"When Will the Recovery Begin? Never."

Robert Reich, President Clinton's former labor secretary, asked that question in one of his recent blogs.

He writes:

This economy can't get back on track because the track we were on for years -- featuring flat or declining median wages, mounting consumer debt, and widening insecurity, not to mention increasing carbon in the atmosphere -- simply cannot be sustained.

The X marks a brand new track -- a new economy. What will it look like? Nobody knows. All we know is the current economy can't "recover" because it can't go back to where it was before the crash. So instead of asking when the recovery will start, we should be asking when and how the new economy will begin.

When and how with the new economy begin? Oh, we might as well face it. We need a major overhaul. The times call for a bit of serious soul-searching...how about starting with our values -- especially those which got us to today's brink of depression. Let's try greed, especially, the love of money, which societal norms would have us believe, leads to wealth.

But as David Korten, author of "Agenda for a New Economy" writes:

"Contrary to what we are conditioned to believe, money isn't wealth. It is simply an accounting chit created from nothing when a bank makes a loan."

Hmmm. Could it be that money is a way for the rich and powerful to control the masses? Plain and simple, isn't money the means by which the exchange of goods or services are facilitated between two entities? These types of exchanges are what makes an economy healthy.

But think of what happens when too many people hoard money and keep it from circulating or support a system that allows that type of hoarding to occur. For example, what's the difference between $1 billion to create a nuclear warhead vs. the difference between $1 billion invested in solar panels? The former creates jobs at the outset, but the end product sits unused gathering dust, contributing nothing back to society at large, except for fear, until the day it is used to blow thousands of people to smithereens and exponentially result in destructive physical and emotional consequences that reverberate around the globe and for decades.

The later renewable energy source avoids the prospects of war and unnecessary loss of lives, and as long as greed or exploitative practices are followed allows for healthy, thriving, self-sustainable communities.

How about another example... what about a someone with $1 billion of his "wealth" tied up in the bank, stock, bonds, jewelry, real estate or a yacht or two? Unless that billionaire is employing thousands of people to run his household, every overinflated asset, as far as I'm concerned, more money kept out of circulation from the economy, preventing the creation of real wealth of feeding and sheltering families and helping them to raise the next generation in healthy ways.

What about $1 billion to help homeless people get food and shelter? That $1 billion to house homeless people, would be money circulating many, many times over in the community, as they do daily exchanges with local businesses. By helping such those with less, it actually helps society thrive in the longer run and generate "real wealth" where we have a world with less fear of crime, violence, war.

Why then do we even need "money" at all? Why rely on that paper bill?

If any new economy is possible, a new economy would be founded on a change in values. It would be based on the kind of altruism and compassion we see when disaster strikes -- such altruistic character would have to be the cultural norm. When there's a disaster, people find their selflessness and turn to helping in whatever way they can, without any rewards. If the entire system crashes, it may just be the time to realize we don't need belief systems based on exploitation of scarce resources, greed or fear of not having enough.

When our society values helping all develop their full potential instead of valuing how much money an individual can get, then we'll have a real, new, 21st economy that will be self-sustainable. We have the technology now to do what previous generations could never do, and our collective consciousness is growing exponentially with the ability to communicate instantly, anywhere and get resources sent around the world.

What an amazing world this would be if people would all one day just wake up to this.

Let's just hope it won't be a an eye-opening disaster.

Saturn Brand to Be Sold to Smart Car Distributor:
What Else for Recovery?

Major media has been covering only the tip of what should be the restructuring, not just of General Motors, but what was once the country's largest economic sector: manufacturing, and the source of unprecedented economic growth in U.S. wealth. During the mid-20th century, the manufacturing sector made up a quarter of the nation's GDP, and the middle class' income grew. What can be done today with respect to the renewable energy sector?

Certainly, coalitions of leaders inmunicipal government, utilities, citizens, dealerships, and finance could be coalescing to create new jobs and opportunities. Let's take the Saturn scenario and explore what would happen with just that as a starting point in the short and long-range.

General Motors has agreed to sell its Saturn brand to Roger Penske, a major auto dealer which is also the sole distributor of Daimler AIG's Smart cars. A deal is expected to be announced today.

Penske will eventually buy cars from other carmakers like Renault, through its Samsung Motors Unit in Korea.

