Big Three CEOs Flew Private Jets to Plead for Public Funds

[strandinthewind]

I mean the gall is frightening. FUKC them. That $60,000 could have saved two lower level jobs and one mid to hight level job. Not to mention selling the fleet would get them at least $200 million per company and save them well over likely $10 million a year per company.

Once again, giving these corps a bailout is not the answer. They will just steal the money as they did here (effectively) -- I say give everyone in the US $100,000 and make it automatically go to payinf off mortgages first and then CC debt. Anything left over gets deposited in the person's checking account. Mortgage crisis and economic stimulus crisis resolved and likely in using a cheaper method than giving the money to the greedy crooks like these a$$e$ :mad:
__________________________________________________

Big Three CEOs Flew Private Jets to Plead for Public Funds

Auto Industry Close to Bankruptcy But They Get Pricey Perk

By BRIAN ROSS and JOSEPH RHEE

November 19, 2008—


The CEOs of the big three automakers flew to the nation's capital yesterday in private luxurious jets to make their case to Washington that the auto industry is running out of cash and needs $25 billion in taxpayer money to avoid bankruptcy.


The CEOs of GM, Ford and Chrysler may have told Congress that they will likely go out of business without a bailout yet that has not stopped them from traveling in style, not even First Class is good enough.


All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone.


"We want to continue the vital role we've played for Americans for the past 100 years, but we can't do it alone," Wagoner told the Senate Banking Committee.


While Wagoner testified, his G4 private jet was parked at Dulles airport. It is just one of a fleet of luxury jets owned by GM that continues to ferry executives around the world despite the company's dire financial straits.


"This is a slap in the face of taxpayers," said Tom Schatz, President of Citizens Against Government Waste. "To come to Washington on a corporate jet, and asking for a hand out is outrageous."


Wagoner's private jet trip to Washington cost his ailing company an estimated $20,000 roundtrip. In comparison, seats on Northwest Airlines flight 2364 from Detroit to Washington were going online for $288 coach and $837 first class.


After the hearing, Wagoner declined to answer questions about his travel.


Ford CEO Mulally's corporate jet is a perk included for both he and his wife as part of his employment contract along with a $28 million salary last year. Mulally actually lives in Seattle, not Detroit. The company jet takes him home and back on weekends.



Plants Closed, Company Jets Stay
Mulally made his case Tuesday before the committee saying he's cut expenses, laid-off workers and closed 17 plants.


"We have also reduced our work force by 51,000 employees in the past three years," Mulally said.


Yet Ford continues to operate a fleet of eight private jets for its executives. Just Tuesday, one jet was taking Ford brass to Los Angeles, another on a trip to Nebraska, and of course Mulally needed to fly to Washington to testify. He did not address questions following the hearing.


"Now's not the time to do that sort of thing," said John McElroy of the television program "Autoline Detroit."


"Now's the time to be humble and show that you're sharing equally in the sacrifice," McElroy said.


GM and Ford say that it is a corporate decision to have their CEOs fly on private jets and that is non-negotiable, even as the companies say they are running out of cash.


Private jet travel is perhaps the greatest perk of all for CEOs, who say it allows them to travel more efficiently and safely, even in a recession.


AIG, despite the $150 billion bailout, still operates a fleet of corporate jets. The company says it has put two out of its seven jets up for sale and is reviewing the use of others. Though there are no such plans by GM or Ford.


"It appears that the senior management of the automakers simply don't get it," said Schatz.



http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WallStreet/Story?id=6285739&page=2

[GoldDustOrphan]

It's time to bring back public executions.

[estranged4life]

Gee, I sit here wondering how bad my financial situation will be in the coming year (Taxes on life insurance could POSSIBLY kill me - but at least I have a grave saved already next to Deb, and a cool looking headstone too!!!!) and elsewhere some CEO's are living high on the hog, must be fun.

[mylittledemon]

All I can say is ... F*CKING RIDICULOUS. And at the risk of sounding dramatic? I hurt on the inside when I read stuff like this. It is CLEAR that America and it's government is going in the wrong direction. God help us all.

[gldstwmn]

GM should be allowed to sink. Chrysler and Ford are more progressive companies. With some tweaking, they can still be competitive in the marketplace.
And for God's sake, why couldn't they have flown commerical? Did they actually think no one would call them on this ****?

