads akin to a running gag in a comedy show where the latest post could come up first - to include as possible subjects:-

(1) Professor Levinson on constitutional reform; and
(2) LSR Bart on any subject or delusion of the moment.

More seriously, allowing for the fact that the US constitution was written for a by-gone era, it might be a good idea for a progressive Congress/Administration to establish a more formal structure with, say, an undersecretary for constitutional and law reform within the Department of Justice and specialist sub-committees within the Congress.

OK there's a danger known as "don't commit yourself, committee your self", but at least a formal structure to consider reforms might lead to some progress.

What would be the the constitutional impediment to a general and comprehensive Human Rights Act? Such legislation, say could perhaps give a special status in Federal Law to the American Convention of Human Rights along the line of the UK Human Rights Act 1998

That could possibly achieve quite a lot pending constitutional reform.

As for lame duck presidents, I really do not see how a transition can be that much abbreviated in a presidential system where there is no "government in waiting". What might be worth exploring would be an amendment whereby once a sucessor was elected, the "lame duck" could onlly sign bills and exective orders or appointments having effect beyond the term of the presidency if the bill/executive order/appointment were countersigned by the president-elect. That would make the "lame duck" really lame.
 

Bush says:
But, Mr. Bush, answering questions at the [AEI], said he was concerned about “putting good money after bad.”

But buying up bad mortgages is just fine. As I see it, all politicos are hypocrites by nature, and the public's job is to determine the threshold of tolerance. That said, the glaring double standard here is stunning not only in its sheer magnitude and depth of levels, but in how Bush now all but openly flaunts it in the public face.

Is it just me, or does the modern conservative delve deeper into hypocrisy than in the past? Just look at self-appointed conservative paragon bart's posting record (note: I'm starting to think bart is not a real person but a social experiment) - hypocrisy is the only consistent thread. While I find it hard to believe that conservatism confers hypocrisy, bart makes a convincing case.

Not to digress, however. By sweeping strokes, Junior can only inflict more damage at this point, due to the conflicted nature of whatever echoes in his departed mind. Saddled with such divergent agendas, each of which on its own would stand as farce, his decisions are not unlike a first time bicycle rider trying to hard to maintain balance. Only here there is regrettably no parent to gently say, "that's enough for now son". He can't seem to decide if the free market really works, or if government management of an industry works, or if throwing raw cash away at something is the solution. He's almost acting like someone in a fit of quiet ideological panic. The point here is that junior can't make good choices - out of a conflicted mind will come conflicted choices.

So while Professor Levinson's championing for immediate resignation of a sitting president has conspicuous drawbacks, in the midst of an economic crisis its starting to look like the best alternative.
 

Bush has now decided to bail out the auto companies. Since, by definition, everything that Bush does is wrong, I claim conclusive vindication for the anti-bailout position.
 

Since, by definition, everything that Bush does is wrong, I claim conclusive vindication for the anti-bailout position.

Most of what Bush wanted to do was wrong. But even when what he wanted to do was right, the execution was incompetent. I'm not yet sure which category any bailout would fall into.
 

I don't think there's any question that Bush's intentions have been benign, on the whole, as blinkered by the ideology and blinded by his having grown up in a bubble of privilege.

The problem is his profound and seemingly contagious incompetence. Whatever this man touches, it would appear has a low probability of success.

On the plus side, this has certainly set back the monarchists and raised the question of nepotism in political advancement, which has been growing alarmingly since the 60's.

On the negative side, the country may become unrecognizably altered (and not for the better) by the consequences of this presidency.

Call me an optimist (if that is the proper term) -- but I don't believe those given advantage by the current political and legal environment will, even in the face of the slow-motion train wreck that has been taking place for years, will see a need for anything more than a rotation of the tires.
 

bit:

The only folks who think Bush is a "conservative" are you Dems. The Bush TARP bailout of the UAW is a mirror image of the plan he and the Dems could not enact in Congress and a betrayal of the conservative GOP in Congress. Obama might as well be President now for all the difference it would make.
 

The New York Times said:

But, Mr. Bush, answering questions at the [AEI], said he was concerned about “putting good money after bad.”

That has never seemed to bother him when Iraq was involved, or when reducing taxes on the rich as a method to increase tax revenues.
 

