Republicans to United: Screw You!
- Thread starter ITRADE
- Start date
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 4:28:21 PM Rational Thought wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 3:17:48 PM JI Guy wrote:
ILL. wasnt a swing state in 2000
----------------
[/blockquote]
2000 was 2 years ago. Things change. The state may or may not go Dem again, but predicting it now is suspect.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 3:17:48 PM JI Guy wrote:
There is hostility toward GOP now in Illinois...They are better off focusing on Wisco & Minn., Michigan, and Iowa in this zone. Ohio, Indiana,and the state of Ky. are all strong GOP in presidential years.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hostility? Unlikely. Maybe some are annoyed, but the UAL CH11 event will be a blip. After a couple of weeks, people will forget about it. The unions will vote Democrat, but they always will. People often vote based on self-interest.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Ya think? the senate breakdown is VERY close, and willing to bet this could very well be one of the nails in the coffin for Pete "Let them eat cake" Fitzgerald. After all, he BARELY beat possibly the worst Sen in the history of the union (Mosely-Braun), and that's before he proved he was an *******
----------------
On 12/6/2002 4:28:21 PM Rational Thought wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 3:17:48 PM JI Guy wrote:
ILL. wasnt a swing state in 2000
----------------
[/blockquote]
2000 was 2 years ago. Things change. The state may or may not go Dem again, but predicting it now is suspect.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 3:17:48 PM JI Guy wrote:
There is hostility toward GOP now in Illinois...They are better off focusing on Wisco & Minn., Michigan, and Iowa in this zone. Ohio, Indiana,and the state of Ky. are all strong GOP in presidential years.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hostility? Unlikely. Maybe some are annoyed, but the UAL CH11 event will be a blip. After a couple of weeks, people will forget about it. The unions will vote Democrat, but they always will. People often vote based on self-interest.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Ya think? the senate breakdown is VERY close, and willing to bet this could very well be one of the nails in the coffin for Pete "Let them eat cake" Fitzgerald. After all, he BARELY beat possibly the worst Sen in the history of the union (Mosely-Braun), and that's before he proved he was an *******
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 4:28:21 PM Rational Thought wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 3:17:48 PM JI Guy wrote:
ILL. wasnt a swing state in 2000
----------------
[/blockquote]
2000 was 2 years ago. Things change. The state may or may not go Dem again, but predicting it now is suspect.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 3:17:48 PM JI Guy wrote:
There is hostility toward GOP now in Illinois...They are better off focusing on Wisco & Minn., Michigan, and Iowa in this zone. Ohio, Indiana,and the state of Ky. are all strong GOP in presidential years.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hostility? Unlikely. Maybe some are annoyed, but the UAL CH11 event will be a blip. After a couple of weeks, people will forget about it. The unions will vote Democrat, but they always will. People often vote based on self-interest.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Ya think? the senate breakdown is VERY close, and willing to bet this could very well be one of the nails in the coffin for Pete "Let them eat cake" Fitzgerald. After all, he BARELY beat possibly the worst Sen in the history of the union (Mosely-Braun), and that's before he proved he was an *******
----------------
On 12/6/2002 4:28:21 PM Rational Thought wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 3:17:48 PM JI Guy wrote:
ILL. wasnt a swing state in 2000
----------------
[/blockquote]
2000 was 2 years ago. Things change. The state may or may not go Dem again, but predicting it now is suspect.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 3:17:48 PM JI Guy wrote:
There is hostility toward GOP now in Illinois...They are better off focusing on Wisco & Minn., Michigan, and Iowa in this zone. Ohio, Indiana,and the state of Ky. are all strong GOP in presidential years.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hostility? Unlikely. Maybe some are annoyed, but the UAL CH11 event will be a blip. After a couple of weeks, people will forget about it. The unions will vote Democrat, but they always will. People often vote based on self-interest.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Ya think? the senate breakdown is VERY close, and willing to bet this could very well be one of the nails in the coffin for Pete "Let them eat cake" Fitzgerald. After all, he BARELY beat possibly the worst Sen in the history of the union (Mosely-Braun), and that's before he proved he was an *******
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/5/2002 2:18:36 PM MrMarky wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/5/2002 12
34 PM US2 wrote:
Sorry, Marky, but you are misreading the politics here. Edward Gramlich, Greenspan's Fed designee, was a Clinton appointee to the Fed. Formerly an economics professor, he was a professor of mine at Michigan and I cannot believe that his vote was driven by anything other than the numbers presented to the ATSB.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hi US2,
I don't know how things work at your alma mater in Michigan, but I do know how things work in Washington. Anyone who thinks for a minute that the ATSB is not under the influence of the administration is either overconsuming something, or is terribly naive.
