Blog

Leo W. Gerard: The likes of Alabama Sen. Richard C. Shelby and other “Toyota Republicans,” as I call them, contend that GM and its partners in the Big Three American auto makers are antiquated and irrelevant and should be euthanized. You’ve written a book, “Why GM  Matters” that refutes Shelby’s premise by establishing that GM has remade itself as a company and is crucial to the American economy. I believe you. Why do so few others?

William J. Holstein: One major problem is that so many attitudes were formed five, 10, 20 years ago-long before GM began its transformation in earnest. These people, out of ignorance of the facts, are recycling old myths like these: GM can’t design cars that Americans want to drive. GM can’t innovate. GM hasn’t been willing to reduce its cost structure to compete internationally. And so on.
Then there are other people who are consciously trying to destroy or further cripple GM by recycling those arguments. One is U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, who has four transplant factories in his home state of Alabama. It turns out that the Southern Republicans are working on behalf of their home states, and their home states have given hundreds of millions of dollars in incentives to Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, BMW, Mercedes and others.
There is another lobby, which I call the “Bankruptcy Lobby,” that is trying to push GM into Chapter 11 because these bankruptcy lawyers and their law school allies would profit handsomely from it.

Gerard: So, to quote the book, here’s what you actually say:
“Free marketers had felt obliged to go along with the $700 billion {bailout} for Wall Street because Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (the CEO of Goldman Sachs at the very moment that it had become embroiled in Wall Street’s love affair with mega-leverage) had convinced them the entire financial system would shut down if they did not.
“But when it came to the auto industry and the UAW, they wanted to slam the brakes on. Part of it also was sheer spite: Republicans were reeling after one of their most devastating electoral losses in history. The auto industry, and particularly, the United Auto Workers, had helped get the Democratic vote out and deliver the crucial swing states of Michigan and Ohio to Barack Obama.”
Are you actually saying that Republicans were willing to vote against the good of the country out of spite?

Holstein: Sad to say, but true. They are not acting in the national interest. They are playing for their home states. They have the right to do that. But everyone should be able to understand what they’re doing, and why. I blame the media for picking up comments from Shelby and others (“GM is a dinosaur”) and printing them, without subjecting them to critical scrutiny.

Gerard: Then you go on to say that the presence of “transplant” factories, or manufacturers like Honda and Toyota from foreign countries located in states like Shelby’s Alabama made a difference for some of these senators. And you cite Shelby as an example, noting that Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes and Toyota all located plants in Alabama with the help of state funds, but then he refused to provide federal funds for an American company. So are you saying that these senators were willing to vote for something that was bad for the U.S. – the bankruptcy of the Big Three – because it might provide more business for their home states?

Holstein: As I’ve said, I think that’s exactly what they’re trying to do.

Gerard: Oddly, considering the treatment of the UAW in the press, you manage not to lay blame for GM’s situation on the union. In fact, you say that by last spring, “The Harbour Report,” which you call the bible of car-making statistics, said Toyota factories needed 30 hours to assemble a vehicle while GM required 32. So what does that mean in productivity and difference in labor cost per vehicle?

Holstein: GM and the UAW have made dramatic progress in improving the way the company’s cars are manufactured. They’ve done that by absorbing the Toyota lean production method. And by altering their own relationship, by transferring health care costs to the union’s VEBA and by implementing a two-tier wage system. It is estimated that GM will have stripped out $5,000 from the cost of each vehicle by 2010. The relationship between GM and the UAW is by no means perfect, but they have made big progress in helping the company begin to approach the cost structure that Toyota has at its Georgetown, Kentucky plant. This is truly an historic response to Toyota.

Gerard: You cite a fascinating statistic in your third chapter. You say that although the transplants like Honda and Toyota located factories in the U.S. and American manufacturers make some cars overseas and import some parts, GM’s chief economist estimates that Toyota’s U.S. content is 50 percent while GM’s is 75 percent. What does that mean in the long run to Americans, in terms of jobs and the economy, for each GM car made?

Holstein: I don’t think it’s too dramatic to say that we are in the process of defining what kind of economy we want to have as Americans. Do we want to have an economy where we have many higher-paying jobs in finance, design, engineering, management, marketing (and in GM’s case, those jobs all depend on the folks working on the line) or do we want to send our kids to work in foreign-owned factories where a majority of the higher-value added functions are performed in Japan or Korea or Germany? You have heard it said, no doubt, that it doesn’t make a difference whether it’s a GM job in Michigan or Ohio or a Hyundai job in Alabama. The impact is the same for the American economy, so they say. But that statement is based on a very superficial understanding of auto manufacturing. In fact, it’s plain stupid.

Gerard: What I found striking about your book is that it took a hard look at Toyota as well. Here is a company that the Republicans glorified all through those hearings. Some said let the Big Three fail and Toyota can pick up the slack. And yet, Toyota’s sales fell off dramatically last year, and it posted a loss too. Wasn’t it simply affected by the same market forces that GM was? And if so, why does it retain an aura of perfection?

Holstein: Yes, Toyota has almost had a Teflon coating. The media and political leaders who are so critical of GM seem to turn a blind eye to what Toyota is doing. They glorified its Prius hybrids, which were undeniably a good thing, but ignored the fact that Toyota’s much more important push was into full-sized pickup trucks, which hasn’t worked. Toyota’s design also has fallen behind GM’s. Their cars aren’t as sexy or as fun to drive. They’re like appliances on wheels. Toyota’s reputation for quality is even suffering, as they launch recalls in the United States and Japan. Consumer’s Reports no longer issues an automatic recommendation for every Toyota car. So yes, things are changing at Toyota. I think we’re seeing them go through a period of consolidation or doubt. No company can avoid making mistakes forever.

*********************************

William J. Holstein is an author, writer and magazine editor. Before “Why GM Matters: Inside the Race to Transform an American Icon,” (Walker and Co.), he wrote two other books, “Manage the Media” and “The Japanese Power Game.” He has written for “United Press International,” “Business Week,” “The New York Times” and “Fortune” magazine and served as an editor for a decade for “Business Week,” managing the magazine’s Asian coverage.  He covered the American economy and the auto industry for “U.S. News.”