I hope he is planning to buy up electric plug-in cars like those being sold by BG Automotive Group or Wheego Electric Vehicles or Think City.

Mike McQuarry, Wheego CEO, envisions a new trend where there "will be a combination of traditional car dealers as well as a new type of dealer who exclusively sells electric vehicles and combines several manufacturers such ZENN, ZAP, and MILES in one dealership.”

BG is planning a high-speed version in 2010, and a lineup of minivans, trucks, buses, maintenance utility vehicles and touring vans.

The two-seat Wheego Whip RTEV was designed at China's Shuanghuan Automobile Company based on their existing gas-powered Noble. With electric adaptations, the Wheego Whip will undergo final assembly in the United States.

Think City is a Norwegian carmaker with plans to build in the U.S. (Note: Interesting concept: Plug-in cars that help the energy grid during peak demand!)

Nonprofit groups like Project Get Ready are helping form a coalition of community leaders -- including utilities, municipal government, citizen activists, auto dealers, transportation authorities and local employers --to support an electric car infrastructure. Portland, Ore., Indianapolis, and Raleigh, N.C. are just a few examples.

Such a coalition would serve Detroit well in today's economy. In the 1990s, the United Auto Workers wanted a deal to split off Saturn from GM, but were unable to. Today, laid-off workers could work to create these new jobs with the help of a coalition to build an electric car infrastructure. Maybe the autoworkers will even get a new car out of the deal, just like assembly line workers in Ford's early days. Certainly, other supporting businesses in local communities would be born.

It's too bad GM is still beholden to the collective mindset of an aging fossil fuel economy reliant on military might and war politics to keep our nation running on cheap gas and oil. If we are focused on self-sustainability and renewable energy, we can stop invading or controlling other countries for their energy resources. We need innovators, not war-mongers tearing others down. We need to help lead others to develop their own self-sufficiency.

Otherwise, without a strong vision and manufacturing sector to fulfill it, all we have left for our next generation's employment prospects is the military industrial complex -- where billions of dollars are stockpiled in weapons of mass destruction instead of dollars put to good use circulating in the economy over and over again -- or the prison industrial complex, where masses of unemployed resort to crime as an act of survival. It's just common sense: even the most hardened criminals, Taliban or al Qaeda just want a better life for themselves and their loved ones -- "Desperate people do desperate things." The U.S. could lead by positive example, showing others how to live sustainably and to support themselves, rather than simply relying on military tactics.

In today's intertwined global economy, we need the values and vision -- and new friends around the world for our products.

Good luck to all the forward-thinking entrepreneurs. Let's support their efforts in the new renewable growth industry, let's produce products and services on a mass scale similar to what happened with the U.S. auto industry in the 1950s. Nearly a quarter of the U.S. GDP came from manufacturing then -- real goods and services produced, not from the finance industry, as it is today, with "money being made from money" in asset bubbles, Ponzi schemes, commissions/fees and predatory lending.

The Saturn sell-off to a Smart car distributor is just one scenario to get us thinking of coalitions to support the electric infrastructure and create new jobs.

Let's do more visualizing "outside the box" to get people back to work, being self-sufficient, preserving our environment, and creating a safer world with less need for war and violence.

"Money" Is Not Wealth: It's Time to Reinvest in True Wealth

From conservative Tax Day "tea party" protests nationally against bailouts for Wall Street fat cats who profited from risky loans to those who purchased homes they couldn't afford, to the murders of families by their breadwinners on the brink of ruin, there's been plenty of anger and angst directed at the U.S. financial sector, the epicenter of the global economic crisis.

But far less has been said about the heart of the crisis: a societal over-emphasis on money, material wealth and consumption to the detriment of socio-economic and environmental sustainability.

It seems only fitting that since the excesses of American capitalism have brought the system to the brink of depression, requiring massive government bailouts to stabilize the economy, the opportunity has arisen to rethink our values.

Just how should America and the rest of the world rebuild?

Maybe it's time to recall that the financial sector, which includes banks, insurance companies, real estate companies and other related businesses — does not directly provide a good or service; its primary activity is one of mediating the buying and selling of items, says Dean Baker, author of "Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy."

David C. Korten, author of "Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth" says that Wall Street capitalistic focus is on making money and enriching the already wealthy, rather than sustaining livelihoods and communities through the actual production of goods and services. He believes that Wall Street can't be fixed and rebuilding sustainable local economies is the answer.