The fact is that this is a political decision. In fact, the entire mandate of the ATSB runs counter to the administration's philosophy despite the broad bipartisan support in Congress to enact the ATSA. Hence, only two small carriers have received the guarantees, for an agregate amount totaling less than 5 percent of the $10 billion allocated by Congress.
The ATSB was established to aid a distressed industry. That would seem to imply that government assistance was necessary to maintain the solvency of our airlines when they were unable to access the capital markets independently. If the ATSB is going to act like bankers and say "you don't qualify for the loan - your recovery plan is inadequate", then why does the board even exist?? If United and others could qualify for the loan, there would be no reason to have an ATSB or for the carriers to seek its assistance.
The whole concept of the government loan guarantees is pretty simple. It's to help those carriers who would otherwise be unable to secure financing. For the ATSB to take the position that you have to qualify for the loan in order to get the loan guarantee, turns the entire purpose of the board's very existence on its head. It's the consummate Catch 22. "We're here to help you get loans you can't qualify for on your own. But in order to receive our help, you have to be able to qualify for the loan."
Take care,
Marky
----------------
[/blockquote]
Marky, although I agree that the ATSB is on crack in the way they chose to give out loans, the fact remains that of the three board members, TWO are democrats, Eddie "Bugsie" Gramlich (who was appointed to the fed by Bill Clinton and whose term expires in 2008, ie UNTOUCHABLE) and Pete "assasine" Fisher, who was one of the "token" Dems bush brought aboard. Both of the DEMS voted NO (do you think Tommy "my wife works for NWA and AMR" Daschle had anything to do with it?). the board had ONE republican, Van Tine, who as a member of James Bakers law firm, was a member of Bush's florida recount legal team. He voted "maybe". It has also been widely reported that Denny Hastert blew a gasket when UAL was rejected and after an irate phone call demanding O'neils head, the white house requested his resignation. Don't take my word for it, do a google search on the ATSB board member and their backgrounds. Also look for some of the reports regarding Hastert. Expect hearings in the house in january that may include the three gentlemen being called on the carpet to explain why they refused to follow the congressional intent of the law. If I were the "three amigo's" (AMR, CAL, and NWA) who actively lobbied against approval, I'd be a little more careful who i ***** off next time (Hastert AND Pelosi)
----------------
On 12/5/2002 2:18:36 PM MrMarky wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/5/2002 12
34 PM US2 wrote: Sorry, Marky, but you are misreading the politics here. Edward Gramlich, Greenspan's Fed designee, was a Clinton appointee to the Fed. Formerly an economics professor, he was a professor of mine at Michigan and I cannot believe that his vote was driven by anything other than the numbers presented to the ATSB.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hi US2,
I don't know how things work at your alma mater in Michigan, but I do know how things work in Washington. Anyone who thinks for a minute that the ATSB is not under the influence of the administration is either overconsuming something, or is terribly naive.
The fact is that this is a political decision. In fact, the entire mandate of the ATSB runs counter to the administration's philosophy despite the broad bipartisan support in Congress to enact the ATSA. Hence, only two small carriers have received the guarantees, for an agregate amount totaling less than 5 percent of the $10 billion allocated by Congress.
The ATSB was established to aid a distressed industry. That would seem to imply that government assistance was necessary to maintain the solvency of our airlines when they were unable to access the capital markets independently. If the ATSB is going to act like bankers and say "you don't qualify for the loan - your recovery plan is inadequate", then why does the board even exist?? If United and others could qualify for the loan, there would be no reason to have an ATSB or for the carriers to seek its assistance.
The whole concept of the government loan guarantees is pretty simple. It's to help those carriers who would otherwise be unable to secure financing. For the ATSB to take the position that you have to qualify for the loan in order to get the loan guarantee, turns the entire purpose of the board's very existence on its head. It's the consummate Catch 22. "We're here to help you get loans you can't qualify for on your own. But in order to receive our help, you have to be able to qualify for the loan."
Take care,
Marky
----------------
[/blockquote]
Marky, although I agree that the ATSB is on crack in the way they chose to give out loans, the fact remains that of the three board members, TWO are democrats, Eddie "Bugsie" Gramlich (who was appointed to the fed by Bill Clinton and whose term expires in 2008, ie UNTOUCHABLE) and Pete "assasine" Fisher, who was one of the "token" Dems bush brought aboard. Both of the DEMS voted NO (do you think Tommy "my wife works for NWA and AMR" Daschle had anything to do with it?). the board had ONE republican, Van Tine, who as a member of James Bakers law firm, was a member of Bush's florida recount legal team. He voted "maybe". It has also been widely reported that Denny Hastert blew a gasket when UAL was rejected and after an irate phone call demanding O'neils head, the white house requested his resignation. Don't take my word for it, do a google search on the ATSB board member and their backgrounds. Also look for some of the reports regarding Hastert. Expect hearings in the house in january that may include the three gentlemen being called on the carpet to explain why they refused to follow the congressional intent of the law. If I were the "three amigo's" (AMR, CAL, and NWA) who actively lobbied against approval, I'd be a little more careful who i ***** off next time (Hastert AND Pelosi)
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/5/2002 2:18:36 PM MrMarky wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/5/2002 1234 PM US2 wrote:
Sorry, Marky, but you are misreading the politics here. Edward Gramlich, Greenspan's Fed designee, was a Clinton appointee to the Fed. Formerly an economics professor, he was a professor of mine at Michigan and I cannot believe that his vote was driven by anything other than the numbers presented to the ATSB.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hi US2,
I don't know how things work at your alma mater in Michigan, but I do know how things work in Washington. Anyone who thinks for a minute that the ATSB is not under the influence of the administration is either overconsuming something, or is terribly naive.