*******************************************

In a related matter, U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Niles, spoke with passion in Congress on March 10 about how crucial it is to sustain the U.S. auto industry. Watch him here:
“>

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard
International President

For a brief moment, when Congress authorized that $700 billion bailout for the Wall Street wise guys whose recklessness caused the financial crisis that we’re all suffering, federal officials actually considered giving part of the money to foreign banks.

Really.

They quickly backed away from using American tax dollars to prop up overseas financial institutions.

But now, the same issue is at stake with the $825 billion economic recovery package. Fifteen groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable want to give American tax dollars to foreign manufacturers to create jobs overseas.

That’s right. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to spend the tax dollars of unemployed Americans to create jobs in China and Indonesia, Korea and India.

The 15 business groups sent a letter to Congress opposing provisions added to the recovery package that would strengthen existing laws requiring government agencies buy American steel and other products when building public works projects with tax dollars.

The recovery package would use American tax dollars to pull the United States out of a deep recessionary hole caused by a blind belief that business knows best and shouldn’t be regulated – from banks to pharmaceutical manufacturers.

The package is, essentially, Americans agreeing to increase their national debt to revive an economy sucker punched by greedy Wall Street gamblers. So when business interests want to spend those tax dollars overseas, to create jobs there at the expense of unemployed Americans, while at the same time increasing the U.S. trade deficit, frankly, it looks a bit like treason.

To survive this economic catastrophe, Americans must assert themselves as economic patriots. They must stand up to the likes of the Chamber and the Roundtable and call them out for being economic traitors to the United States of America.

The measures proposed in Congress to strengthen the existing laws requiring that American products be purchased are simple, inexpensive and would not delay construction projects. For example, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown wants requests for waivers to the federal “Buy America” requirements to be publicly posted on the Internet in a place where people with knowledge of the situation can comment on them. That way, a government agency will likely quickly find out about attempts to use the waiver process to circumvent the rules.

The Chamber and the other business groups whine in their letter to Congress that strengthening “Buy America” rules may violate international agreements.

That’s bogus and the groups know it. America can honor its international obligations while using U.S. tax dollars to employ American workers. For example, states that receive federal grants for highway and mass transit projects may specify that products for that construction be purchased from U.S.-based producers without violating international agreements.

The Chamber and the other business groups also contended they were worried that strengthening the “Buy America” rules would prompt retaliation from foreign countries, so that U.S. companies would be prohibited from providing materials for construction funded by foreign stimulus programs.

When other nations nurture their industries and employ their own countrymen with their tax dollars, it won’t be retaliation. It will be reasonable. It will make good economic sense.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced in December that he would do whatever it took to save his country’s auto industry. No big protest broke out from anyone contending France should buy the auto parts from some low-priced American competitor. No, it seemed logical that France’s president would “buy French” and strive to rescue the industry that employs 10 percent of his population.

India already employs many protectionist measures to shield its industries. China subsidizes its manufacturers and manipulates its currency. But, somehow, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce thinks it’s wrong if U.S. tax dollars are spent in America to employ Americans.

These are the guys who were behind George W. Bush’s tax breaks for the rich these past eight years. These are the very ones whose wrongheaded policies brought America to its economic knees. And they are the business hotshots who don’t see that they’ve done anything wrong that should change.

Those Wall Street business wizards felt so entitled to Americans’ $700 billion in tax dollars given to bail them out that they spent it on $18 billion in year-end bonuses, a $16,000 commode and a $50 million Dassault Falcon 7X manufactured-in-France corporate jet. (Well, the Obama administration did tell Citigroup it had to cancel that jet.)

Here’s the thing to remember about these business groups so worried about preserving “free” trade. A dozen of them put America or U.S. in their names, like the United States Council for International Business. But it’s not the U.S. they care about. Their focus is themselves.

Many of them long ago shipped manufacturing overseas, to benefit from tax breaks provided by the Bush administration, slave wages paid to third world workers and zero enforcement of safety and environmental regulations. That’s why they oppose “Buy America” regulations. They want to use American tax dollars to pay subsistence wages at their factories in foreign countries, then ship the steel or aluminum or rubber back to the U.S. at untold cost to the environment and the trade deficit.

You can trust ‘em same as you can Bernie Madoff.

What you can trust is that empty feeling in your stomach and your pocket, a pang that’s spreading quickly while the U.S. Chamber busies itself trying to thwart “Buy America.” More than 2.55 million Americans have been thrown out of work since Bush’s recession began. On Monday alone, companies announced they would cut 75,000 more jobs. Unemployment stands at 7.2 percent, and it is expected to rise to 10 percent before year’s end if drastic action isn’t taken.

Drastic action isn’t sending American tax dollars overseas to create jobs there.

Last year, the Government Accountability Office reported that “Buy America” policies are effective by “protecting domestic employment through national infrastructure improvements that can stimulate economic activity and create jobs; protecting against unfair competition from foreign firms as a result of foreign government subsidies; and maintaining national security interests through the continued use and development of certain industries within the U.S. economy, like the iron and steel industries.”

That sounds like a policy worth investing in. A policy good for America.

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard
International President

President Bush took to the TV Friday to announce that he wouldn’t walk past the financial crash of America’s Big Three automakers and do nothing to save their lives.

Refusing resuscitation, Bush said, would be irresponsible during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

A week earlier, 31 GOP Senators, mostly from Southern states, voted to avert their eyes and allow American auto companies to die. They opposed $14 billion in federal loans for GM and Chrysler, revealing that their loyalty lies not with America, not even with their own states, but with South Korea and Germany and Japan.

They are Toyota Republicans.

Toyota has non-union manufacturing plants in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and Texas – states whose senators led the GOP quest to slay the Big Three American auto manufacturers – Richard Shelby, R-Ala.; Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, and John Cornyn, R-Tx. Here’s the Republican from Mississippi, Sen. Thad Cochran, explaining why he’d vote against the loans, “Things have changed. It’s not just the Big Three anymore,” he said, pointing out that Nissan and Toyota employ more Mississippians than General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. But, he said, the foreign companies would not share “in the benefits of that automobile bailout program.”

No. But Mississippi did give Nissan and Toyota more than $650 million to entice them to locate in the state. GM, Ford and Chrysler didn’t share in those benefits, Sen. Cochran.

The Toyota Republicans are all for helping the rich with tax breaks and shelters, and they’re all for aiding foreign auto manufacturers with billions worth of tax forgiveness and government-paid infrastructure improvements.