Korten describes "illusory" or phantom wealth as:

"... money created by accounting entries or the inflation of asset bubbles unrelated to the creation of anything of real value or utility. The high-tech stock and housing bubbles are examples.

"Also included are financial assets created by debt pyramids in which financial institutions engage in complex trading and lending schemes based on fictitious or overvalued assets in order to generate phantom profits and justify outsized management fees. Debt pyramids may be used to feed financial bubbles. Those engaged in creating phantom wealth collect handsome 'performance' fees at each step and walk away with gains. When borrowers begin to default on debts they cannot pay, the bubble bursts and the debt pyramid collapses.

"Those who had no part in creating or profiting from the scam are then left to absorb the losses and to sort out the phantom-wealth claims still held by the perpetrators against the marketable wealth of the larger society. It is all legal, which makes it the perfect crime."

Korten points out that in recent decades, the Federal Reserve allied with the U.S. Treasury Department and Wall Street banks to give the creation of "illusory" wealth priority over the production of "real" wealth created by the sale of goods and services. The Fed pursued cheap money policies to encourage borrowing by speculators to support inflation. Meanwhile, publicly-traded corporations sought to increase share prices by outsourcing production to low-wage economies without labor unions – in essence, decimating the U.S. industrial sector.

It appears this society is valuing "phantom wealth" while simultaneously destroying the "real wealth" created from products and services – in other words, devaluing the jobs of millions of workers, as well as their savings and pensions.

While top financial executives like Bernie Madoff and Sir Allen Stanford bilked their investors out of $73 billion, they were only two of the most brazen billionaires who benefited from the deregulation of the financial sector since Ronald Reagan took office in 1980. Finance academicians, business interests and their lobbyists and media such as CNBC, as well as policymakers dependent on campaign contributions were complicit in creating the climate for finance officers to fuel an economic meltdown as they collected vast sums of money by questionable means, while driving their companies and unsuspecting investors into bankruptcy.

Perhaps the greatest blow to the banking industry was the finance, insurance and real estate industries' lobbying effort that succeeded in repealing the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. The Glass-Steagall Act, enacted in 1933, had protected depositors by mandating the separation of speculative investment firms from commercial banks with depositor funds.

In 1997, John Edmunds, a respected finance professor, wrote in a Foreign Policy article:

"Financial securities have grown to the point that they are now worth more than a year's worldwide output of goods and services and soon will be worth more than two years' output. While politicians concentrate on trade balances and intellectual property rights, these financial instruments are the leading component of wealth today, as well as its fastest growing generator. … An economic policy that aims to achieve growth by wealth creation does not need to increase the production of goods and services except as a secondary objective."

Edmunds has been telling government policymakers that they should no longer concern themselves with producing "real wealth" by increasing the national output of goods and services, according to Korten.

Business media and other writers tended to echo this "get-rich quick" mantra, including Washington Post columnist James Glassman who authored "Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting from the Coming Rise in the Stock Market," David Lereah, chief economist of the National Association of Realtors and author of "Why the Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust and How You Can Profit from It," as well as CNBC analysts, perhaps most notably "Mad Money's" Jim Kramer (in The Daily Show piece with Jon Stewart): who advised, "We know these are overvalued, but buy, buy, buy. That's how you make lots of money."

This philosophy has led to Wall Street's "phantom" wealth, created by exotic financial instruments resembling Ponzi schemes; asset bubbles; speculative trading; predatory lending and securitization of mortgage loans, Korten writes. Steve Croft's 60 Minutes' reports dating from 1995, also affirm Korten's criticism, describing how securitized loans were cut up into derivatives and supposedly covered by unregulated credit default swaps (a quasi-insurance to cover bad loans) that passed along "risk" to other buyers far removed from the original lending transaction.

Ironically, much of the bailout funds were to cover the unregulated credit defaults swaps, are estimated at $56 trillion, equal to the world's gross domestic product, according to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox.

Korten notes:

"In 2005, Forbes magazine counted 691 billionaires in the world. In 2008, only three years later, it counted 1,250 and estimated their combined wealth at $4.4 trillion. According to a United Nations University study, the richest 2 percent of the world's people now own 51 percent of all the world's assets. The poorest 50 percent own only 1 percent."

Wall Street's hybrid economy has become "too big to fail." But what of Main Street?