The fact is that this is a political decision. In fact, the entire mandate of the ATSB runs counter to the administration's philosophy despite the broad bipartisan support in Congress to enact the ATSA. Hence, only two small carriers have received the guarantees, for an agregate amount totaling less than 5 percent of the $10 billion allocated by Congress.
The ATSB was established to aid a distressed industry. That would seem to imply that government assistance was necessary to maintain the solvency of our airlines when they were unable to access the capital markets independently. If the ATSB is going to act like bankers and say "you don't qualify for the loan - your recovery plan is inadequate", then why does the board even exist?? If United and others could qualify for the loan, there would be no reason to have an ATSB or for the carriers to seek its assistance.
The whole concept of the government loan guarantees is pretty simple. It's to help those carriers who would otherwise be unable to secure financing. For the ATSB to take the position that you have to qualify for the loan in order to get the loan guarantee, turns the entire purpose of the board's very existence on its head. It's the consummate Catch 22. "We're here to help you get loans you can't qualify for on your own. But in order to receive our help, you have to be able to qualify for the loan."
Take care,
Marky
----------------
[/blockquote]
Marky, although I agree that the ATSB is on crack in the way they chose to give out loans, the fact remains that of the three board members, TWO are democrats, Eddie "Bugsie" Gramlich (who was appointed to the fed by Bill Clinton and whose term expires in 2008, ie UNTOUCHABLE) and Pete "assasine" Fisher, who was one of the "token" Dems bush brought aboard. Both of the DEMS voted NO (do you think Tommy "my wife works for NWA and AMR" Daschle had anything to do with it?). the board had ONE republican, Van Tine, who as a member of James Bakers law firm, was a member of Bush's florida recount legal team. He voted "maybe". It has also been widely reported that Denny Hastert blew a gasket when UAL was rejected and after an irate phone call demanding O'neils head, the white house requested his resignation. Don't take my word for it, do a google search on the ATSB board member and their backgrounds. Also look for some of the reports regarding Hastert. Expect hearings in the house in january that may include the three gentlemen being called on the carpet to explain why they refused to follow the congressional intent of the law. If I were the "three amigo's" (AMR, CAL, and NWA) who actively lobbied against approval, I'd be a little more careful who i ***** off next time (Hastert AND Pelosi)
----------------
On 12/5/2002 2:18:36 PM MrMarky wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/5/2002 12
34 PM US2 wrote: Sorry, Marky, but you are misreading the politics here. Edward Gramlich, Greenspan's Fed designee, was a Clinton appointee to the Fed. Formerly an economics professor, he was a professor of mine at Michigan and I cannot believe that his vote was driven by anything other than the numbers presented to the ATSB.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hi US2,
I don't know how things work at your alma mater in Michigan, but I do know how things work in Washington. Anyone who thinks for a minute that the ATSB is not under the influence of the administration is either overconsuming something, or is terribly naive.
The fact is that this is a political decision. In fact, the entire mandate of the ATSB runs counter to the administration's philosophy despite the broad bipartisan support in Congress to enact the ATSA. Hence, only two small carriers have received the guarantees, for an agregate amount totaling less than 5 percent of the $10 billion allocated by Congress.
The ATSB was established to aid a distressed industry. That would seem to imply that government assistance was necessary to maintain the solvency of our airlines when they were unable to access the capital markets independently. If the ATSB is going to act like bankers and say "you don't qualify for the loan - your recovery plan is inadequate", then why does the board even exist?? If United and others could qualify for the loan, there would be no reason to have an ATSB or for the carriers to seek its assistance.
The whole concept of the government loan guarantees is pretty simple. It's to help those carriers who would otherwise be unable to secure financing. For the ATSB to take the position that you have to qualify for the loan in order to get the loan guarantee, turns the entire purpose of the board's very existence on its head. It's the consummate Catch 22. "We're here to help you get loans you can't qualify for on your own. But in order to receive our help, you have to be able to qualify for the loan."