But their disdain for the working class couldn’t be clearer as they organized defeat of loans to the Big Three under this command: “Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor.”

They haven’t gotten the message sent out by the electorate in November. Voters rejected politicians prolonging the same old policy of protecting themselves and the rich. The nation’s voters want selfless leaders who will perform in the best interests of the entire country. They want change.

Clearly the allegiance of the 31 Republicans who opposed the loan to save GM and Chrysler is not with the United States of America, which would lose 900,000 jobs if just GM closed, and more than 2.1 million if the Big Three did. Those job losses would occur during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. In November, the 11th consecutive month of job losses, another 533,000 people were thrown out of work, swelling the pool of unemployed to 10.3 million. The Toyota Republicans were willing to increase that.

They voted against the interests of their own states as well. Consider what would happen in a few of those Southern States whose senators led the charge against preserving the Big Three. If just GM collapsed, Kentucky would lose 20,000 jobs; Alabama, 21,000; Georgia, 23,000, and Tennessee, 29,400, according to calculations by the Economic Policy Institute.

Sen. Cochran just didn’t think it was right for the U.S. government to aid its auto industry. But apparently he’s fine with foreign governments providing subsidies to the transplant automakers in his state. And, apparently, he’s okay with spending state and federal money to help foreign automakers locate manufacturing plants in the U.S.

Korean and Japanese automakers – including Nissan and Toyota with plants in Cochran’s Mississippi – benefit from manipulation of currencies by their governments, a factor that, according to EPI estimates, reduces their costs by between 10 and 20 percent. In addition, nationalized health care in countries such as Japan and Germany serves as a subsidy.

Also, the Toyota Republican opposed federal money for American companies but supported state and federal money for foreign auto makers estimated at $3.6 billion.
Shelby, for example, got $3 million in federal funds to improve roads near the Hyundai plant in Alabama after the state gave $250 million to the Korean automaker.

Shelby opposed loaning one federal cent to the U.S. automakers, though, telling “Face the Nation” that they should die: “Companies fail every day and others take their place. . . There’s not a bank in this country that would loan a dollar to these companies.”

But for foreign auto companies, his home state of Alabama couldn’t provide enough taxpayer cash – more than three quarters of a billion. In addition to the quarter billion it gave the Korean automaker, it handed another quarter billion to German Daimler for a Mercedes-Benz plant, nearly a quarter billion to Japanese Honda and $29 million to Japanese Toyota.

Similarly, Jim DeMint, another senator who led the Toyota Repubicans’ rebellion against the loans to GM and Chrysler, told the “National Review” recently, “Government should not be in the auto industry.” Yet, his state, South Carolina, got into the auto industry with nearly a quarter billion — $230 million – in gifts to a German auto company – BMW.

The same is true in Kentucky, home of Sen. Mitch McConnell, who said of loans for the Big Three, “Government help is not the only option. It’s not even the best option.” But government help was fine when Kentucky was providing grants for Toyota, which got $371 million from taxpayers since 1986.

It’s clear that the real problem was not a philosophical one. All of these lawmakers were willing to flick free market capitalism out the car window like a cigarette butt if their states could use taxpayer dollars to buy a foreign auto plant. No, what really gags them about the Big Three is that they pay good, middle class wages and benefits as a result of contracts with the United Autoworkers.

Repeatedly, the Toyota Republicans insisted that UAW members bear the brunt of the cost of the bailout. The senators insisted that UAW wages be lowered to match those of non-union auto workers at foreign-owned manufacturers. Toyota Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, wrote an amendment to the bailout bill that would have required UAW members to accept pay cuts by a specific date in 2009. When Republicans defeated the bailout, DeMint blamed that on the union, saying, “It sounds like the UAW blew up the deal.”

The Toyota Republicans then conferred the American auto industry to bankruptcy. They said they favored bankruptcy because it would enable the Big Three to break pledges made in labor contracts and promises for health care and pensions made to retirees. The Toyota Republicans want the wages of American workers pulled down. To them, UAW members making an average of $28 an hour, accounting for less than 10 percent of the cost of a car, are earning just too much money.

The Toyota Republicans did not, however, make that claim about the white collar workers on Wall Street who got this country into the financial fiasco that led to the dire circumstances for automakers. And not just for American ones. Domestic car sales declined by 40 percent last month, but Asian producers’ sales dropped too – by 35 percent.

The average salary of white collar, Wall Street employees — workers in “securities, commodity contracts and investments” — is four times that of those laboring in the rest of the economy. Remember, these are the guys who are so smart that they took down Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Washington Mutual, AIG and Lehman Brothers – in less than a year – and ultimately required $700 billion from taxpayers to bail them out.

The top executives of Wall Street banks receive billions of dollars in year-end bonuses. The New York Times detailed those at Merrill Lynch in a story Dec. 17 entitled “On Wall Street, Bonuses, Not Profits Were Real.” In 2006, the firm gave its top executives between $5 billion and $6 billion in bonuses, which means, for example, a trader earning $180,000 a year got a $5 million bonus.

Merrill’s $7.6 billion earnings that year turned out to be bogus. The company’s losses now have exceeded all of the profits it earned over the previous 20 years. To prevent collapse, it sold itself to Bank of America in September. But then, Bank of America took $15 billion of that $700 billion in bailout money. Despite the gift of taxpayer dollars, the CEO of Bank of American has not publicly announced that he will decline a bonus, and Bank of America plans to tell Merrill Lynch workers the amounts of their bonuses beginning Friday, the New York Times reported Thursday.

When those Toyota Republicans voted in favor of providing $700 billion for Wall Street — including both of Tennessee’s senators, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander; Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell; Georgia’s Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson; South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, and Texas’ Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn – none asked for high-paid white collar workers to take pay cuts or give up their million dollar bonuses. There was a feeble attempt to limit the pay of chief executives, but that applied only to firms that received federal money under one particular method, and the treasury decided not to hand out the $700 billion that way.

And no lawmaker asked white collar workers or executives who got billions in bonuses based on false profits to return them.

But those Toyota Republicans want middle class, blue collar workers who don’t get year end bonuses, who don’t celebrate with five-figure dinners, to take wage cuts. They want autoworker pensioners to lose the monthly benefits they earned with a lifetime of labor.

