Political Games With Bucyrus
Hmmmm…. this is looking more and more like a set up.
First, there’s a giant story in the MJS Sunday paper saying that a decision by the government-funded Export-Import Bank may cost Bucyrus a huge contract and up to 1,000 jobs.
Second, a day later, we see that the agency is reconsidering.
We now see that Mayor Barrett is going to meet with President Obama to discuss this issue.
Next I expect to see the bank reverse its decision and Barrett (and Obama) claim to have “saved” 1,000 jobs.
Why would Mayor Barrett be meeting with Obama on this? Bucyrus is located in South Milwaukee. It’s not even in the City of Milwaukee. In fact, it would make more sense for Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker to meet with Obama regarding Bucyrus than it does Barrett.
The answer is obvious. This is a setup designed to give Barrett some much-needed media play and make him appear to be an effective leader. It’s a political stunt. Plain and simple. And it’s being played out on the fears of all of those Bucyrus employees who are worrying about keeping their jobs.
Just bear in mind that those jobs would have never been threatened had not the Obama Administration first put a gun to Bucyrus’ head. Now Obama and Barrett will swoop in to save everyone from a crisis that the Obama Administration created in the first place.
Yeah, I said the same thing on Saturday, i think. this is just reeking of politics for Feingold and now Barrett.
Same thing happened with Reid and Obama.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 28, 2010 at 1602 hrs
Yah, that scenario makes sense.
BUT: the die is cast. Every mining equipment manufacturer will be packing up to leave the US as fast as possible. And all of their US-based little-guy suppliers will shrivel up and blow away.
Too bad, eh?
Posted by dad29 on June 28, 2010 at 1723 hrs
If Barrett and Obama do that, that would be obvious to people that is was a set-up. If Barrett, Obama, etc were so confident in their environmentalism, they would let the decsion stand, but in an election year, probably will not happen. I wish our leaders would show some guts, at least I would have some respect for them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 28, 2010 at 1821 hrs
A brilliant display of Chicago politics! I took the bait hook, line and stinker.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 28, 2010 at 1914 hrs
Bucyrus still has facilities in Milwaukee proper, does it not? Or did it move all ops to SM.
Posted by jimspice on June 28, 2010 at 2000 hrs
Put in a FOIA request for copies of all emails and memos to/from the import/export bank, Obama, Barrett, etc. concerning the matter.
(in the year 2080 or so we’ll get finally get them)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 28, 2010 at 2017 hrs
Charlie Sykes must be in on it since he interviewed the Bucyrus CEO this morning. http://www.620wtmj.com/podcasts/charlie_sykes_podcast/97319969.html?video=pop&t=a
Also, shouldn’t Scott Walker be stepping up? http://playgroundpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/06/wheres-waldo-how-about-wheres-walker.htmlPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 28, 2010 at 2049 hrs
I don’t buy it.
He is trying to destroy jobs in the gulf, why not Milwaukee?
He’ll throw Barrett overboard to make the enviro weenies happy.
Posted by Fred on June 28, 2010 at 2303 hrs
I don’t think either of these guys are smart enough to pull this off.
Some govt weenie looked at this and turned it down - not even remotely aware of the jobs it will cost.
Now - O and Barrett may look at this and see if they can salvage some political hay from it - but I highly doubt this was their intention all along.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2010 at 1150 hrs
I don’t think either of these guys are smart enough to pull this off
That’s why RahmAJamma is in the White House.
The timeline is VERY interesting. Bammy announced his trip to Racine (huh??) on Tuesday night of last week.
The ExIm Board issued its written decision Friday night last week.
Given that timeframe, either of these is possible:
1) The Board asked Obama what to do and he told them “turn it down” knowing that he would “reverse” the decision to save Barrett’s bacon in Wisconsin. They then wrote the decision.
2) The Board TOLD Obama that it would be a turndown, whereupon he scheduled Racine and told Barrett what’s going down. All the rest is theatre until Bammy Saves The World on Wednesday.
3) ExIm wrote their decision exactly the way Bammy wanted them to and he will not change it. He schedules Racine to advise the residents that the town will be closing down completely in 3 years and that they should sell their homes now.
Posted by dad29 on June 29, 2010 at 1324 hrs
Take off the tin foil hat. Barrett would be doing the same thing even if he weren’t running for governor - he was very active in helping Bucyrus’ expansion back in 2004 or 2005. (Although it may blow your mind to hear it, what’s good for the regional economy is good for the City of Milwaukee and vice versa.) Two out of the three board members of the Bank were appointed by Bush - are they part of the conspiracy? Mitch McConnell has been blocking Obama’s appointees to the bank board (along with dozens of other non-controversial appointments) because making the government look bad is good for the GOP and because the antiquated disaster that is the US Senate allows him to do so. Is McConnell part of the conspiracy? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2010 at 1329 hrs
This could just be the start of a long and painful period. More American jobs and families tossed aside in name of the political movement called global warming.
Could be alot more coming in the future.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2010 at 1330 hrs
I assume your next post will ask the Republicans to take the politics out of Harley Davidson’s threatened move.
Posted by xoff on June 29, 2010 at 1509 hrs
It’s not the politics. It’s the taxes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2010 at 1531 hrs
Question for the board. Is the bank board’s decision really about politics or environmental concerns? Could it just be that from an underwriting standpoint it is deemed too risky? After all, the financial guarantees that AIG provided for the mortgage industry nearly bankrupted them and forced them to come to the government for a bailout. Twice. While the decision could possibly jeopardize 1,000 jobs in the U.S., is the real purpose of the Export-Import Bank, funded by tax payer dollars, to guarantee several hundred million in loans for FOREIGN energy projects?
The article states that according to Tim Sullivan of Bucyrus, “the bank’s decision is puzzling because the power plant will meet international standards and the bank’s environmental criteria”. So, is there possibly another reason for this decision other than the Obama administration’s environmental policies?
It seems to me that there is more here than meets the eye than just political showmanship. The financial strength of the loans to be guaranteed. The quality of the construction of the plant. Safety measures of the plant. Concerns over a disastrous accident like the current B.P. fiasco or the Union Carbide gas leak in India (of all places) back in 1984. Funny how the two most disastrous industrial accidents in history will now be from “leaks”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2010 at 2159 hrs
Is the bank board’s decision really about politics or environmental concerns?
Laker,
Can you honestly say that there is a difference any longer?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2010 at 0746 hrs
Can you honestly say that there is a difference any longer?
Djmamayek - Fair question, but not really the basis of my question here. Several have theorized that this is either a demonstration of how Obama?s policies cripple the economy or that it is all an orchestrated charade for Obama to come to Wisconsin and long with Barrett, get the bank to reconsider and ?save the day? in exchange for political capital. According to Tim Sullivan, the project meets the international standards set and the bank?s criteria.
So my question really boils down to this: Was the decision to pass on the loan guarantee based upon some HIGHER environmental standard that Mr. Sullivan is not aware of OR do the details of the financial arrangements perhaps flat out make it a ?shitty? deal??? Since no one from the bank is talking AND two of the board members are Bush appointees, maybe there is more than just politics in reaching their decision. Or maybe, as Bill stated in post #9, some government weenie screwed up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2010 at 0821 hrs
Here’s the part I don’t understand—why is a loan guarantee needed in the first place? Why is government even involved? Doesn’t the infallible free market decide where capital does and doesn’t go?
If the project needs a loan guarantee, shouldn’t that tell us something about the project’s market viability?
Where are conservatives when you need them?
Posted by Northern Pike on June 30, 2010 at 1228 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134049
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 09:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 112
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 09:38 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).