The Big Lie about unions

Somewhere over the past few decades, Americans became something new: followers. They became, as an earlier generation put it with disdain, "easily led." Keeping them that way requires a successful propaganda offensive in the case of the Big Three automakers. You see, it's all the union's fault. It's all the workers' faults. Just keep repeating that, over and over. Who knows what might happen if you failed to believe. Belief in the god "free markets" has been shaken by the incompetence of the Bush administration — and by the inevitable consequence of law-of-the-jungle capitalism: the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Who knows what might happen if working Americans were suddenly not so easily led.

They might follow the example of 240 workers at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago, who staged a sit-in after Bank of America cut off credit to the company — and the company, in the way of today's America, laid off the workers without even a severance. They occupied the factory until the bosses and the bank capitulated. The action was hailed as a new sign of backbone, but there was a critical difference between these workers and most average Americans. A difference between them and the 35,000 employees that BofA itself is cutting. They were members of a union.

President Hoover and Depression thinking

I feel the need to come to the defense of Herbert Hoover, if for no other reason than this fundamental misreading of history will only set us up for costly mistakes in the future. The left long has labeled George W. Bush "President Hoover" for presiding over a historic economic crisis. Now the meme has been picked up by the right, as well.

Yet to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, President Bush, you're no Herbert Hoover. Among the differences: Hoover (1874-1964) was a self-made man, who worked his way through the new Stanford University, made a fortune as a brilliant engineer, then gained international acclaim for coordinating relief for refugees in World War I. Although a Republican, Hoover came from the party's Theodore Roosevelt progressive wing. He was mistrusted by Calvin Coolidge, and for good reason. Hoover wanted to move away from the rapacious capitalism of the 1920s to an ethic that embraced the common good and the obligations of business to society. He was a product of his time of scientific and engineering wonders: The Great Engineer, who could bring pragmatic, fact-based solutions to governing.

Unfortunately, Hoover was elected in 1929, not 1912 — the era in which his worldview had been shaped. After the great crash and with the gathering depression, Hoover was overwhelmed. His administration launched the greatest expansion of government intervention in the economy up to that point, including programs and ideas that would live on in the New Deal. Yet it did little good as unemployment reached a staggering 25 percent and Americans were forced into shantytowns they called Hoovervilles.

Missing the point on a Detroit rescue

An industry that has been poorly managed, with executives looting it for huge bonuses and protected employees compensated far beyond the average American, making products that have caused untold damage to the planet, comes to Washington seeking a bailout. Without it, the executives say, the entire economy could be severely damaged. Of course lawmakers should say "hell no."

But they didn't. When the so-called financial services industry asked for a "rescue," lawmakers couldn't move fast enough.

American automakers are a different matter. Asking a fraction of what has been plowed into Wall Street — with not much to show for it — they are getting the brush off from the Bush administration and much of Congress. Myths proliferate about union compensation, this from the same people who hail obscene executive compensation and bonuses for the top swindlers on the Street. In fact, the union has been giving back for 20 years.

It's striking that the same people who celebrate the bootstrapping entrepreneur and the sanctity of contract are contemptuous of blue-collar workers who have created most of the wealth in a given business and painstakingly negotiated labor agreements that allowed their families to reach the middle class. And there's much carping about how the top executives failed to build cars for an expensive-energy future or to protect the environment. Yet policymakers consistently refused to insist on even modest improvements. Now it's so easy to say to Detroit: Drop dead.

The Paulson scheme

If you've ever wondered why these CEOs make hundreds of millions of dollars even if their companies are laying off thousands, their remaining employees have largely seen their paychecks stagnate and their stocks are circling the drain… If you've ever wondered whether you, or even the office boy, could have done a better job…consider the case of Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Secretary of the Treasury and former chief executive of Goldman Sachs. As is now becoming clear, Paulson has little more clue than the office boy about addressing the financial crisis.

After more than a year of denying the gathering storm, he suddenly rushed to Congress demanding an open-ended bailout of Wall Street, "to save the financial system." First the plan was to buy the "toxic debt" that had brought down much of the system. He was urged to inject capital directly into banks but rejected this advice. When the credit system seized up he changed the bailout to…inject capital directly into the banks. Yet the banks still refuse to do much lending, even as they use the taxpayers' money to buy competitors and pay fat compensation to their executives. Now the bailout has been changed yet again, to help "consumers." Well, not exactly: money would be given to companies dealing in credit cards, car loans and student loans. Don't expect any help personally.

Meanwhile, the real economy keeps spiraling downward as 401(k)s are vaporized, a million people have lost their jobs this year, the retail sector is moving into bankruptcy court and Detroit is facing collapse. This is one last gift of the Bush administration. Paulson's actions aren't incompetence on the level of Brownie — a political hack put in a critical position he for which he was completely unprepared. They may be worse.

Steering the right course on the auto bailout

General Motors is running out of cash. Think about that. What was once the company that embodied American strength is running out of cash. Little wonder that Detroit is angling to get its own "rescue package" from Washington. We should do it — with serious strings attached.

Anyone who has lived in the Midwest can attest to the foundational nature of the auto industry to American manufacturing. It's not just the Big Three themselves, but the vast supply chain they have spawned, from steelmakers to precision machine tool companies to providers of all manner of parts. As we bail out a "financial services industry" that increasingly made little more than frauds and swindles, the auto industry, even heavily diminished from its former greatness, makes real products and is an essential prop of the middle class, particularly in the heartland. A hollowed-out economy can stand no more losses.

Yet the American industry is the author of many of its own problems. The decline of GM and its sisters began decades ago in an unholy alliance of complacency, greed and contempt for customers between management and labor leaders. Despite 20 years of plant closings and pledges of new days, the carmakers never really reformed. There's one exception: hundreds of thousands of union workers in the Big Three and parts makers lost their jobs — and communities their livelihood. Contrary to a persistent mythology, the decline since the early 1990s has been almost entirely the fault of management, not the United Auto Workers.