[strandinthewind]

GM should be allowed to sink. Chrysler and Ford are more progressive companies. With some tweaking, they can still be competitive in the marketplace.
And for God's sake, why couldn't they have flown commerical? Did they actually think no one would call them on this ****?

I know - they did not think about it because they are totally out of touch with reality, which is why their companies are failing.

Moreover, I am all for flying on provate aircraft on your own dime. But, to poor mouth for public money when you could have reduced the amount of jobs you cut byu at least half by selling these planes - that is just utter cr*p.

Again, I think they should be allowed to file for Ch. 11 and the courts should protect the pension funds as doing that is a whole lot cheaper than letting likely millions suddenly go jobless as a result of this.

[David]

I didn't read the article -- to busy reading the rest of the fascinating posts on the Ledge. Did these CEOs pay for these jets themselves or with company funds?

[skcin]

I say give everyone in the US $100,000 and make it automatically go to payinf off mortgages first and then CC debt. Anything left over gets deposited in the person's checking account. Mortgage crisis and economic stimulus crisis resolved and likely in using a cheaper method than giving the money to the greedy crooks like these a$$e$ :mad:


Didn't you once say that it was individual people's faults for taking out mortgages they really couldn't afford? :shrug: Have you changed your mind?

BTW - I'm ambivelant about these bailouts. Deep in my heart I think it's bull****, but then I hear about how if they were to go out of business we would have so many people without jobs that it would make the economy even worse. But then I wonder if it's just scare tactics - what they want us (and the gov't) to believe so we go for it.

[David]

BTW - I'm ambivelant about these bailouts. Deep in my heart I think it's bull****, but then I hear about how if they were to go out of business we would have so many people without jobs that it would make the economy even worse. But then I wonder if it's just scare tactics - what they want us (and the gov't) to believe so we go for it.That's the tragic part: It isn't the execs with the six-figure bonuses that will suffer in any way (other than public censure) should these huge industries go belly up. It's the thousands of rank & file workers who live paycheck to paycheck who will be out of work & out of money.

To punish "the industry" is not to punish the execs for rotten business decisions. In a sense, they're immune to punishment. There is no reasonable punishment for clowns who bankrupt industries -- if they obeyed the law. What do you do? Send them home? Give me a six-figure Golden Parachute, & I'll go home, too. Gladly.

But your final question is pertinent: The State sends billions of dollars to the execs, payable to whom or to what, exactly? To GM? To Ford? To So-and-So, CEO c/o Ford? Where is the money deposited, & for what is it used? It's probably just a cash infusion deposited into the corporation's bank accounts, & perhaps used to pay debts or meet payroll. Will it be used to finance R&D? To design better cars? It's all so vague. It's a rotten situation we all find ourselves in.

[strandinthewind]

Didn't you once say that it was individual people's faults for taking out mortgages they really couldn't afford? :shrug: Have you changed your mind?

No. If I bought a house I knew I could never afford, then yes, I have no one to blame but myself no matter what idiot loaned me the money. Just like if some greedy mortgage company loaned me money any idiot would know I could never pay back, I think that mortage company is resp0nsible for that debt. Moreover, any idiot who bought that debt as an investment should suffer the consequences.

However, those people are only part of the mortgage crisis, which has ballooned to the point that many innocent, well intentioned people are losing their houses. ANd, it is only going to get worse.

The problem here is that the mass numbers who defaulted on their mortgages (innocent and not innocent) have driven the prices of homes down by almost 30% or more in some areas. So, if you lose your job trhough no fault of your own:

1. There is no one to buy your house now even if they could get a mortgage, which odds are they cannot because the banks are hoarding the money the govt. gave them.

2. If you find a buyer in the sea of foreclosed homes, you will be forced to sell at 70% of its current value or less, which likely means you cannot sell it for what you owe if you bought the house in the last ten or so years.

So, your house will become a bad mortgage as well and you are not at fault.

BTW - I'm ambivelant about these bailouts. Deep in my heart I think it's bull****, but then I hear about how if they were to go out of business we would have so many people without jobs that it would make the economy even worse. But then I wonder if it's just scare tactics - what they want us (and the gov't) to believe so we go for it .