Hardworking people, even those who did all the right things to produce the real wealth in this economy, are now facing the loss of jobs, home, and their pensions, all because they entrusted the fruit of years of their labor to a financial sector that values the empty riches of a sophisticated casino over people's daily contributions in creating their own healthy local economies.

If we were able to maintain the same rate of productivity growth of goods and services as we had between 1943 and 1975, we would be able to reduce our average workweek to 21 hours, or take an additional 24 weeks of vacation and still have the same income available in 2030 as we have today, writes Baker.

Ultimately, local communities – its people – are the bedrock of any nation. As Korten writes, "Money is not wealth. Money is merely an accounting chit with no intrinsic value – it is useless until we exchange it for something of real value."

For communities, all over the world, how money exchanges hands and for what purpose should be the true deal maker – or breaker. Surely, all of us can agree these things are priceless: healthy, thriving families and communities, fulfilling our highest potential by exchanging our goods and services for the purpose of creating a life free of violence from crime, war or terrorism or fear of homelessness, and dying with dignity in the care of loving relatives around us.

It's time to get our priorities straight.

OBAMA: UNION BUSTER?



OK, OK, I’ve had enough.

Enough of hoping that Barack Obama would turn into the true agent for change that he promised he would be.

There have been a number of disappointments for me --- which began when Obama started making questionable appointments to his transition team prior to inauguration, and have continued on in the first few months of his presidency. These include backtracking on promises to uphold civil liberties, relying on the advice of Wall Street insiders to solve the banking crisis and refusing to nationalize banks, and opposing a single-payer plan to replace our nation’s awful health care system.

But the final straw for me has came just in the last few weeks, in statements made by Obama on two key issues ---- the reshaping of the auto industry and the need to review and most likely cut spending on entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare.

In this article, I am going to discuss Obama’s plans for the car industry, and in a follow-up post, I’ll write about entitlements.

As everyone knows, the Detroit automakers have been floundering badly in recent years, and in the case of GM and Chrysler, have needed billions of dollars in government bailouts to stay afloat. They’ve gotten those aid packages, but along with it, a lot of tough talk from the President and members of his auto task force, headed by Wall Street billionaire Steve Rattner and other investment types. The auto companies were told earlier this year, after $17 billion in aid was extended, that they had to revamp and restructure their firms --- make them lean and mean --- or the government would no longer help.

When recent plans for restructuring submitted by GM and Chrysler were rejected as inadequate, Obama said Chrysler would have to merge with a partner, namely Fiat, to get more aid, or the government would let the company collapse and be liquidated. GM was given one last chance to submit a better plan, or the government would push it into bankruptcy. The GM Chairman, Rick Wagoner, was forced to resign.

Recent press reports indicate that it’s highly likely that GM --- which employs hundreds of thousands of workers and pays health benefits and pensions to hundreds of thousands more retirees --- will be forced into bankruptcy. What Obama and his task force want to do is wipe out as much as possible GM’s debts and liabilities and make a new, slimmer company more competitive and attractive for investors.

Unless some new and different procedures are adopted for the bankruptcy process, this situation spells big trouble for the United Auto Workers.

Bankruptcy proceedings are usually not friendly venues for unions. Unions take a back seat in bankruptcy court, while other creditors get priority treatment. All too often, corporations have gotten bankruptcy judges to erase union contracts, cut pay, slash benefits and eliminate pensions. Just ask unions in the steel and airline industries, where court approved restructuring plans caused deep pain for thousands of workers.

Unless the government makes an arrangement whereby the UAW is given more say in a bankruptcy proceeding than unions normally get, the UAW can expect to see contracts for active workers and retirees eviscerated.

The impact of this would be devastating for the nearly 500,000- member UAW --- one of the strongest unions in the United States --- and damaging for the economy as a whole, particularly the Midwest.

The labor movement would take a body blow similar to the devastating hit Ronald Reagan gave unions when he fired striking air traffic controllers in 1981.

In an article entitled “Wall Street Sharks Circle UAW”, posted on Common Dreams, Harper’s Magazine publisher John MacArthur says that whether Obama eases GM into Chapter 11 bankruptcy or whether he forces the UAW to fork over massive givebacks outside of court, the union would essentially be emasculated.

As MacArthur said, “we’re headed for the end of the line for middle-class unionism.”