Take care,
Marky
----------------
[/blockquote]
Marky, although I agree that the ATSB is on crack in the way they chose to give out loans, the fact remains that of the three board members, TWO are democrats, Eddie "Bugsie" Gramlich (who was appointed to the fed by Bill Clinton and whose term expires in 2008, ie UNTOUCHABLE) and Pete "assasine" Fisher, who was one of the "token" Dems bush brought aboard. Both of the DEMS voted NO (do you think Tommy "my wife works for NWA and AMR" Daschle had anything to do with it?). the board had ONE republican, Van Tine, who as a member of James Bakers law firm, was a member of Bush's florida recount legal team. He voted "maybe". It has also been widely reported that Denny Hastert blew a gasket when UAL was rejected and after an irate phone call demanding O'neils head, the white house requested his resignation. Don't take my word for it, do a google search on the ATSB board member and their backgrounds. Also look for some of the reports regarding Hastert. Expect hearings in the house in january that may include the three gentlemen being called on the carpet to explain why they refused to follow the congressional intent of the law. If I were the "three amigo's" (AMR, CAL, and NWA) who actively lobbied against approval, I'd be a little more careful who i ***** off next time (Hastert AND Pelosi)
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/17/2002 4:57:48 PM Bob Owens wrote:
sfb;
I think the Treasury Secretary's position on Bush's tax cuts did him in, flying around Africa with Bono didnt help either.
----------------
[/blockquote]
http://www.hillnews.com/news/121102/oneill.aspx
Hastert sealed fate of O’Neill
By Jonathan E. Kaplan
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert’s (R-Ill.) fury last week over a federal board’s denial of loan guarantees to now-bankrupt United Airlines helped seal the abrupt departure of Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill from President Bush’s Cabinet, The Hill has learned.
Hastert intervened with the White House and with O’Neill directly in hopes of trying to rescue the financially beleaguered airline.
But O’Neill’s representative on the three-member federal panel, known as the Air Transportation Stabilization Board (ATSB) cast the crucial deciding vote against extending help to United, thereby sealing its fate.
For his part, Hastert said he was disappointed but not surprised by the board’s ruling. In a statement, which he issued while traveling in Europe, the Speaker declared: “When the ATSB failed to provide the airline a financial backstop, it failed United Airlines, its employees and its customers.â€
Hastert’s district is located near Chicago, where United is headquartered. He has always taken a strong interest in the airline, which employs some 19,000 workers in the Chicago area, many of whom are Hastert’s constituents.
The sequence of events made it evident that the White House took Hastert’s disappointment seriously, a senior House leadership aide said.
The aide added: “[White House Chief of Staff] Andy Card is a smart enough guy to figure it out.â€
The aide suggested that O’Neill’s retention would have imperiled the status of President Bush’s economic policies, which the Treasury Department chief is expected to defend on Capitol Hill.
The crunch would have come next January when Bush is expected to spell out his new economic ideas in the State of the Union address. Following the address, O’Neill’s replacement, John Snow, will be in charge of fleshing out the plan with a great deal more credibility than O’Neill possessed, assuming that the Senate acts quickly on his nomination.
Last Wednesday, the ATSB, which was created in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, to aid cash-poor and debt-ridden airlines, rejected United’s request for $1.8 billion in loan guarantees. United, which lost two jets in the terrorist attacks, filed for bankruptcy protection on Monday.
Last Thursday, before the filing, O’Neill was told to leave by Vice President Dick Cheney. On Friday, he had written a four-sentence letter of resignation to Bush — even as the Labor Department announced that unemployment had risen to 6 percent, the highest level in eight years.
Before departing for Europe, Hastert had spoken or met in person with Bush and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. The Speaker had also talked to O’Neill as recently as the Monday before Thanksgiving and kept in close contact with Card at the White House.
Moreover, O’Neill “ignored†not just Hastert, but members of the Virginia, Colorado and California delegations as well — states where United maintains hubs at major airports. These delegations also lobbied for the aid package, the senior leadership aide recalled.
Hastert and his top aides were particularly irked that the ATSB made its decision before waiting to learn whether the machinists’ union would offer any concessions to help reduce United’s high operating costs.
Additionally, they were bothered that the panel had approved loan guarantees to US Airways, which filed for bankruptcy last August, but rejected United’s bid.
The White House Press Office did not respond to The Hill’s inquiries about the matter.
A spokeswoman for Peter Fisher, undersecretary of domestic finance at the Treasury and O’Neill’s designee on the ATSB, said that just asking whether a link existed between Fisher’s opposition and O’Neill’s departure was “offensive†and refused further comment.
If the panel’s decision doomed United’s loan package, the company’s competitors did not help matters. “Some of the carriers opposing United’s loan guarantee application were almost giddy about the outcome,†said Dan Mattoon, a United lobbyist and former Hastert aide.