I think the crisis is real because too many people are losing their houses right now. I think that the $700 B bailout could have been a good thing, but it has turned into a boon for the people who drove these companies into the ground. That is why I say if we are going to reward that behavior, then let's instead give the money to the people because everyone (innocent or not) "wins" that way as opposed to the CEO of GM keeping his jet while thousands of his employees are laid off and he begs the taxpayers for more money :shrug:

As for GM and the lot, they knew for years that the SUV's they hung their hats on were going to implode when gas prices went up. Now, they want us to pay for their mistaken judgment while simultaneously keeping their benefits.

[strandinthewind]

. . . But your final question is pertinent: The State sends billions of dollars to the execs, payable to whom or to what, exactly? To GM? To Ford? To So-and-So, CEO c/o Ford? Where is the money deposited, & for what is it used? It's probably just a cash infusion deposited into the corporation's bank accounts, & perhaps used to pay debts or meet payroll. Will it be used to finance R&D? To design better cars? It's all so vague. It's a rotten situation we all find ourselves in.

Exactly.

If the govt. had taken this money and given it to the people with it automatically going to pay off debt with the remainder the personl, this whole crisis could have been averted and people would be spending money right now. Moreover, no pockets would have been lined with the grift.

[Edgeof27]

Why don't the Oil Companies bail out the Auto Industry,
(are they not already "strange" bed partners),
the Oil Companies drove up the price, &, then made huge never before seen profits,
this caused people to stop bying new vehicles, leading to the domino effect, &,
here we are with the Big 3 turning to the Feds in both the US, &, Canada for money.

[cratesok6]

You know, I heard a news story that some of the NASCAR team owners and/or officials are very concerned about the Big 3's future and how it will affect the future of NASCAR.

I guess it just wouldn't be right to see Jimmy Johnson circling the track in a Honda Civic :laugh:

[RoseGarden]

Bottom line it is WE the TAXPAYERS that will bail ALL of this out. :mad:

[cratesok6]

I'm no economic expert, so I speak in terms of generalities. And I probably sound like a republican (which I'm not) but I just want to get this off my chest, coz my wife won't listen to me :shrug: and I have not heard this really being discussed by the pundits:

To me it's just so very wrongly odd to watch all this unfold: huge corporations looking for a handout from the government (so much for true capitalism where market parameters and forces should control their fate); to have the gov't set aside $700 billion to aid in economic recovery, and not a clue how to administer the allocation; the stock market gyrating out of control; total uncertainty in employment in virtually all sectors; etc.; etc

This certainly is a time of unprecedented economic calamity, but, one major factor is being overlooked : consumer spending is the keystone to this economy.

I think, rather than giving multi-billion dollar handouts and strain an already hugely deficit ridden government (aren't we in the red like $10 trillion ??), something we should strongly focus on is the creation of new jobs. New jobs from establishing new markets, new industries. Rather than the gov't funding existing failing businesses and the aholes who run them, why not provide seed money for existing and future companies that can help solve some major problems facing us today: alternative energy; green technology; health care systems; care for the aged; imbalance in trade (if we're not careful China is going to own our a##ses); etc - the main purpose being to put people back to work and put innovation, flexibility, and strength back into our economy! What's the old phrase- necessity is the mother of invention??

This certainly isn't a quick fix, but a step in the right direction IMO.

Just my two cents. Thanks for listening

[strandinthewind]

^^

I agree with you. And, Obama just announced his job creation plan quoted below. Hopefully, it will work. I do think that huge governement projects that rebuild American cities, roads, etc. are a good idea because they solve two goals: (1) creation of jobs and (2) advancement of the public good. Look at the projects that were created in the New Deal Era like the Hoover Dam, the TVA, etc. These projects are still proving a major source of electricity 80 years later :shrug:

As for the free market theory - history routinely demonstrates that large companies cannot be trusted to totally govern themselves. Greed gets in the way and the boys at the top rarely get punished. True, some go to jail for a year or two, but that hardly compensates the millions of innocent people who are devasted to some degree by the loss of companies like Enron, who went broke directly due to fraud. Moreover, these men at the top hide their assets and are multi millionaires when they get out of Club Fed :mad:

But, I agree with you that giving money to these companies in the way they are going it or at least the way the companies have asked for it is absurd and as irresponsible as the companies themselves.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Remarks of President-elect Barack Obama

(as delivered)

Democratic Radio Address

Friday, November 21st, 2008


Good morning.