The double-standard that is going on here --- with the way Obama is treating the auto industry and its workers versus how he’s treating the Wall Street banks --- is appalling.

While the President and his advisers balked at providing another $24 billion for GM and Chrysler (which the firms asked for in March) and ordered workers to make deep concessions, some $3 trillion in taxpayer dollars has been made available to shore up banks and investment firms, to help them dig out of their problem with “toxic assets,”--- essentially those investments in derivatives and hedge funds which went bad.

Almost no one at the top the banking firms has been held to account for their terrible management the way Wagoner was at GM.


Maybe it’s not surprising that Obama is treating the auto industry and its workers so differently than the Wall Street banks. According to the research group Open Secrets, the finance, insurance and real estate sector gave Obama just over $38 million in his presidential campaign, while labor gave “only” $466,324.


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

So what’s a better way for Obama dealing with the car companies and their workers?

How about taking some of the billions being funneled to banks and instead use the money to reopen closed car plants and convert them into factories that make energy efficient cars and equipment for the light rail system that Obama just proposed? A government entity or quasi-government entity could run these plants, at least on a temporary basis. This would save jobs, do wonders for the economy, help the environment and be an investment so much more valuable than throwing more dollars at insolvent banks.

As with so many issues, it's going to take a mass movement to force Barack Obama to take progessive action for dealing with the crisis in the auto industry. It's become painfully clear he won't do it on his own.

Waterboarding, 266 times

So, is
Obama really open to prosecution, probing interrogations?

(Former Vice President Dick) Cheney said in a Fox News Channel interview that the U.S. government gained valuable intelligence from its aggressive interrogations. This came after conservatives roundly criticized Obama for releasing the internal Bush administration memos, saying that action was not in the U.S. national security interests.

I wonder if the same can be said of any police department investigations ever undertaken in the United States. Does this same kind of thinking apply to people like Bernie Madoff, who destroyed thousands of livelihoods with his $50 billion Ponzi scheme? Who else was helping him? Where's all that money NOW?

And what about those AIG, Enron, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Countrywide, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac executives and others who simultaneously brought down their corporations, the global economy and millions of others' security in ways no terrorist could ever have done?

I don't hear anyone saying, "Let's waterboard those executives 266 times and see what valuable information we can get from them." Valuable information, such as "Why do you destroy millions of people's lives all for your own gain? For hundreds of millions of dollars you can't possibly spend in your entire lifetime? Just why do you think you can hoard all those millions of dollars that should be circulating in the economy for individuals to feed, clothe, shelter, get medical care for themselves and their loved ones, and know they can die in dignity, not homeless and alone?"

I think that's the kind of valuable information we REALLY need to hear from these economic terrorists, who've instead gotten bonuses and bailouts, precious funds that belong to people who need much more than those who have more than they can ever spend in two, five or even 10 lifetimes.

Wouldn't it be truly valuable to understand the sociopathology behind that thinking? We would then figure out how to stop rewarding greed in our society and thus protect millions of people around the globe. Earning huge amounts of money well beyond what's needed to live a sustainable life deprives others of the basic right to live a life with access to clean water, food, a safe home from the elements and violence, healthcare and dying in dignity after having been given every opportunity to fulfill their highest human potential.

Marching for the People's Needs



NEW YORK ----- Thousands of protesters poured into the nation’s financial district last weekend to demand that the billions of dollars being spent to prop up Wall Street and fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be better spent on people’s needs like health care, jobs and housing.

In two days of demonstrations on Friday and Saturday, protesters came from as far away as Detroit, Michigan and Providence, Rhode Island to send a message to President Barack Obama and Congress --- that they’ve had enough of their hard-earned money being used to bail out reckless bankers and fund mindless wars of intervention.

“The people need a bailout!” shouted New York City Councilman Charles Barron at a Friday rally which drew about 1,000 people despite driving rain. “You get $800 billion for some crooks that participate in greed. They shouldn’t be bailing out Wall Street, Wall Street should be looking for bail money to get out of jail!” Barron thundered.

“This is the largest welfare check for the richest people in the world. We say, take the money back!” he said.

On Saturday, in clearer but still windy weather, several thousand more people came to lower Manhattan to participate in a “March on Wall Street” held on the 42nd anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s famous “Beyond Vietnam” speech at the Riverside Church. In that speech, King said the nation could never address the problems of poverty, racism and and other social ills without first ending the Vietnam War and curbing excessive military spending.