And at no time did those Toyota Republicans suggest that they should cut their own salary or top-notch, government-paid health benefits or pensions. Like the reckless speculators on Wall Street, Congress bears responsibility for the crisis condition of the American economy because it deregulated financial markets.

In 2002, during a downturn in Japan, the House of Councillors reduced the pay of Diet lawmakers by 10 percent, and ended the transportation allowance, portrait-painting and  pension given senior lawmakers.

If the Toyota Republicans believe the Japanese way of pay is so great for autoworkers, they should first impose it on themselves.

Dean Baker

By Dean Baker
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Post readers may ask that question given that the Post told them that: “Congress wanted to guarantee that the $700 billion financial bailout would limit the eye-popping pay of Wall Street executives.”

The rest of the article explains how the bailout legislation, as approved by Congress, is not likely to impose any serious limits on executive pay. So, Congress was apparently unable to do what it wanted.

This is striking because most members of Congress are not morons. Congress is usually capable of passing legislation that does what it wants. For example, when they have wanted to fund the war in Iraq, they have been able to pass legislation that actually funds the war in Iraq. When they wanted to cut taxes for the wealthy, Congress was able to pass legislation that actually cut taxes on the wealthy. Why did Congress find it so difficult to pass legislation to limit executive compensation on Wall Street, if that is what it really wanted to do?

Let me suggest an alternative hypothesis. Perhaps Congress really did not want to cut executive compensation on Wall Street. After all, word has it that members of Congress gets lots of campaign contributions from very high paid Wall Street executives.

Of course, giving taxpayer dollars to the richest people in the country is not very popular with ordinary taxpayers. So, it might be in the interest of members of Congress to appear to be trying to rein in executive compensation on Wall Street, even if this is not their real intention. In other words, the restrictions of executive compensation put in the bailout bill were just a charade for the kids.

Is my explanation correct? I have no idea, but of course the Post has no idea either of what Congress really “wanted,” so why is it trying to tell readers what Congress wanted in the very first sentence of a front page news article.

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard

International President

Congress drove the Big Three CEOs out of Washington, D.C. last week, ordering them not to return with their tin cups until they could guarantee their companies would be viable after a $25 billion bailout.

Just days later, Citigroup, a bank that had already received a $25 billion bailout in October, held its hands out for more. Within 48 hours, federal officials approved giving the bank another $20 billion and providing backing for $306 billion in its risky loans and securities. Even though Citigroup was failing just weeks after getting its first government bailout, Congress didn’t subject its CEO to the public lecturing and demands for business plans that it did the Big Three.

The message here could not be more clear: Washington will bailout out those who shower before work but not those who shower afterwards.

Washington, D.C. is a white collar town. President Bush and members of Congress understand their suited counterparts on Wall Street. In fact, several prominent figures in the banking industry – including Citigroup’s Robert Rubin, a former Secretary of the Treasury, and UBS Investment Bank’s Phil Gramm, a former Texas Senator, – worked in Washington first, aiding and abetting the current crisis by de-regulating the financial markets and everything else they could.

Detroit, by contrast, is a blue collar town. It’s a place where workers at the Big Three earn thousands of dollars — the average production employee making $67,480 last year — not hundreds of thousands, and certainly not Wall Street’s millions. The Citigroup CEO credited with overseeing the bank’s ill-fated investments, Charles O. Prince III, was forced out a year ago as the bank’s massive sub-prime losses began mounting but the board of directors still gave him a $12.5 million bonus, $68 million in salary and accumulated stockholdings, a $1.7 million pension, an office, and a car and driver for up to five years. Heading the board executive committee at that time was Rubin, who would briefly serve as chairman and receive $17 million in compensation as the bank declined further into financial ruin.

Detroit is a place where workers are unionized; Wall Street is not. And right-wing Republicans and conservative pundits have made it clear they want the union workers to suffer. They want federal aid denied to the Big Three so that the firms go bankrupt. Then the companies can renege on pensions they guaranteed to retirees and can break salary and benefit promises to workers in current contracts.

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl writes on his web site that Chapter 11 bankruptcy would be best for the Big Three because it would enable them to break their pledges to retirees receiving health care and other benefits earned over decades of service, what he calls “legacy debts”: “Like many other industries, including the airlines, the goal under Chapter 11 is to gain temporary protection, reorganize in a way to reduce legacy debts, and emerge as a more viable and competitive company.”

Conservative columnist George Will, similarly, wrote: “Do nothing that will delay bankrupt companies from filing for bankruptcy protection, so that improvident labor contracts can be unraveled. . .” Will’s fellow Washington Post Columnist Martin Feldstein blamed all of Detroit’s problems on the unions, writing that the basic reason the Big Three can’t compete: “is labor costs imposed by union contracts.” He said if Congress gives the Big Three a loan, it must require “that the unions accept reductions in wages and benefits to levels that allow the firms to compete with imports and with non-union U.S. auto firms. The trustees of retiree benefits should be required to accept reductions in those benefits.”

They want the unions broken. They want retirees’ benefits slashed and union workers’ wages and benefits cut, which, of course, will enable the foreign auto makers – whose U.S. plants are non-union – to reduce their wages. It’ll be an all-American race to the bottom, rather than the preferable opposite, where workers and retirees are treated with dignity and respect for their hard labor.

None of those conservatives, however, is calling for Citigroup’s Charles O. Prince III, who took down Citigroup at a cost of untold billions to taxpayers, to return his $1.7 million pension, office and car and driver.

Unlike Citigroup and the other Wall Street banks, which have their very own inside-the-beltway apologists in the form of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to argue their case before Congress, the Big Three CEOs had to appear before Congress to plead for themselves.

There, legitimately, lawmakers grilled them about flying to the hearings in expensive private jets and about their multi-million dollar compensation packages. Still, none of the lawmakers has asked Citigroup’s CEO, Vikram S. Pandit, to take $1 for next year’s compensation, as they did the auto executives. Nor have they asked any of the CEOs from the nine banks that shared $125 billion in bailout money in October to sell their private jets, as they did the auto executives.

Conservatives also argued that the Big Three should be left to die because in a free market, that’s what happens to poorly operated companies offering inferior products.

Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said, for example, “I do not support the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to reward the mismanagement of Detroit-based auto manufacturers.”