The news this week has only reinforced the fact that we are facing an economic crisis of historic proportions. Financial markets faced more turmoil. New home purchases in October were the lowest in half a century. 540,000 more jobless claims were filed last week, the highest in eighteen years. And we now risk falling into a deflationary spiral that could increase our massive debt even further.

While I’m pleased that Congress passed a long-overdue extension of unemployment benefits this week, we must do more to put people back to work and get our economy moving again. We have now lost 1.2 million jobs this year, and if we don’t act swiftly and boldly, most experts now believe that we could lose millions of jobs next year.

There are no quick or easy fixes to this crisis, which has been many years in the making, and it’s likely to get worse before it gets better. But January 20th is our chance to begin anew – with a new direction, new ideas, and new reforms that will create jobs and fuel long-term economic growth.

I have already directed my economic team to come up with an Economic Recovery Plan that will mean 2.5 million more jobs by January of 2011 – a plan big enough to meet the challenges we face that I intend to sign soon after taking office. We’ll be working out the details in the weeks ahead, but it will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jumpstart job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy. We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels; fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead.

These aren’t just steps to pull ourselves out of this immediate crisis; these are the long-term investments in our economic future that have been ignored for far too long. And they represent an early down payment on the type of reform my Administration will bring to Washington – a government that spends wisely, focuses on what works, and puts the public interest ahead of the same special interests that have come to dominate our politics.

I know that passing this plan won’t be easy. I will need and seek support from Republicans and Democrats, and I’ll be welcome to ideas and suggestions from both sides of the aisle.

But what is not negotiable is the need for immediate action. Right now, there are millions of mothers and fathers who are lying awake at night wondering if next week’s paycheck will cover next month’s bills. There are Americans showing up to work in the morning only to have cleared out their desks by the afternoon. Retirees are watching their life savings disappear and students are seeing their college dreams deferred. These Americans need help, and they need it now.

The survival of the American Dream for over two centuries is not only a testament to its enduring power, but to the great effort, sacrifice, and courage of the American people. It has thrived because in our darkest hours, we have risen above the smallness of our divisions to forge a path towards a new and brighter day. We have acted boldly, bravely, and above all, together. That is the chance our new beginning now offers us, and that is the challenge we must rise to in the days to come. It is time to act. As the next President of the United States, I will. Thank you.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gGxtlN

[cratesok6]

Thank you for Strand, for posting this info.

To me, all this mayhem if you will, is a huge correction to the policies, economics and status quo that have been in place for a long time. Unfortunately, it's the worker bees who get clobbered.

As we all know, Obama and his administration faces some very serious challenges.

I don't doubt his ability. But, I literally pray that he has the fortitude and support from all concerned (congress, the press, corporate America, citizenary, foreign nations) to make major changes. The next few years or next 100 days is going to be very interesting to watch.

I did not vote for Obama, but now he and his staff have my full support!!!

[strandinthewind]

^^

Your welcome and I agree that the next 100 days will be very interesting to watch. As usual, W and the R's are less concentrated on this mess, which they mostly caused or at least hindered the rescue plan for with their borrowing and spending, than they are on preventing abortions, to wit:

Last-minute Bush abortion ruling causes furor

By Robert Pear Published: November 18, 2008

WASHINGTON: A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job-discrimination laws.

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their "religious beliefs or moral convictions."

It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to "assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity" financed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

But three officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its legal counsel, whom President George W. Bush appointed, said the proposal would overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion.

The counsel, Reed Russell, and two Democratic members of the commission, Stuart Ishimaru and Christine Griffin, also said that the rule was unnecessary for the protection of employees and potentially confusing to employers.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, Russell said, and the courts have defined "religion" broadly to include "moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong, which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views."