The Rev. James Lawson, a long-time civil rights leader and co-worker with Dr. King told the marchers before the start of the march, “In the spirit of Dr. King and the movement for equality and justice of the fifties and sixties, I say if we want peace to blossom, we must eradicate poverty, racism, sexism, violence and greed in the U.S. Peace cannot come by crying peace. Peace can only emerge when justice does.”

In a lively march complete with a band playing New Orleans style jazz, protesters chanted, sang and waved signs. “End the War – Bring the Troops Home,” was one sign, while others said “Fund Human Needs – Not War.”

A number of marchers were demanding health care for all, and demonstrated their dissatisfaction with the current inadequate system in a most unusual way. A group of women dressed in hospital gowns and pants, had plastic caps on their back side, simulating bare buttocks. “Your ass is not covered,” a sign said.

While most of the focus of Saturday’s march was on ending the wars and funding social needs, anger at the big banks and their role in triggering the nation’s economic depression, was still very much in evidence. As the marchers headed to the financial district on a mile- and- a- half route, Marvin Knight of Brooklyn stood with a sign on his chest for all to see: “The American Dream is Over.”

“I drew this up eight years ago after 9-11. I thought it was over then, and now I really know it’s over,” Knight said. “The bailouts are a salvation for the rich,” added Knight, standing not far from a Bank of America branch sign. “The bankers are part of a criminal enterprise. It’s all about greed as far as I can see.”

The demonstrators marched past the Federal Reserve building and the New York Stock Exchange and ended in Battery Park for a “Peace and Justice Fair,” sponsoring tables with literature from various organizations.

Gina Leary was part of a group that came down from Providence to take part in the day’s event. Leary and her friends are part of DARE, or Direct Action for Rights and Equality, which has been fighting to stop foreclosures and evictions. Leary and Ayda Rivera said Providence has 300 homes in foreclosure now.

“We go out everyday into the streets and work with the people to help them. So many houses are boarded up,” said Leary. “It’s sad.”

Leary and Rivera said there needed to be a national freeze on foreclosures.

Henry Lowendorf, of the Greater New Haven Peace Council, came down by train with about 30 activists from Connecticut. The council is affiliated with the national group United for Peace and Justice, which sponsored the Saturday march. (The Friday event was sponsored by Bail Out The People, but the two organizations worked in concert on the events).

Lowendorf said the Saturday march went well, with a lot of spirit by marchers. He said the event was part of a drive by UFPJ to become more than just an anti-Iraq War group, and link up the goals of ending the two wars and freeing up funding for social needs --- “tying the real economy to the military budget.”

The $1.4 trillion earmarked this year for spending on the military, he said, makes no sense. “We have no adversaries,” he said.

The notion that heavy spending on the military will keep the economy strong is a misnomer, Lowendorf said.

“You can’t spend your way out of an economic disaster by spending on the military,” he said.

Different Standards for GM, but not Bailed Out Bank CEOs?

Here's a good question for Obama. Why is he firing GM's CEO but not bank CEOs whoare receiving TARP funds? I have a friend who's seen her Bank of America dividend shrink from $604 in 1Q 2008 to $9.44 in 1Q 2009. There's even a movement afoot by a father-son team that want Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis out, and they are ready for a sort of proxy fight to get it .


Obama Fires GM's CEO - But Why Not Bank CEOs?

By David Sirota
OpenLeft, 3/29/09
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12556

The Associated Press is reporting that "General Motors Corp. Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner will step down immediately at the request of the White House, U.S. administration officials said Sunday." I'm not sure that's a good or bad thing, but I am curious about why the White House would make such a bold demand of a car company the federal government is lending to, but not a similar demand of the banks the federal government partially owns?

What I mean is - how is it that the White House is requesting the resignation of GM's CEO while not doing the same of, say, Bank of America's CEO? In fact, not only is the president not demanding the resignation of bank CEOs, he actually hosted them this week for cheery photo ops at the White House.

Can anyone explain the differing treatment of auto companies and Wall Street firms? I'm genuinely asking this question, and not in a way aimed at defending Rick Wagoner. I just want to know what possible public explanation there could be as to why the White House would push auto company CEOs around while coddling banking CEOs.