Shelby made this accusation while part of the Congress that ran up the largest federal deficits known to man and allowed Paulson to broker a deal to sell troubled Wachovia bank to troubled Citigroup – a bank that so far got two bailouts, the first of which arriving within weeks of the failed Wachovia marriage.

Shelby, of course, has a lot to lose if Michigan does well. His home state of Alabama gave tax breaks to foreign car companies Mercedes-Benz, Honda and Hyundai to locate factories there – hardly a free market approach.

So, like many conservatives, he twists reality to suit his circumstances. He’s right that American car companies made mistakes. In October, GM’s sales were off 45 percent from the year before, Chrysler 35 percent and Ford 30. But he’s wrong about that being a result of mismanagement alone, well, unless he thinks his precious foreign car companies made the same mistakes. Toyota was down 23 percent, Honda 25 and Nissan 33 for the same month.

And if aid denial is based on bad products, Wall Street definitely should be the first refused. Its firms built and sold what are now being called “toxic securities,” products so defective that they took down banks, the U.S. economy and international financial stability – creating the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Now that’s mismanagement for you!

When the representatives of blue collars went to Congress hat in hand, lawmakers insisted that to get loans automakers would have to present viable business plans. Congress didn’t impose similar conditions, however, when Bernanke and Paulson went to Congress seeking grants for reckless white collar firms.

In fact, they gave $125 billion to nine big Wall Street banks in October, contending the direct infusion of money would melt frozen credit. It didn’t. The firms apparently didn’t lend the money, and the deal didn’t require them to. There’s a viable business plan for you!

Paulson and Bernanke gave insurance giant AIG $85 billion. And when that didn’t work, they forked over more until it all added up to $150 billion. Now, it’s not clear that will be enough to resolve AIG’s problems. Sen. Jon Kyl, the Republican from Arizona who voted for the Wall Street bailout, didn’t demand a viable business plan for AIG or Citigroup, yet said this about the auto industry request: “There’s no reason to throw money at a problem that’s not going to get solved.”

This year, as Wall Street’s recklessness destroyed the American economy, a million Americans lost their jobs. It’s no wonder no one is buying cars. It’s not just that they can’t get credit. It’s also that they don’t have money to spend or they’re afraid to spend the money they have.

Some of those furloughed had been on Wall Street. Citigroup announced recently it would cut 52,000 jobs by early next year. But of the million jobs lost so far, 100,000, or one in ten, have been auto workers or employees of auto suppliers. Unemployment in Michigan is 9.3 percent – while in the rest of the nation it is 6.5.

Just like Paulson who couldn’t see that Citigroup was too weak to buy Wachovia, the conservatives intent on denying the Big Three loans are shortsighted. They don’t see that 2.3 million jobs in and dependent on the auto industry could be lost. They don’t see the effect of slashing the wages and benefits of people who get their hands dirty for a living.

It would mean even more mortgage foreclosures and even more credit card debt unpaid to those struggling banks. It would mean the Big Three defaulting on the $100 billion they owe to those weak banks and bondholders, some of which is secured, some not.

It’s the big circle of economic life. If Congress spits on the autoworkers and the millions whose jobs depend on the Big Three, the lawmakers may find themselves using more and more taxpayer dollars to scrub new blood off Wall Street.

Dean Baker

By Dean Baker
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Henry Paulson’s main claim to fame is getting just about everything wrong in his tenure as Treasury secretary. However, he now stands to gain lasting notoriety as the person who destroyed the domestic U.S. auto industry, and the economies of the Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana along with them.

The story is that the big three automakers are struggling with record sales declines. This collapse in car sales in turn is the fallout from the collapse of the Greenspan-Bernanke housing bubble. While the domestic automakers have been hit hardest, all manufacturers have seen sharp drops in sales. Toyota’s sales were down 23.0 percent compared with its year ago levels. Honda’s sales were down 25.2 percent, and Nissan’s sales fell 33.0 percent.

These huge plunges in year over year sales by the world’s top car manufacturers can’t be blamed on the industry. Responsibility for this plunge lies with Mr. Paulson and other economic policy makers, and their Wall Street friends.

The basic arithmetic is simple. General Motors saw its sales fall by 45 percent compared to its year ago levels. That means its revenue has been cut nearly in half. While it has made some reductions in employment and can ease back its production, there is no way it can reduce its expenses by the same amount. Many of its expenses, like interest costs, property taxes, and health insurance for retirees are largely fixed independent of short-term fluctuations in output.

As a result General Motors is now losing close to $2 billion a month. At this rate, it will burn through its capital in around 2 months and be forced into bankruptcy. Chrysler and Ford are in somewhat better shape, but the basic story is the same. Furthermore, the fallout from a GM bankruptcy could sink Chrysler and Ford as well, as common suppliers shut down and credit for the industry vanishes and customers flee to manufacturers with longer life expectancies.

There have been analysts, presumably including Henry Paulson, who think that bankruptcy is a reasonable solution for the auto industry. This is yet another of Mr. Paulson’s famous mistakes. (Remember, this guy missed the housing bubble completely, thought its impact would be small when it burst, didn’t see a problem with letting Lehman Brothers fail, and thought the TARP [RIP] was a good idea.)

Bankruptcy would allow GM, Ford and Chrysler to more quickly cut back their bloated dealer networks and adjust their car lines with current market demand, as its proponents claim. Bankruptcy would also void union contracts, which will thrill the millionaire bankers by forcing workers earning $57,000 a year to take pay cuts. And, all those lazy retirees will see the health care benefits that they worked for taken away.

That’s the good part. Realistically, bankruptcy is likely to kill all three manufacturers, taking down much of the region’s economy with them.

First, some folks may recall the credit crunch. Lenders are extremely reluctant to take risks. In the absence of government guarantees, it is unlikely that any banks will step forward to provide GM and the others the money they need to keep operating in bankruptcy. In other words, bankruptcy is very likely to mean a complete shutdown of the Big Three.

Let’s say that the anti-bailout crowd suddenly gets a soft spot and decides to guarantee loans to the firms operating under bankruptcy protection. There is still the problem of selling cars. Customers will be very reluctant to buy cars produced by a manufacturer in bankruptcy, since they won’t know if a dealer and supplier network will exist in 3 or 4 years so that they can get their car serviced and buy replacement parts.

While people don’t mind flying an airline in bankruptcy, buying a car is to some extent an investment in the company. Many fewer customers will be willing to invest in a bankrupt car company.