Ishimaru and senior members of the commission staff said that neither the Department of Health and Human Services nor the White House had consulted their agency before issuing the proposed rule. The White House Office of Management and Budget received the proposal Aug. 21 and cleared it the same day, according to a government Web site that keeps track of the rule-making process.

The protest from the commission comes on the heels of other objections to the rule by doctors, pharmacists, hospitals, state attorneys general and political leaders, including President-elect Barack Obama.

Obama has said the proposal will raise new hurdles to women seeking reproductive health services, like abortion and some contraceptives. Michael Leavitt, the health and human services secretary, said that was not the purpose.

Officials at the Health and Human Services Department said they intended to issue a final version of the rule within days. Aides and advisers to Obama said he would try to rescind it, a process that could take three to six months.

To avoid the usual rush of last-minute rules, the White House said in May that new regulations should be proposed by June 1 and issued by Nov. 1. The "provider conscience" rule missed both deadlines.

Under the White House directive, the deadlines can be waived "in extraordinary circumstances." Administration officials were unable to say immediately why an exception might be justified in this case.

The proposal is supported by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals.

Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, said that in recent years, "we have seen a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations."

But the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, 28 senators, more than 110 representatives and the attorneys general of 13 states have urged the Bush administration to withdraw the proposed rule.

Pharmacies said the rule would allow their employees to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and could "lead to Medicaid patients being turned away." State officials said the rule could void state laws that require insurance plans to cover contraceptives and require hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims.

The Ohio Health Department said the rule "could force family planning providers to hire employees who may refuse to do their jobs" - a concern echoed by Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Under the Civil Rights Act, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for an employee's religious practices, unless the employer can show that doing so would cause "undue hardship on the conduct of its business."

In a letter commenting on the proposed rule, Ishimaru and Griffin, from the employment commission, said that 40 years of court decisions had carefully balanced "employees' rights to religious freedom and employers' business needs." The proposed rule, they said, "would throw this entire body of law into question."

Leavitt, a leading proponent of the rule, said it would increase compliance with laws adopted since 1973 to protect health care workers.

"Federal law," he said, "is explicit and unwavering in protecting federally funded medical practitioners from being coerced into providing treatments they find morally objectionable."As an example of the policies to which they object, Bush administration officials cited a Connecticut law that generally requires hospitals to provide rape victims with timely access to and information about emergency contraception. Governor M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut, a Republican, said the state law represented "an earnest compromise" between the rights of rape victims and the interests of health care practitioners who had moral or religious scruples against emergency contraception. The state attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, said the proposed regulation "would blow apart solutions and compromises that have been reached by people of good will in Connecticut and elsewhere."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/18/america/abort.php

_________________________________

I mean WTF - it's okay to let people lose their houses, but that crisis isn't so bad that we can take resources away to suddenly address abortion :mad: :rolleyes:

I mean even if one thinks that abortion should be illegal, etc. - there are far larger and pressing issues right now.

[cratesok6]

I'm betting, since the last days of his administration are drawing nearer, there'll be many attempts by Bush (and the repubs) to get his/their policies pushed through before his/their a##'s get run out of town.

[SuzeQuze]

The fat cats have been "untouchable" for so long but that kind of greed just can't be sustained. It killed a company I used to work for and was very sad. A private jet, a new fancy building we couldn't afford and all kind of sketchy things went on with finances. It's crazy what the guys at the top get away with. And when "fired" they get that golden parachute and another fancy high paying job somewhere else. It's just insane! We had a new CEO who was paid about 4x what the previous CEO was paid. We went through massive layoffs at that time and this guy bought a multi million dollar home on an island. He then proceded to kill what was left of the company.

Also, it's stupid little things like always having meetings catered and stuff like that. The big guys hardly ever pay for their own food. Like they need that $$ break. Then all those fancy dinners and golfing that count as work as they make deals. Etc, etc...

[Macfanforever]

What a joke, I they had a brain they should ride in on bicycles.or better yet the GM ceo drive in with a smoking 1960 chevy pickup truck.the Ford ceo with a beatup 1974 ford van.the Chrysler ceo driving a 1973 Dodge Dart.Congress will be LOL .
how stupid can they get.

[SuzeQuze]

Socialists! So much for capitalism. How dare they look down on people who really need gov't help when they've lost a job and maybe even their home.