“While they might enjoy some short-term economic benefits … politically they’re playing with fire on the Hill and may be burned for it.â€
Continental Airlines, for example, supported the board’s ruling, issuing a statement that read: “The U.S. government did the right thing for the taxpayers and for competition by letting the marketplace determine winners and losers.â€
Meanwhile, Democrats sought to capitalize on the rejection. Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he backed the aid and blamed the panel’s ruling on the White House.
“The Bush administration has turned its back on workers, the nation’s transportation system and the economy at large,†he said in a statement.
A few lawmakers, including Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee on the Transportation Committee, backed the ATSB.
“Congress gave the board strict marching orders and they have complied with those,†Mica said. “The decision may give some people heartburn, but the primary interest is to protect taxpayers so they do not end up supporting an economic dinosaur.â€
Hastert believes that the ATSB did not do its job. “The ATSB was created to help struggling airlines in light of the Sept. 11 attacks,†said Pete Jeffries, Hastert’s communications director.
The airline industry’s financial problems, most economists agree, started before the terrorist attacks. “The cost structures of major airlines are such that the lower revenues have no hope of covering operating costs,†said Peter Belobaba, an economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
A lawyer for US Airways said that the company was “put through all of the paces†by the ATSB and that it seemed United could not lower its costs to become profitable in the future, except by declaring bankruptcy.
----------------
On 12/17/2002 4:57:48 PM Bob Owens wrote:
sfb;
I think the Treasury Secretary's position on Bush's tax cuts did him in, flying around Africa with Bono didnt help either.
----------------
[/blockquote]
http://www.hillnews.com/news/121102/oneill.aspx
Hastert sealed fate of O’Neill
By Jonathan E. Kaplan
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert’s (R-Ill.) fury last week over a federal board’s denial of loan guarantees to now-bankrupt United Airlines helped seal the abrupt departure of Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill from President Bush’s Cabinet, The Hill has learned.
Hastert intervened with the White House and with O’Neill directly in hopes of trying to rescue the financially beleaguered airline.
But O’Neill’s representative on the three-member federal panel, known as the Air Transportation Stabilization Board (ATSB) cast the crucial deciding vote against extending help to United, thereby sealing its fate.
For his part, Hastert said he was disappointed but not surprised by the board’s ruling. In a statement, which he issued while traveling in Europe, the Speaker declared: “When the ATSB failed to provide the airline a financial backstop, it failed United Airlines, its employees and its customers.â€
Hastert’s district is located near Chicago, where United is headquartered. He has always taken a strong interest in the airline, which employs some 19,000 workers in the Chicago area, many of whom are Hastert’s constituents.
The sequence of events made it evident that the White House took Hastert’s disappointment seriously, a senior House leadership aide said.
The aide added: “[White House Chief of Staff] Andy Card is a smart enough guy to figure it out.â€
The aide suggested that O’Neill’s retention would have imperiled the status of President Bush’s economic policies, which the Treasury Department chief is expected to defend on Capitol Hill.
The crunch would have come next January when Bush is expected to spell out his new economic ideas in the State of the Union address. Following the address, O’Neill’s replacement, John Snow, will be in charge of fleshing out the plan with a great deal more credibility than O’Neill possessed, assuming that the Senate acts quickly on his nomination.
Last Wednesday, the ATSB, which was created in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, to aid cash-poor and debt-ridden airlines, rejected United’s request for $1.8 billion in loan guarantees. United, which lost two jets in the terrorist attacks, filed for bankruptcy protection on Monday.
Last Thursday, before the filing, O’Neill was told to leave by Vice President Dick Cheney. On Friday, he had written a four-sentence letter of resignation to Bush — even as the Labor Department announced that unemployment had risen to 6 percent, the highest level in eight years.
Before departing for Europe, Hastert had spoken or met in person with Bush and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. The Speaker had also talked to O’Neill as recently as the Monday before Thanksgiving and kept in close contact with Card at the White House.
Moreover, O’Neill “ignored†not just Hastert, but members of the Virginia, Colorado and California delegations as well — states where United maintains hubs at major airports. These delegations also lobbied for the aid package, the senior leadership aide recalled.
Hastert and his top aides were particularly irked that the ATSB made its decision before waiting to learn whether the machinists’ union would offer any concessions to help reduce United’s high operating costs.
Additionally, they were bothered that the panel had approved loan guarantees to US Airways, which filed for bankruptcy last August, but rejected United’s bid.
The White House Press Office did not respond to The Hill’s inquiries about the matter.
A spokeswoman for Peter Fisher, undersecretary of domestic finance at the Treasury and O’Neill’s designee on the ATSB, said that just asking whether a link existed between Fisher’s opposition and O’Neill’s departure was “offensive†and refused further comment.