But let’s assume that the investment financing is arranged and that customers are still willing to come through the doors. The bankruptcy itself is still likely to be devastating to the economies of Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, the three states where Big Three employment is concentrated.

Bankruptcy protects the firm from its creditors. The creditors of these firms are thousands of suppliers who are heavily concentrated in the same states. In most cases, the Big Three manufacturers were their major customers. These suppliers have already been squeezed by falling demand and lower product prices. If they cannot collect the money owed them by the Big Three, there will be a whole chain of secondary bankruptcies.

The impact in these states is potentially huge. According to the Center for Automotive Research, auto related employment accounts for almost 7 percent of total employment in Michigan, 6 percent in Indiana, and 5 percent in Ohio. Losing 7 percent of total employment in Michigan would be equivalent to losing more than 9 million jobs nationwide.

That is Mr. Paulson’s latest plan for the auto industry and these three states. This will be quite a legacy.

There is one last point that should really gall just about everyone. Mr. Paulson has argued that he does not have the legal authority to use the money appropriated for TARP for bailing out the auto industry.

This claim is outrageous for two reasons. As many of us who opposed the TARP argued, it gave Paulson a virtual blank check, and that is pretty much how he has interpreted it, using the money to bail out a wide range of non-bank institutions.

The other reason why this is so galling is that this is an administration that has taken pride in claiming virtually unlimited powers in a wide range of areas, including the conduct of war and holding of prisoners without charges or trial. It would be incredible if they allow Detroit to sink because they claim that they don’t have the legal authority to save it.

David Sirota

By David Sirota
Author of “The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt”

Remember when Doris Kearns Goodwin and the rest of the elite media socialites took to the studios of Charlie Rose’s show to portray the opponents of the bailout as wild-eyed leftists? Seems there’s some serious bipartisan pushback going on (h/t Atrios):

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said Saturday that Congress was not told the truth about the bailout of the nation’s financial system and should take back what is left of the $700 billion “blank check” it gave the Bush administration.

“It is just outrageous that the American people don’t know that Congress doesn’t know how much money he (Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson) has given away to anyone,” the Oklahoma Republican told the Tulsa World.

“It could be to his friends. It could be to anybody else. We don’t know. There is no way of knowing.”

Inhofe, who on issues like global warming is something of a know-nothing, is nonetheless absolutely correct on this one. Bailoutsleuth.com has been reporting how Paulson has tried to shroud bailout expenditures in secrecy, while Bloomberg News recently reported that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is refusing to release the names of the recipients of about $2 trillion in taxpayer-funded loans.

Inhofe will likely find an ally in Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who issued this press release this morning:

WASHINGTON, November 17 – Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said today he will introduce legislation to stop the release of a $350-billion second round of the Wall Street bailout.

Sanders, who voted against the $700-billion package Congress approved in October, said he has serious concerns about how the Bush administration and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson are spending the bailout money that was already released. He also said it was unacceptable that the oversight provisions in the bill were ignored.

When the bailout originally passed over bipartisan objections, many voices began demanding Paulson refrain from buying bad mortgages, and instead buy voting stock in banks on terms that force banks to make loans off the new capital, restrict bank salaries/dividends and protect taxpayers’ investment. Paulson partially buckled to that pressure, first a few weeks ago, then again late last week. Indeed, he discarded his original proposal (which would have been a straight-up giveaway) and began buying stakes in banks. The problem is he opted to buy non-voting stock on bad terms that do not protect taxpayers and allow bank executives to continue paying bonuses.

Now, with bipartisan congressional anger mounting, we may see a forceful legislative campaign to take back what remaining money Paulson wants to give away to his friends on Wall Street. The guy is working overtime to shovel out as much taxpayer money – our money – to his buddies before January 20th comes and he’s out of a job. It’s time to stop the kleptocracy, take back the money and spend it on a major economic stimulus to bolster the real economy here in “real America” where real people work real jobs – not simply give it away to a few financial industry fat cats in Manhattan.

UPDATE:

Check this out from the Financial Times:

A senior Republican senator is seeking an investigation into potential conflicts of interest among former Goldman Sachs executives serving at the US Treasury and whether any officials exceeded their authority by implementing a controversial tax change without the approval of Congress.
Chuck Grassley, the most senior Republican on the Senate finance committee, asked Eric Thorson, inspector-general of the Treasury, to investigate the “independence” of several Treasury officials who formerly worked at Goldman Sachs and serve as advisers to Treasury secretary Hank Paulson, the former chief executive of the Wall Street bank.

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard

International President

Within hours of Barack Obama’s election, naysayers chastened caution. Don’t go too far, they inveighed. Build trust slowly with restrained, moderate, and gradual actions, they admonished.

In other words: Start with piddling plans.

Basically, they want to abort hope — kill it before it has a chance.

That is all wrong after an election in which it’s believed that a higher percentage of Americans voted than at any time in the past 40 years; a win that brought tears to the eyes of even hardened reporters; a result that drew joyful citizens into streets across the country to celebrate, a balloting that swept even larger majorities of Democrats into the U.S. House and Senate.

This moment during which the nation is suffering great economic peril pleads for political valor. This moment screams for boldness.

Troubled times demand greatness. Franklin D. Roosevelt knew that. He’s the reason U.S. presidents are judged by the sum of their accomplishments in their first 100 days in office.

When FDR was inaugurated in 1933, the country was in the midst of the Great Depression. He didn’t waste time tinkering. After 100 days, he’d given the country the Emergency Banking Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Federal Emergency Relief Act and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Obama may not inherit a Great Depression, but he’ll take the oath during an intense recession. Look at the news that arrived the same week as his election: unemployment rose to 6.5 percent after 10 straight months of jobs losses totaling more than 1.2 million; the stock market dropped 1,000 points in 48 hours after the worst October showing in two decades; auto makers travelled to Capitol Hill begging like hobos for handouts to stave off bankruptcy, two dozen major retailers revealed sales declines, most double digit, and the New York Times reported hospitals strained as they register fewer paying patients and increasing charity cases.

These problems won’t be solved with timidity. In his first press conference after the election, Obama said resolving the economic crisis is his top priority. He said, in fact, “I will confront the economic crisis head on.” No weak-heartedness suggested there.