The only folks who think Bush is a "conservative" are you Dems

Baghdad is right. In wingnut world Bush stopped being a conservative after the 2006 election. From 2006 to 2008 Rudy was a conservative. Then it was Palin. Now Obama is a conservative.
 

I make no bones about the fact that I despise the Bush Administration, but the one thing wrong with Brett's snarky cynicism about my motives is that back in 1998, I described the hiatus between election and inauguration as the "stupidest" feature of our Constitution. If Barack Obama is beaten in 2012 by someone who believes that his policies are fundamentally mistaken, then I certainly expect to be as critical of his remaining in office until January 20.
 

Sandy:

If Barack Obama is beaten in 2012 by someone who believes that his policies are fundamentally mistaken, then I certainly expect to be as critical of his remaining in office until January 20.

Duly archived. Hopefully, we will be able to test your pledge in four years.

Meanwhile, I look forward to your criticisms of Mr. Obama's imminent decisions to maintain many of the Bush foreign policies that you claimed were either unconstitutional or examples of a "constitutional dictatorship."
 

"As the most discredited president in the history of the United States, Mr. Bush simply has no political authority whatsoever to make the decision as to how to respond to the auto industry."

Would Sandy please comment on what Bush has just done to respond to the auto industry problem? It seems to me that Bush has taken the responsible course and, more or less, kicked the can down the road to the Obama administration.

Isn't this a model of how a President lacking political authority ought to make use of his legal authority?
 

Bot Bart writes:
The only folks who think Bush is a "conservative" are you Dems.

Childish and dull-wited politicking aside, never assume. It makes a ass out of u and me. Or, in this case, just u.
 

nocasa writes
If Bush's great adventure has taught us anything it is that in the midst of a crisis, it is not the time to make shit up.

That seems like the best argument against any get-rid-of-junior-early scheme. But, to give the devil his due, from Professor Levinson's point of view, if every president from now on in bailed early, that would be a good practice to hold to.

Of course, in time the swearing in ceremony would start to look silly.
 

"Most of what Bush wanted to do was wrong. But even when what he wanted to do was right, the execution was incompetent. I'm not yet sure which category any bailout would fall into."

You think he will mail the checks to the wrong address?
 

We cannot tell in what particular way the Bush administration's peculiar genius for screwups will manifest itself.

It may be that they'll sneak something into the deal that will turn out, later, to enable the auto company executives to rob us blind (like they did with the bank bailout.)

It may be they'll put someone in charge who will turn out corrupt or hopelessly incompetent (like Wolfy or Brownie.)

The list goes on, but the point is: based on past performance, if you are comfortable with their handling of the situation, then you haven't been paying attention.
 

What C2H50H said.
 

C2H50H / Mark Field:

Both TARP and the UAW bailout were Dem/Bush ideas opposed by the congressional GOP.

Time to start owning up to the fact that the Dems control half of the government and are equal partners in this robbery of the tax payers.

In another month, the Dems and Obama will be completely to blame for more of the same on steroids.
 

mr. depalma

I notice that you keep referring to the auto industry bailout as the "UAW" bailout. Could you therefore please explain to me what the CEOs of the Big Three automakers were doing in Washington, and why they were asking for money for their company? I seem to recall that they were there asking for money to keep their companies afloat. I also seem to recall a whole bunch of talk about the critical necessity of a healthy American auto industry. I don't recall hearing any of the CEOs say at any of the hearings that they were there on behalf of the UAW, but then again, I may have missed it.
 

In another month, the Dems and Obama will be completely to blame for more of the same on steroids.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 6:35 PM


And most of America will be happy that adults are finally in charge.
 

I see we have some committed partisans here. C2H50H, I recognize your type. Let me guess: Geithner is a fabulous choice for Treasury, much better than Paulson. He's got judgment, experience, intelligence, the whole bit. Never done anything wrong.

The wholesale collapse of Citi on his regulatory watch, and the fact that he's been in the room with Paulson at every critical juncture? Blame someone else, right? Like Bush maybe.

The sheer willpower it must take to keep your story straight and your mind closed would overwhelm lesser mortals.
 

The sheer willpower it must take to keep your story straight and your mind closed would overwhelm lesser mortals.

Indeed. How's the search for those huge WMD stockpiles in Iraq going for you clowns?
 