If the panel’s decision doomed United’s loan package, the company’s competitors did not help matters. “Some of the carriers opposing United’s loan guarantee application were almost giddy about the outcome,†said Dan Mattoon, a United lobbyist and former Hastert aide.
“While they might enjoy some short-term economic benefits … politically they’re playing with fire on the Hill and may be burned for it.â€
Continental Airlines, for example, supported the board’s ruling, issuing a statement that read: “The U.S. government did the right thing for the taxpayers and for competition by letting the marketplace determine winners and losers.â€
Meanwhile, Democrats sought to capitalize on the rejection. Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he backed the aid and blamed the panel’s ruling on the White House.
“The Bush administration has turned its back on workers, the nation’s transportation system and the economy at large,†he said in a statement.
A few lawmakers, including Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee on the Transportation Committee, backed the ATSB.
“Congress gave the board strict marching orders and they have complied with those,†Mica said. “The decision may give some people heartburn, but the primary interest is to protect taxpayers so they do not end up supporting an economic dinosaur.â€
Hastert believes that the ATSB did not do its job. “The ATSB was created to help struggling airlines in light of the Sept. 11 attacks,†said Pete Jeffries, Hastert’s communications director.
The airline industry’s financial problems, most economists agree, started before the terrorist attacks. “The cost structures of major airlines are such that the lower revenues have no hope of covering operating costs,†said Peter Belobaba, an economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
A lawyer for US Airways said that the company was “put through all of the paces†by the ATSB and that it seemed United could not lower its costs to become profitable in the future, except by declaring bankruptcy.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/17/2002 4:57:48 PM Bob Owens wrote:
sfb;
I think the Treasury Secretary's position on Bush's tax cuts did him in, flying around Africa with Bono didnt help either.
----------------
[/blockquote]
http://www.hillnews.com/news/121102/oneill.aspx
Hastert sealed fate of O’Neill
By Jonathan E. Kaplan
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert’s (R-Ill.) fury last week over a federal board’s denial of loan guarantees to now-bankrupt United Airlines helped seal the abrupt departure of Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill from President Bush’s Cabinet, The Hill has learned.
Hastert intervened with the White House and with O’Neill directly in hopes of trying to rescue the financially beleaguered airline.
But O’Neill’s representative on the three-member federal panel, known as the Air Transportation Stabilization Board (ATSB) cast the crucial deciding vote against extending help to United, thereby sealing its fate.
For his part, Hastert said he was disappointed but not surprised by the board’s ruling. In a statement, which he issued while traveling in Europe, the Speaker declared: “When the ATSB failed to provide the airline a financial backstop, it failed United Airlines, its employees and its customers.â€
Hastert’s district is located near Chicago, where United is headquartered. He has always taken a strong interest in the airline, which employs some 19,000 workers in the Chicago area, many of whom are Hastert’s constituents.
The sequence of events made it evident that the White House took Hastert’s disappointment seriously, a senior House leadership aide said.
The aide added: “[White House Chief of Staff] Andy Card is a smart enough guy to figure it out.â€
The aide suggested that O’Neill’s retention would have imperiled the status of President Bush’s economic policies, which the Treasury Department chief is expected to defend on Capitol Hill.
The crunch would have come next January when Bush is expected to spell out his new economic ideas in the State of the Union address. Following the address, O’Neill’s replacement, John Snow, will be in charge of fleshing out the plan with a great deal more credibility than O’Neill possessed, assuming that the Senate acts quickly on his nomination.
Last Wednesday, the ATSB, which was created in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, to aid cash-poor and debt-ridden airlines, rejected United’s request for $1.8 billion in loan guarantees. United, which lost two jets in the terrorist attacks, filed for bankruptcy protection on Monday.
Last Thursday, before the filing, O’Neill was told to leave by Vice President Dick Cheney. On Friday, he had written a four-sentence letter of resignation to Bush — even as the Labor Department announced that unemployment had risen to 6 percent, the highest level in eight years.
Before departing for Europe, Hastert had spoken or met in person with Bush and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. The Speaker had also talked to O’Neill as recently as the Monday before Thanksgiving and kept in close contact with Card at the White House.
Moreover, O’Neill “ignored†not just Hastert, but members of the Virginia, Colorado and California delegations as well — states where United maintains hubs at major airports. These delegations also lobbied for the aid package, the senior leadership aide recalled.
Hastert and his top aides were particularly irked that the ATSB made its decision before waiting to learn whether the machinists’ union would offer any concessions to help reduce United’s high operating costs.
Additionally, they were bothered that the panel had approved loan guarantees to US Airways, which filed for bankruptcy last August, but rejected United’s bid.
The White House Press Office did not respond to The Hill’s inquiries about the matter.
A spokeswoman for Peter Fisher, undersecretary of domestic finance at the Treasury and O’Neill’s designee on the ATSB, said that just asking whether a link existed between Fisher’s opposition and O’Neill’s departure was “offensive†and refused further comment.