He said a new president can restore confidence and advance an agenda for the middle class. That is exactly what FDR did with the combination of legislation and fireside chats.

During this brief press conference, Obama got it right, emphasizing aid to the middle class. He said it is essential to pass a rescue plan that would create jobs and extend unemployment benefits. He wants aid to state and local governments so they don’t increase taxes or furlough workers.

The federal government should help both small businesses and the huge auto industry, which provides jobs directly and indirectly through its suppliers.

The $700 billion bailout must be reviewed, he said, to ensure that it is stabilizing markets, that it’s not unduly rewarding the Wall Street risk-takers who caused the crisis, and that it’s helping families avoid foreclosure.

In addition, he said it’s essential to implement policies to grow the middle class such as investing in clean energy technology, resolving the nation’s health insurance dilemma, and providing tax relief for working families.

These are the correct priorities. And his plans are audacious. Which means he needs our help.

He called for bi-partisan cooperation in accomplishing these goals. But he’ll need more than that. He will need the kind of support he got in those weeks just before Election Day.

All of those who voted for him, all of those who want to keep hope alive, and all of those who want real change must demand both houses of Congress and both political parties work with Obama to accomplish it. Those who believe in real change must make it clear that they won’t stand by and allow courageous action to be reduced to faint-hearted baby steps.

On election night, Obama told the crowd in Chicago that the victory was theirs: “I know you didn’t do this just to win an election and I know you didn’t do it for me.”

Then he warned of what is ahead:

“You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime – two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.”

With more than 10,000 volunteers across the country, the United Steelworkers campaigned hard to help get Obama on that Chicago stage to make that speech. We will back him as he works to fulfill his promises of what is a New Deal for the new century. And we urge every American who wants real change to join us to ensure his success, the nation’s success.

William Greider

By Willaim Greider

National Affairs Correspondent, The Nation

The swindle of American taxpayers is proceeding more or less in broad daylight, as the unwitting voters are preoccupied with the national election. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson agreed to invest $125 billion in the nine largest banks, including $10 billion for Goldman Sachs, his old firm. But, if you look more closely at Paulson’s transaction, the taxpayers were taken for a ride–a very expensive ride. They paid $125 billion for bank stock that a private investor could purchase for $62.5 billion. That means half of the public’s money was a straight-out gift to Wall Street, for which taxpayers got nothing in return.

These are dynamite facts that demand immediate action to halt the bailout deal and correct its giveaway terms. Stop payment on the Treasury checks before the bankers can cash them. Open an immediate Congressional investigation into how Paulson and his staff determined such a sweetheart deal for leading players in the financial sector and for their own former employer. Paulson’s bailout staff is heavily populated with Goldman Sachs veterans and individuals from other Wall Street firms. Yet we do not know whether these financiers have fully divested their own Wall Street holdings. Were they perhaps enriching themselves as they engineered this generous distribution of public wealth to embattled private banks and their shareholders?

Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, raised these explosive questions in a stinging  letter sent to Paulson this week. The union did what any private investor would do. Its finance experts vetted the terms of the bailout investment and calculated the real value of what Treasury bought with the public’s money. In the case of Goldman Sachs, the analysis could conveniently rely on a comparable sale twenty days earlier. Billionaire Warren Buffett invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs and bought the same types of securities–preferred stock and warrants to purchase common stock in the future. Only Buffett’s preferred shares pay a 10 percent dividend, while the public gets only 5 percent. Dollar for dollar, Buffett “received at least seven and perhaps up to 14 times more warrants than Treasury did and his warrants have more favorable terms,” Gerard pointed out.

“I am sure that someone at Treasury saw the terms of Buffett’s investment,” the union president wrote. “In fact, my suspicion is that you studied it pretty closely and knew exactly what you were doing. The 50-50 deal–50 percent invested and 50 percent as a gift–is quite consistent with the Republican version of spread-the-wealth-around philosophy.”

The Steelworkers’ close analysis was done by Ron W. Bloom, director of the union’s corporate research and a Wall Street veteran himself who worked at Larzard Freres, the investment house. Bloom applied standard valuation techniques to establish the market price Buffett paid per share compared to Treasury’s price. “The analysis is based on the assumption that Warren Buffett is an intelligent third party investor who paid no more for his investment than he had to,” Bloom’s report explained. “It also assumes that Gold Sachs’ job is to protect its existing shareholders so that it extracted from Mr. Buffett the most that it could…. Further, it is assumed that Henry Paulson is likewise an intelligent man and that if he paid any more than Mr. Buffett–if he paid $1 for something for which Mr. Buffett would have paid 50 cents–that the difference is a gift from the taxpayers of the United States to the shareholders of Goldman Sachs.”

The implications are staggering. Leo Gerard told Paulson: “If the result of our analysis is applied to the deals that you made at the other eight institutions–which on average most would view as being less well positioned than Goldman and therefore requiring an even greater rate of return–you paid a$125 billion for securities for which a disinterested party would have paid $62.5 billion. That means you gifted the other $62.5 billion to the shareholders of these nine institutions.”

If the same rule of thumb is applied to Paulson’s grand $700 billion bailout fund, Gerard said this will constitute a gift of $350 billion from the American taxpayers “to reward the institutions that have driven our nation and it now appears the whole world into its most serious economic crisis in 75 years.”

Is anyone angry? Will anyone look into these very serious accusations? Congress is off campaigning. The financiers at Treasury probably assume any public outrage will be lost in the election returns. I hope they are mistaken.

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard

International President

Are you feeling depressed, dogged by daily bad news about the effects of reckless, unregulated Wall Street speculators sinking the economy? Well, U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has decided to take this opportunity to kick you while you’re down. And use your money to do it.

Paulson cheated American taxpayers with his initial expenditure from that $700 billion Wall Street bailout fund – the $125 billion he gave to nine financial institutions.

That’s right. He paid twice what the securities were worth. That means he gave the CEOs and stockholders of these firms a $62.5 billion gift. From taxpayers.

Now Paulson is no rube. He’s a former Goldman Sachs CEO, who has surrounded himself with former Goldman Sachs executives for advice.

Oh, and by the way, one of the nine firms that received this gift from American taxpayers is Goldman Sachs.

You can find the financial analysis of Paulson’s deal here, on the USW web site.