I see some people can't wait to see in what particular ways an Obama administration screws up.

We'll have to wait to see, of course, but I predict that, although there will certainly be screwups, the two Obama terms will never be considered the disaster that the last two terms have been.
 

The sheer willpower it must take to keep your story straight and your mind closed would overwhelm lesser mortals.

Being accused of having a closed mind by a GOP flunkie is a unique experience.
 

A Colorado Springs Christmas Carol

[adapted from a Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens]

The firm was known as the Law Office of Harald De Palma. Sometimes people new to the business called De Palma “Harald” and sometimes “Bart”, and sometimes “De Palma” but he answered to all these names. It was all the same to him.

External heat and cold had little influence on Bart. No warmth could warm, no wintry weather chill him. No wind that blew was bitterer than he, no falling snow was more intent upon its purpose, no pelting rain less open to entreaty. Foul weather didn't know where to have him. The heaviest rain, and snow, and hail, and sleet, could boast of the advantage over him in only one respect. They often came down handsomely, and Bart never did.

Nobody ever stopped him in the street to say, with gladsome looks, ``My dear Bart, how are you. When will you come to see me.'' No beggars implored him to bestow a trifle, no children asked him what it was o'clock, no man or woman ever once in all his life inquired the way to such and such a place, of Bart. Even the blindmen's dogs appeared to know him; and when they saw him coming on, would tug their owners into doorways and up courts; and then would wag their tails as though they said, ``No eye at all is better than an evil eye, dark master! ''

Once upon a time -- of all the good days in the year, on Christmas Eve -- old Bart sat busy in his law office. It was cold, bleak, biting weather: the door of Bart’s office was open that he might keep his eye upon his clerk, who in a dismal little cell beyond, a sort of tank, was photocopying letters.

Two portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold had entered the office, and now stood, with their hats off, in Bart’s office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him.

``Law Office of Harald De Palma, I believe,'' said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. ``Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr De Palma?''

``I am he,'' Bart replied.''

``At this festive season of the year, Mr De Palma'' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ``it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute automobile workers of Michigan, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.''

``Are there no prisons?'' asked Bart.

``Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

``And the state’s soup kitchens ?'' demanded Bart. ``Are they still in operation?''

``They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, `` I wish I could say they were not.''

``Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Bart. ``I'm very glad to hear it.''

``Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,'' returned the gentleman, ``a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the poor auto workers and their families some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?''

``Nothing!'' Bart replied.

``You wish to be anonymous?''

``I wish to be left alone,'' said Bart. ``Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle auto workers merry. My taxes help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''

``Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''

``If they would rather die,'' said Bart, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.''

``But you might know it,'' observed the gentleman.

``It's not my business,'' Bart returned. ``It's enough for a man to understand his own 401(k) plan, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!''

Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Bart resumed his blogging with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him.
 

Mourad's "carol" reminds me of the Scrooge-like character who died and was at the Pearly Gates seeking entry into Heaven. St. Peter assigned an angel to interview the applicant. The angel asked the applicant for examples of good deeds that he had performed over his long life. The only thing the applicant could come up with was on a night of a severe blizzard around Christmas, he had seen a young boy selling newspapers, sales of which he relied upon for his keep; that the boy was cold and wet and shivering; that after much thought the applicant finally gave the boy two cents.

When the angel reported this to St. Peter, St. Peter said: "Give him back his two cents and tell him to go to hell!"

I wonder if there is a young boy in Colorado Springs selling newspapers.
 

So is that last comment an example of the high levels of civility, higher than those on Volokh Conspiracy, that Mr. Field detects at this website?
 

phg said...

mr. depalma, I notice that you keep referring to the auto industry bailout as the "UAW" bailout. Could you therefore please explain to me what the CEOs of the Big Three automakers were doing in Washington, and why they were asking for money for their company?

A couple preliminary corrections:

1) Did you miss the UAW prez sitting next to the CEOs during the congressional hearing dog and pony show and later present during negotiations vetoing the Corker compromise loan requiring that UAW contracts be restructured to meet the market? Please do not tell me this was not all about the UAW.

2) There are two primary differences between the successful foreign owned US auto industry and the nearly insolvent Big Three - the UAW and too many car dealerships. The Big Three are on board on reducing the car dealerships. The remaining snag is the refusal of the UAW to become competitive with their non-union competition. Thus, any government bailout of the Big Three is actually a bailout to maintain the UAW's cadillac contracts.