If the panel’s decision doomed United’s loan package, the company’s competitors did not help matters. “Some of the carriers opposing United’s loan guarantee application were almost giddy about the outcome,†said Dan Mattoon, a United lobbyist and former Hastert aide.
“While they might enjoy some short-term economic benefits … politically they’re playing with fire on the Hill and may be burned for it.â€
Continental Airlines, for example, supported the board’s ruling, issuing a statement that read: “The U.S. government did the right thing for the taxpayers and for competition by letting the marketplace determine winners and losers.â€
Meanwhile, Democrats sought to capitalize on the rejection. Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he backed the aid and blamed the panel’s ruling on the White House.
“The Bush administration has turned its back on workers, the nation’s transportation system and the economy at large,†he said in a statement.
A few lawmakers, including Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee on the Transportation Committee, backed the ATSB.
“Congress gave the board strict marching orders and they have complied with those,†Mica said. “The decision may give some people heartburn, but the primary interest is to protect taxpayers so they do not end up supporting an economic dinosaur.â€
Hastert believes that the ATSB did not do its job. “The ATSB was created to help struggling airlines in light of the Sept. 11 attacks,†said Pete Jeffries, Hastert’s communications director.
The airline industry’s financial problems, most economists agree, started before the terrorist attacks. “The cost structures of major airlines are such that the lower revenues have no hope of covering operating costs,†said Peter Belobaba, an economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
A lawyer for US Airways said that the company was “put through all of the paces†by the ATSB and that it seemed United could not lower its costs to become profitable in the future, except by declaring bankruptcy.
----------------
On 12/17/2002 4:57:48 PM Bob Owens wrote:
sfb;
I think the Treasury Secretary's position on Bush's tax cuts did him in, flying around Africa with Bono didnt help either.
----------------
[/blockquote]
http://www.hillnews.com/news/121102/oneill.aspx
Hastert sealed fate of O’Neill
By Jonathan E. Kaplan
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert’s (R-Ill.) fury last week over a federal board’s denial of loan guarantees to now-bankrupt United Airlines helped seal the abrupt departure of Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill from President Bush’s Cabinet, The Hill has learned.
Hastert intervened with the White House and with O’Neill directly in hopes of trying to rescue the financially beleaguered airline.
But O’Neill’s representative on the three-member federal panel, known as the Air Transportation Stabilization Board (ATSB) cast the crucial deciding vote against extending help to United, thereby sealing its fate.
For his part, Hastert said he was disappointed but not surprised by the board’s ruling. In a statement, which he issued while traveling in Europe, the Speaker declared: “When the ATSB failed to provide the airline a financial backstop, it failed United Airlines, its employees and its customers.â€
Hastert’s district is located near Chicago, where United is headquartered. He has always taken a strong interest in the airline, which employs some 19,000 workers in the Chicago area, many of whom are Hastert’s constituents.
The sequence of events made it evident that the White House took Hastert’s disappointment seriously, a senior House leadership aide said.
The aide added: “[White House Chief of Staff] Andy Card is a smart enough guy to figure it out.â€
The aide suggested that O’Neill’s retention would have imperiled the status of President Bush’s economic policies, which the Treasury Department chief is expected to defend on Capitol Hill.
The crunch would have come next January when Bush is expected to spell out his new economic ideas in the State of the Union address. Following the address, O’Neill’s replacement, John Snow, will be in charge of fleshing out the plan with a great deal more credibility than O’Neill possessed, assuming that the Senate acts quickly on his nomination.
Last Wednesday, the ATSB, which was created in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, to aid cash-poor and debt-ridden airlines, rejected United’s request for $1.8 billion in loan guarantees. United, which lost two jets in the terrorist attacks, filed for bankruptcy protection on Monday.
Last Thursday, before the filing, O’Neill was told to leave by Vice President Dick Cheney. On Friday, he had written a four-sentence letter of resignation to Bush — even as the Labor Department announced that unemployment had risen to 6 percent, the highest level in eight years.
Before departing for Europe, Hastert had spoken or met in person with Bush and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. The Speaker had also talked to O’Neill as recently as the Monday before Thanksgiving and kept in close contact with Card at the White House.
Moreover, O’Neill “ignored†not just Hastert, but members of the Virginia, Colorado and California delegations as well — states where United maintains hubs at major airports. These delegations also lobbied for the aid package, the senior leadership aide recalled.
Hastert and his top aides were particularly irked that the ATSB made its decision before waiting to learn whether the machinists’ union would offer any concessions to help reduce United’s high operating costs.
Additionally, they were bothered that the panel had approved loan guarantees to US Airways, which filed for bankruptcy last August, but rejected United’s bid.
The White House Press Office did not respond to The Hill’s inquiries about the matter.