I’ve written Paulson to demand an explanation for his profligate ways with taxpayer dollars. I’m copying it here to encourage you to write him as well. We need to stop him from spending the rest of the money as if he were still a Wall Street speculator.

October 28, 2008

Henry M. Paulson, Jr.

Secretary of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Secretary Paulson,

While I am sure that you face no shortage of advice regarding the crisis that continues to engulf the world’s capital markets, I did want to share with you some questions and concerns regarding your decision to invest $125 billion of the taxpayers’ money into nine financial institutions, including the securities firm which until recently you headed, Goldman Sachs.

While the media was filled with the usual breathless “behind-the-scenes” reports of your “High Noon” bargaining, what seems to have escaped their notice was your decision, on behalf of the taxpayers, to pay roughly twice as much as you needed to for the securities that you purchased.

To me, at least, this is far more important than whether you gave the assembled CEOs two hours, two weeks or two minutes to sign up; whether, as the New York Times helpfully tells us, you have seen “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”; whether you have worked long hours in the last few months; or what brand of cell phone you use.

While Wells Fargo Chairman Kovacevich, who was forced to get by on only $300 million over the past ten years, may or may not have actually pretended to resist the deal, if he had in fact turned you down, he should have been fired, given the extraordinary deal he was being offered.

I have enclosed with this letter a copy of the analysis that we prepared which values the investment of the taxpayers’ money in Goldman Sachs at only 50% of what was actually paid. Perhaps one of your former colleagues at Goldman could take a minute away from their busy day shorting mortgages to see if we are correct.

Mr. Secretary, this analysis is not rocket science. Just twenty days before Goldman announced that it would “accept” Treasury’s investment, Warren Buffett invested $5 billion into Goldman Sachs and acquired the very same type of security – preferred stock – with the very same form of “upside” – warrants to purchase common stock. For some reason, however, per dollar invested, Mr. Buffett received at least seven and perhaps up to fourteen times more warrants than Treasury did and his warrants have more favorable terms. In addition, Mr. Buffett’s preferred stock has a higher dividend rate and can only be bought away from him at a premium, while Treasury’s investment of taxpayers’ money pays a lower dividend and can be repurchased at par.

Now I know that you have a lot on your plate, but I am sure that someone at Treasury saw the terms of Buffett’s investment. In fact, my suspicion is that you studied it pretty closely and knew exactly what you were doing. The 50-50 deal – 50% invested and 50% as a gift – is quite consistent with the Republican version of the “spread-the-wealth-around” philosophy that seems so much in vogue.

If the result of our analysis is applied to the deals that you made at the other eight institutions – which on average most would view as being less well positioned than Goldman and therefore requiring an even greater rate of return – you paid $125 billion for securities for which a disinterested party would have paid $62.5 billion. This means that you gifted the other $62.5 billion to the shareholders of these nine institutions.

This is no different than if you paid me $10,000 for a car for which no one else would pay more than $5,000. You bought it for $5,000 and gifted me the other $5,000. In my world such gifts are rarely offered to working people.

It’s hard to list all of the ways in which this is disturbing, but let me note just a few:

• If this deal is the model for how you intend to spend the whole $700 billion that you got from the Congress, then it would appear that you intend to reward the institutions that have driven our nation, and it now appears the whole world, into its most serious economic crisis in 75 years with a gift of $350 billion from the American taxpayers, who have watched 760,000 of their jobs disappear over just the past nine months.

• The recipients of the first wave of gift-giving include Goldman Sachs. It has been widely reported that you have surrounded yourself with former Goldman employees as well as individuals from other Wall Street firms. Yet it has never been revealed whether in fact you and they have fully divested yourselves of your Wall Street holdings. Doesn’t it seem just a wee-bit of a conflict of interest for those setting the price of the investment to be either so directly linked to the firms receiving the investments or, even worse, direct beneficiaries of the decision to overpay with taxpayer money?

• Your investments do nothing to deal with the causes of the current crisis. Now that even Chairman Greenspan has discovered a “flaw” in his theories, wouldn’t it make sense to have some reason to believe that the recipients of this government largesse won’t just take the money and do it all again? Perhaps there is some reason I do not understand that you have seemingly handed this chicken coop back to the very same foxes who have been pillaging it for the last two decades?

• It has been reported in the media that these firms have no intention of using this money for its intended purpose. Don’t we deserve a commitment that the money will in fact be used for either loans to the companies which are groaning under the weight of the credit crisis and being forced to shed tens of thousands of more jobs or to help the millions of Americans struggling with their troubled mortgages? Does it really seem too much to demand that we get a commitment that our gifts to these firms be used to help revive the economy that they have driven into the ditch?

• Your terms also undercut the more stringent restrictions that the Brits imposed, thus making it clear that not only are you fronting for American wastrels, but European ones as well.

Now I do not doubt for a minute that the irresponsible and fraudulent actions of Wall Street have indeed put the world financial system and now the real economy at grave risk. And I also do not doubt that the literally hundreds of billions of dollars of undeserved bonuses ($38 billion in 2007 alone), reckless speculating and dividends to shareholders have left many of these institutions woefully under-capitalized and in need of new equity dollars. Where I get a little lost is why you think that the system or the American taxpayer is better off if the government gets half as much for its investment as Mr. Buffett did.

Let’s agree that America’s nine largest banks need $125 billion of new money and let’s further agree that no one else, not even Warren Buffett, has that kind of money lying around. That still does not explain why our $125 billion should buy us securities worth half of what we paid for them. Nor does it explain why the nearly $25 billion per year that the firms pay out in dividends to their shareholders should continue. At current levels, dividends to shareholders will distribute all of our money that you invested in just five years.

Secretary Paulson, out in the real economy, the unbridled pursuit of greed that you and your friends on Wall Street have celebrated as a national religion has taken a terrible toll on ordinary Americans. Jobs with stagnant real wages have now given way to massive lay-offs, home foreclosures and real suffering.

Out in the real economy, we need to once and for all bury the philosophy that worships only business, free markets, deregulation and free trade, and replace it with an economic program that restores the balance of power between workers and business, rebuilds the middle class and curbs corporate excesses.

Out in the real economy, we need our government to invest in creating sustainable shared prosperity – not play Santa Claus to the scoundrels who have laid waste to the American Dream.

I eagerly await your response.

Sincerely,

Leo W. Gerard

International President