The reason why the Big Three are coming to Congress rather than going into bankruptcy is pretty self evident - The Dem Congress is giving away free tax payer money requiring no particular action by the Big Three while bankruptcy restructuring requires a great deal of pain including usually clearing out the management and cutting its pay.
 

So is that last comment an example of the high levels of civility, higher than those on Volokh Conspiracy, that Mr. Field detects at this website?

There are uncivil comments on both sites. The volume of incivility is much higher at VC (though it also gets a higher volume of comments), and it's that which I was referring to in my previous comment.
 

Mourad:

Incredible.

Are you actually comparing UAW workers making about as much as you do and more than with the destitute Tiny Tim and those who defend the relatively poorer taxpayers from looting by the wealthy UAW with Scrooge.

Sir, your understanding of morality and plain reality is seriously in question.
 

There are two primary differences between the successful foreign owned US auto industry and the nearly insolvent Big Three - the UAW and too many car dealerships. The Big Three are on board on reducing the car dealerships. The remaining snag is the refusal of the UAW to become competitive with their non-union competition. Thus, any government bailout of the Big Three is actually a bailout to maintain the UAW's cadillac contracts.

From what I understand, the car dealership issue is not quite that easy, as many state laws control the relationships between the automakers and the dealerships. From what I have read, BK may be better at resolving the thorny dealership issue than bailouts.

Re: UAW wages. Do you think that wages at non-union shops would be similar to their current level if it were not for the union shops. My understanding of the issue is that non-union pay at the mainly southern auto factories would be much lower, i.e., more in tune with their non-auto working incomes, if it was not for the pressure of potential unionization (the rising tide lifts all boats effect). You also seem to always forget (for some reason not stated by you) that the current price difference between union/non-union autos sold, of comparable models, is greater, by a factor of about 2-3, than the difference in total worker compensation for these shops. It's not the worker costs that are killing the big 3 (and in fact Ford is opting out of the bailout), but poor management decisions.

The reason why the Big Three are coming to Congress rather than going into bankruptcy is pretty self evident - The Dem Congress is giving away free tax payer money requiring no particular action by the Big Three while bankruptcy restructuring requires a great deal of pain including usually clearing out the management and cutting its pay.

Again, you forget that Ford is not asking for bailout money now (just a future line of credit that would likely allow them better bargaining position for private financing).

Speaking of clearing out management and cutting its pay, I have not heard you complaining recently about the financial institution bailouts, and the "retention payments (no not bonuses, never bonuses)".
 

C2H50H, considered by whom? I mean, if you thought the Fed was a disaster last week, and that the secretary of defense a partisan hack, what will they be now? I know the answer for you--that's my point. So, yes, some of us will throw it all back at you. Some nameless SEC bureaucrat screws up and the next Madoff gets away? Well, obviously it's Obama's fault, even if it happened last year. Rooting for failure seems like so much more fun than the alternative, and while the low intellectual standards that have gone with that position over the last few years seem demeaning, I'm willing to give it a shot.
 

Fraud guy, yes, it is worker and retiree costs and unproductive work rules that have killed the big 3.
 

Thomas,

If you know what I think, what's the point of any reply by me? Have fun with yourself, don't drag me into it.

As for "cheering on failure" -- please note that the most spectacular instance of this is by your compatriot BDP, who, apparently, has gone from crowing a few weeks ago about the potency of Bush in holding a conference on the financial crisis (which conference, oddly enough, seems to have come to nought) to now claiming it's the "Dem Congress" giving money to everybody, as if the presidency weren't even in existence.

Please note that observing the last eight years and assessing them, ex post facto, is quite different from your own apparent certainty that the future Obama administration(s) will be equally disastrous.

For the record, I find your and BDP's arrogance in declarations as to what the causes of all these problems are hilarious.

As for "intellectual standards" -- do, please, try to keep it civil, or we'll make Sean cry.
 

Thomas,

Did you read my second paragraph?
 

Fraud Guy said...

Re: UAW wages. Do you think that wages at non-union shops would be similar to their current level if it were not for the union shops. My understanding of the issue is that non-union pay at the mainly southern auto factories would be much lower, i.e., more in tune with their non-auto working incomes, if it was not for the pressure of potential unionization (the rising tide lifts all boats effect).