A spokeswoman for Peter Fisher, undersecretary of domestic finance at the Treasury and O’Neill’s designee on the ATSB, said that just asking whether a link existed between Fisher’s opposition and O’Neill’s departure was “offensive†and refused further comment.
If the panel’s decision doomed United’s loan package, the company’s competitors did not help matters. “Some of the carriers opposing United’s loan guarantee application were almost giddy about the outcome,†said Dan Mattoon, a United lobbyist and former Hastert aide.
“While they might enjoy some short-term economic benefits … politically they’re playing with fire on the Hill and may be burned for it.â€
Continental Airlines, for example, supported the board’s ruling, issuing a statement that read: “The U.S. government did the right thing for the taxpayers and for competition by letting the marketplace determine winners and losers.â€
Meanwhile, Democrats sought to capitalize on the rejection. Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he backed the aid and blamed the panel’s ruling on the White House.
“The Bush administration has turned its back on workers, the nation’s transportation system and the economy at large,†he said in a statement.
A few lawmakers, including Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee on the Transportation Committee, backed the ATSB.
“Congress gave the board strict marching orders and they have complied with those,†Mica said. “The decision may give some people heartburn, but the primary interest is to protect taxpayers so they do not end up supporting an economic dinosaur.â€
Hastert believes that the ATSB did not do its job. “The ATSB was created to help struggling airlines in light of the Sept. 11 attacks,†said Pete Jeffries, Hastert’s communications director.
The airline industry’s financial problems, most economists agree, started before the terrorist attacks. “The cost structures of major airlines are such that the lower revenues have no hope of covering operating costs,†said Peter Belobaba, an economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
A lawyer for US Airways said that the company was “put through all of the paces†by the ATSB and that it seemed United could not lower its costs to become profitable in the future, except by declaring bankruptcy.
N866DA
Newbie
Gotta love this thread. United's employees, both leadership and labor, capsize their ship and expect the U.S. taxpayer to come to their rescue despite the fact that they haven't got a decent plan to fix things.
I don't think so.
The "It's the Republicans" conspiracy theories are highly entertaining.
Glad I voted for G Dubya.
I don't think so.
The "It's the Republicans" conspiracy theories are highly entertaining.
Glad I voted for G Dubya.
N866DA
Newbie
Gotta love this thread. United's employees, both leadership and labor, capsize their ship and expect the U.S. taxpayer to come to their rescue despite the fact that they haven't got a decent plan to fix things.
I don't think so.
The "It's the Republicans" conspiracy theories are highly entertaining.
Glad I voted for G Dubya.
I don't think so.
The "It's the Republicans" conspiracy theories are highly entertaining.
Glad I voted for G Dubya.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/18/2002 322 AM N866DA wrote:
Gotta love this thread. United's employees, both leadership and labor, capsize their ship and expect the U.S. taxpayer to come to their rescue despite the fact that they haven't got a decent plan to fix things.
I don't think so.
The "It's the Republicans" conspiracy theories are highly entertaining.
Glad I voted for G Dubya.
----------------
[/blockquote]
What does "DA" on the end of you screen name stand for? Oh wait, I think I know.....
----------------
On 12/18/2002 3
22 AM N866DA wrote: Gotta love this thread. United's employees, both leadership and labor, capsize their ship and expect the U.S. taxpayer to come to their rescue despite the fact that they haven't got a decent plan to fix things.
I don't think so.
The "It's the Republicans" conspiracy theories are highly entertaining.
Glad I voted for G Dubya.
----------------
[/blockquote]
What does "DA" on the end of you screen name stand for? Oh wait, I think I know.....
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/18/2002 322 AM N866DA wrote:
Gotta love this thread. United's employees, both leadership and labor, capsize their ship and expect the U.S. taxpayer to come to their rescue despite the fact that they haven't got a decent plan to fix things.
I don't think so.
The "It's the Republicans" conspiracy theories are highly entertaining.
Glad I voted for G Dubya.
----------------
[/blockquote]
What does "DA" on the end of you screen name stand for? Oh wait, I think I know.....
----------------
On 12/18/2002 3
22 AM N866DA wrote: Gotta love this thread. United's employees, both leadership and labor, capsize their ship and expect the U.S. taxpayer to come to their rescue despite the fact that they haven't got a decent plan to fix things.
I don't think so.
The "It's the Republicans" conspiracy theories are highly entertaining.
Glad I voted for G Dubya.
----------------
[/blockquote]
What does "DA" on the end of you screen name stand for? Oh wait, I think I know.....
Winglet
Veteran
The employees of United didn't damage the company, MR. GOODWIN AND HIS INCOMPETENT LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT DID . . . . . and he was well rewarded for doing so.
Similar threads
- chipmunn
- American Airlines
- chipmunn
- American Airlines
