Obama's leftward lurch

In the U.S.S.R. work is the duty of every able-bodied citizen, according to the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

In the U.S.S.R. the principle of socialism is realized: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."

— Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Article 12

Oh, dear. I really hate to be a Chicken Little, running around in circles, screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling." But what's a worrywart like me to do when he sees the growing chasm between what the Obama administration says and what it actually does? Why is "I am not a socialist" ringing the same warning bell that "I am not a crook" rang when President Nixon said it?

President Obama says he does not want to run the automobile industry. Good. Yet who was it forced the resignation of General Motors' CEO Rick Waggoner, flexing the muscle given him by federal bailout loans to GM? Obama and "Car Czar" Steven Rattner have given the tottering car company a June 1 deadline to come with a corporate reorganization plan. The plan the White House "suggests" would give the U.S. Treasury and the UAW practical ownership of GM (existing shareholders would be left with but a 1 percent stake). It would require private holders of secured GM debt to take a "haircut" making the one Argentina's former President Nestor Kirchner gave his country's lenders look like a fashionable trim.

Why do you suppose the administration endorses such favored treatment for the UAW, when it is the union's featherbedding work rules that did so much to bring Detroit's Big Three to the brink of oblivion? It couldn't possibly be the campaign contributions the UAW has lavished, for years, on Democrats now calling the shots in Washington, could it? No, of course not. Perish the thought.

How well has the union protected the interests of its membership, really? Here are two interesting numbers. In 1970, at the height of GM's dominance as the world's largest producer of cars and trucks, the company employed 395,000 mostly union workers. Under the reorganization touted by the Obama administration and UAW leadership, that number will shrink to some 38,000. With friends like these… .

Privately owned (for now) Chrysler, as everyone who drives a Jeep or a Dodge Ram pickup knows only too well, is now in bankruptcy court. President Obama castigated some holders of secured debt who refused to do the patriotic thing by accepting the haircut he planned for them. He asked them to accept roughly 30 cents on the dollar, far less than what the Treasury and the UAW would realize.

The administration has given the judge overseeing Chrysler's bankruptcy helpful suggestions along the lines GM has been "asked" to consider. Let's hope the judge is one who puts the law on at lest an equal footing with the Administration's concept of "fairness."

Ford Motor Company is the only one of the once but no longer Big Three to reject, as of now, taxpayer bailout billions and the long arm of Federal oversight that goes with them. (Sort of makes you want to go out and buy a Ford, doesn't it?) And speaking of Ford, do you remember Henry Ford's famous quip, "You can buy one of my cars in any color you like — so long as it's black"? It's not hard to see a day coming when some future government-installed CEO at GM or Chrysler will have his own take on that: "You can buy any of my cars you like, so long as it's green."

The automobile industry, of course, is but one of the "commanding heights" of the U.S. economy today frozen like a deer in the oncoming headlights of the all-seeing, all-wise Obama Administration. The insurance industry and the banks, particularly those deemed "too big to fail," seem most vulnerable to White House and Treasury threats. Around the next curve of the road our country is following stands Big Energy. The weapon that will be used to batter it into submission is called "Cap and Trade."

Last to be forced to surrender to Big Government likely will be Big Labor. Then the transformation of the United States of America to the United Socialist States of America will be complete.

Yes, elections do have consequences. And in world history they often have not been the ones voted for or even dreamed of.

R.L. Schreadley is a former Post and Courier executive editor.