Not really.

None of the unionization efforts in the southern auto plants has come close to working. The UAW is really a dinosaur given the free fall in union membership among non-government employees since Reagan broke the air traffic controllers union.

Auto manufacturing is a skilled job that would demand a relatively high salary compared to other unskilled factory work down South. Their wages appear to be reasonable for skilled factory work.

It's not the worker costs that are killing the big 3 (and in fact Ford is opting out of the bailout), but poor management decisions.

Such as?

Speaking of clearing out management and cutting its pay, I have not heard you complaining recently about the financial institution bailouts, and the "retention payments (no not bonuses, never bonuses)".

You may recall that I was the one favorably posting about the GOP rebellion against the financial bailout prior to the election. I reluctantly supported plan for the government to buy real estate mortgages at a discount and resell them later at a potential profit. However, TARP was a scam and Treasury simply gave money to the banks and now the UAW. I oppose both uses and all further lootings of the treasury to give money to businesses and unions. The United States is acting like a Peronist Latin American banana republic right now.
 

Bart writes:
Are you actually comparing UAW workers making about as much as you do

Please enlighten us as to that amount.

with the destitute Tiny Tim

I missed that part of Mourad's adaptation. Did it exist?


Sir, your understanding of morality and plain reality is seriously in question.

From what you wrote here, this 'assertion' is based on fantasy. At least Mourad qualified his piece as a literary adaptation. You could try to be as honest.
 

LSR "Scrooge" Bart seems to be geographically challenged.

"The United States is acting like a Peronist Latin American banana republic right now."

The term "Banana Republic" is a reference to those Central (rather than Latin) American states, notably El Salvador, Belize, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala, where US corporations install servile dictatorships to permit them to exploit the workforce on their fruit plantations thereby increasing the profits of the corporations at the expense of the people.

A major US corporation involved in the process was United Fruit Company, later renamed United Brands Company and now trading under the name of Chiquita Brands International Inc., the company once run by one of the most prominent of the "Billionaires for Bush", Carl Lindner, Jr. In fact, it was while Lindner was CEO of Chiquita that the corporation was implicated in the financing of terrorist groups in Colombia.

Peronism which was an Argentinian, phenomenon on the other hand was a form of corporate nationalism. It did not involve the state being run in the interests of US corporations - on the contrary it involved nationalising the big foreign-owned corporations and making the unions partners in the corporate state.

LSR Bart also has some strange ideas about the earnings of English lawyers. In a post addressed to me he wrote:-

"Are you actually comparing UAW workers making about as much as you do and more than with the destitute Tiny Tim and those who defend the relatively poorer taxpayers from looting by the wealthy UAW with Scrooge."

Professional earnings in the UK for those of more than 10 years' experience will range between £250,000 pa and £1.5 million pa. Those in government service get quite considerably less, but with very good inflation-proof pensions thrown in. I doubt the US auto workers hit even the bottom end of that bracket.

Could it be that LSR Bart is in reality envious of the earnings of automobile workers - or is his posturing simply schadenfreude?

Perhaps there with be a miraculous change in LSR Bart's attitude once the ghosts have visited.
 

Mourad re:

"Professional earnings in the UK for those of more than 10 years' experience will range between £250,000 pa and £1.5 million pa. Those in government service get quite considerably less, but with very good inflation-proof pensions thrown in. I doubt the US auto workers hit even the bottom end of that bracket."

Might Britain provide comity to little Lisa's bro to permit him to engage in the practice of law to make a living wage, greater than that of a UAW member? Or does little Lisa's bro prefer being a capitalist without capital?
 

Bart writes:
However, TARP was a scam and Treasury simply gave money to the banks and now the UAW.


Please point to the news item about money sent directly to the UAW. Not your continuing fantasy. I do see your point (I don't like it either) but you make that point like a psychiatric outpatient.
 

Shag from Brookline:-

1. As a serious point, it is entirely possible for a US lawyer to transfer to the UK and become either a solicitor or a barrister. For the solicitors' requirements see: the details of the Qualified Lawyers' Transfer Test on the web site of the Solicitors' Regulation Authority and for the bar see Transfer to the Bar on the web site of the Bar Standards Board.

2. In practice, most American lawyers who transfer come over into solicitors' firms operating multi-jurisdictional partnerships, mostly the so-called 'magic circle' law firms. It's more difficult for those wishing to practice at the bar unless they have prior connections with a particular set of chambers.

While it remains a theoretical possibility, I don't really think it's a practical proposition in the case of LSR Bart. There is no longer a real market for DUI lawyers here. Breath test at the roadside - repeated 20 minutes later at the police station. If both results are over 0.8mg - disqualification for 1 year is automatic + fine + possible jail (usually a real risk on 2nd offence). Trial before magistrates - no challenges to the machine readings - no expert evidence - all over in 5-10 minutes.

So I guess we are stuck with the dear chap blogging his little reptilian heart out in the wilds of the Colorado Springs suburbs - I suppose you could try asking Uncle Sam to reactivate his commission and post him to Afghanistan - there are some pretty impressive mountain ranges there too!

Perhaps Jacob Marley clanking his chains in 3 days' time may bring the dear fellow to his senses - although he may be too far gone.

You may be familiar with the Kavafis poem Waiting for the Barbarians which certainly sprang to my mind in November 2000 when the Supreme Court delivered you all (and the world) up into the hands of the Toxic Texan and his friends.

Now that the Barbarians are about to leave your capital city, you may care to remember the tag line:-

"And now what shall become of us without any barbarians? Those people were some kind of solution."

LSR Bart's continued presence on the site will continue to remind us all of just what the USA and the world have been through in the last 8 years while the Barbarians were in office. The combination of the recession and the continuing posts from dear LSR Bart may serve as a reminder that there are still 'gators in the Florida swamps, rattlesnakes in Texas and other reptiles in other locations - they are all regrettably far from becoming endangered species.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mourad:

" ... become either a solicitor or a barrister .... "

Do you mean that in all of Britain there is no room for a

BART-ISTER?

Since he advertizes, couldn't he be a "solicitor"?
 

Dear Shag:

In the dim and distant past before Flying While Muslim became an indictable offence in the USA, I recollect travelling to Texas to negotiate the terms of a gas deal which had US, UK and Arabian Gulf participants.

My very hospitable Texan colleague came to meet my flight at Dallas Forth Worth (on a Sunday morning!!) and invited me to visit with his family for a barbeque luncheon (yes, he used the preposition). After dropping my bags at the hotel, I was slightly perturbed to notice the gun rack on his SUV and even more perturbed by the sign at the bottom of his drive which read "Solicitors shot on site" illustration - and thus I learned another of the differences between the Queen's English and Murkin.

However after the 3rd (or perhaps the 4th) outsize bloody mary that little difference was cleared up to our mutual amusement after I had explained that Solicitors in England are the respectable part of the profession - they are allowed to receive and hold monies from clients while barristers are not allowed to touch client monies. Further, the whole solicitors' profession co-insures client monies against defalcations under an indemnity scheme called the Solicitors' Compensation Fund.

Later in my trip, I stopped off at Brown's Bookshop in Houston and purchased the Illustrated Dictionary of the Texas Language which I have treasured ever since.

In my salad days, neither half of the profession was allowed to advertise. Sad to say, those times are long since gone and the ambulance chasers are on cable TV every day promising "no-win, no fee and 100% of the compensation" for personal injury claims. O tempora! O mores!
 

In the early years of my practice that began in the mid-1950s in Boston, advertizing by attorneys was strictly prohibited. My office was in a building occupied mostly by attorneys bearing a sign in the lobby that read: "NO SOLICITING." Of course attorneys solicted business (even without advertizing) back in those days, by various means. But every time I notice that lobby sign, a smile would result. Indeed!

Back in the mid-1970s I was involved in an anti-trust case in Houston, that included the three largest Houston law firms. I was greatly impressed with the Houston bar. I remember one of the trial lawyers saying, in the course of discovery and preparation for trial, "All witnesses lie a little bit." I've come to accept that over the years. After all, as advocates we prep them ("just a little bit").
 

Sandy Levinson wrote:
Is the Bush presidency a "major catastrophe"?

At the time of this post, actually, a major ongoing catastrophe. Junior seems determined to leave the most destructive legacy possible.
 

Growing apart doesn’t change the fact that for a long time we grew side by side; our roots will always be tangled. I’m glad for that.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya