WP,pg1: Automakers Are Lining Up Aid, But Just Don't Call It a Bailout

Automakers Are Lining Up Aid, But Just Don't Call It a Bailout
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Sholnn Freeman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 4, 2005; Page A01


Troubled U.S. automakers and their allies on Capitol Hill are seeking billions of dollars in aid from the federal government ranging from health coverage for their workers to extra tax write-offs for themselves.

They're also asking for one rhetorical favor: Please don't call the requests a bailout.

"I don't view it as a bailout," Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said.

"We're not looking for a bailout," agreed William C. Ford Jr., chairman of Ford Motor Co....

***

Taken together, however, the components of their wish list would cost tens of billions....With pleadings that large, breaking the requests into smaller pieces makes a great deal of legislative sense, and industry and labor leaders hope that several relief packages could begin to move in Congress next year. The outlook is uncertain, especially given the size of the federal budget deficit, but auto industry representatives said they were optimistic that at least some of their proposals would succeed....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120301326.html

You're on your own for citizens and their families.

This is what they paid for when they bought Bush.

on behemoth gas guzzlers and now we're supposed to bail them out? According to a report I heard the other day on CNN, GM's new line is still replete with guzzlers. This needs to be tied to mileage standards or no help should flow. What kind of bonuses did GM execs receive this year, last year? What kind of bonuses do they have planned for the future. I'm so sick of these guys raping their corporations, making dismal decisions and then expecting the taxpayer to bail them out. Unless U.S. auto execs give up their bonuses, NO the American people should NOT give Detroit any help!!

Michigan Dems need to make it clear to Levin that things need to change.

In fact, I'd much rather my tax dollars went to a large corporation with thousands of employees than to bombs, bullets and other weapons that are used for nothing more than spreading world terrorism American style. Or flying "suspected" terrorists around the globe for extraordinary rendition.

That being said, I would greatly prefer that any government assistance to Ford and GM come with a few strings attached. Strings? How about ropes? Or cables? For example, Big Auto starts raising CAFE standards. The day and age of 20 mpg crapmobiles is over. Or it should be. And they're looking for government help with health coverage, are they? How about a Madison Avenue advertising blitz for affordable health care similar to their wall-to-wall advertising for their 20 mpg crapmobiles?

I reckon other DUers can come up with a few other things automakers can do that serve the public instead of their executives' and shareholders' wallets.

small businesses recover. The "American" automakers will take their corporate welfare handouts and continue to shutter North American plants in favor of more outsourcing. Maybe their lobbyists should focus on one issue: universal healthcare, a single payer federal system. Something along Sen. Kennedy's "Medicare for all".

I don't feel one bit for any of the rich elite. If it wasn't for corporate welfare most companies couldn't survive on the merits and quality of their product and/or service as sold straight up to the people. If the rich had to earn their money in an open and honest way there would be a lot less of them.

to change the auto landscape. You know, like give the people what they want. aka smaller more fuel efficient cars.

pigs.

Nothing to it. We have plenty for the next 200 years.

So Hummer has decided to put out the mother of all vehicles. It will be another better and bigger Hummer, but mounted on an M-8 tract, much like the Sherman tank. Priced for middle America families. Comes fully loaded. Except for the .50 cal machine gun that mounts on the top.

took the reins. Deja vu!!

He ran GM after he turned around Chrysler.

Been a long time and my memory is a bit rusty, but it seems like it was GM. I lived in Michigan at the time.

The "B" word has been taboo ever since Chrysler Corp., faced with impending insolvency, sought and narrowly won $1.5 billion in loan guarantees from Washington in 1979 and 1980. The company eventually borrowed $1.2 billion and repaid the loans in 1983, seven years earlier than was required.

Nonetheless, the notion of the American taxpayer saving a company with a large and quick fix has pretty much gone out of style and has not been repeated since, with the exception of loan guarantees to airlines after 9/11. Even though General Motors Corp. and its rival Ford Motor now face serious financial straits, both are studiously avoiding public condemnation by spreading their aid requests widely among many types of government policies.

Taken together, however, the components of their wish list would cost tens of billions -- far more than Chrysler ever dared to seek.

"Wait! Come back! I didn't mean it!"

And Iacocca worked his butt off to pay back the loans.

survival of the fittest.

If Ford and G.M. couldn't manage their companies well enough to compete with the foreign owned companies.

Then they should go out of business. No one deserves it more.

who are busy shifting jobs overseas.

Maybe you'll be less gleeful when hundreds of thousands of autoworkers are flipping burgers while foreign automakers become our new suppliers.

Everyone who's so opposed to government aid to these companies, I'm sure you'll be happy to have the government spend billions instead to clean up the social and economic messes after they're gone, right?

Just a thought.

Peace.

For years, the powers that be *INCLUDING* the management of the
auto companies have argued that we're a "free market economy" and
that they should be allowed to pretty much do any damned thing they
wanted to do.

And they did.

And now it's clear that screwed the pooch.

But it's a bit to late for these folks to now embrace the values
of Democratic Socialism just so we can bail out their sorry asses.
Yes, it's a shame about the workers who will be hurt; maybe more
of them will relaize the folly of being a "Reagan Democrat" (as
so many blue-collar and union orkers are) and they will, in the
next election, actually cast the Democratic votes recommended by
their union leadership?

Tesha

Meanwhile, the let-them-eat-cake attitude of many who call themselves progressive shows that the driving emotion of those who cheer the destruction of US manufacturing is schadenfreude for executives. Yeah, that'll teach 'em. Har har. If that pleasure must be bought with the collapse of entire Midwestern towns (see Flint, Michigan for an example), hey, "yes, it's a shame about the workers who will be hurt," but you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

A shame about the workers, eh? Better stock up on Kleenex to soak up all those tears.

Or better yet, skip the Kleenex, and pretend the workers are all "Reagan Democrats" so you can enjoy their pain too. Because, you see, no one who doesn't vote like we vote deserves compassion or a job. Humanity towards others must be strictly limited according to the most important thing in life or the universe, which is: do these other people have the exact same politics as us? If not, then fuck 'em, right? And their kids and old folks, too. Bwahahahahahaha.

Peace.

And Bush (I and II) voters.

I *STOOD* with the UAW in '92 as we campaigned for Tom Harkin, a *REAL*
Democrat, but it was obvious that even with the UAW officially behind him,
he couldn't get traction with the blue collar fools who thought that Republicans
would make them richer.

There are people who simply can't be saved from the pain they cause
themselves. A great swath of the UAW rank-and-file will, unfortunately,
fall into that category.

And if you don't think so, you're just fooling yourself.

Tesha

That's about as fucked up as saying only people who believe the same religion as us deserve compassion.

Come to think of it, there isn't much difference between fundy politics and fundy religion, especially when it comes to how the believers treat the nonbelievers. It happens more on the right than on the left, but this thread is good evidence of how often it does happen on the left.

I prefer the system where compassion is available to all, even if (or especially if) they have a different god or a different political party. That's the only compassion worthy of the name.

Peace.

Seriously.

Here they are, voting for Republicans year after year, and having Republicans
kick their asses year after year. When will they learn? *HOW* will they learn?

Isn't it time that they learn that actions, even their action, have consequences?
And sometimes the consequences are "You're fired."

Then they can make a fully-informed decision as to whether not letting
Adam and Steve get married was worth their jobs. Or whether their right
to keep and bear arms trumps their need to eat. Or whether the income
tax is still worth anything when they have no income to be taxed.

Seriously.

Tesha

You are doing something called "begging the question." In other words, you are assuming something as your premise, and then using that assumption to prove your premise.

That's a logical fallacy and it will get you tossed out of any high-school debate.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the majority of autoworkers are voting Republican, but a little research shows the majority votes Dem. Here's a valuable site for learning all about the demographic breakdowns of voters, by age, location, religion, socioeconomic class, favorite flavor of ice cream (ok, I made that one up), etc. This report, from Pew Research, is full of assumption-busting facts, and every progressive who wants to understand voters and elections in this country should study it.

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/196.pdf

But my earlier point remains. Even if the majority of a group votes Republican, or is Jewish, or has yellow skin, or is gay, or whatever other way you can think of to disagree with them, that DOES NOT MEAN they don't deserve the basics of life in America, which includes a job, a doctor for their kid, and a few pesos in the bank for when they get old.

No one appointed you to be the judge of these people, and no one appointed you to be their punisher or educator. If you choose not to feel compassion to fellow citizens on the brink of losing it all, then that's your choice. But in my book, you cease to be a progressive, and you have become part of the problem, not part of the solution. If we can't count on progressives to care about the welfare of all people without passing judgment on them first, then who can we count on? Compassion only for people we deem to be thinking the correct thoughts isn't compassion, it's cronyism.

My opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

> Seriously, you sound like someone with a comfortable job behind a keyboard.

Actually, you are *DEAD WRONG*. But I don't feel the need to share
my personal life with you.

Tesha

just your regard for other people. Regardless of which belief system they choose.

Peace.

and I didn't insult you.

Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Possibly the hidden glee you perceive is targeted at management and the over-stuffed portfolio's of the stock-holders and that those targets are the one's we're venting our frustrations on and about. There is absolutely no reason to assume it's directed at the workers.

I was happy when Enron bought the farm. Happy? Heck, I was ecstatic... Kenny Boy Lay was about to go "daisy's-up" and my fist punched the air numerous times when I first found out about it. Yet a lot of worker-bee's lost out on that one, too. However, my "hidden glee" was not directed at them. As a matter of fact, I felt pretty crappy about them and for them.

I certainly don't think that social justice would have called for a wink and a nudge towards Enron, or a "just don't do it again, kay?".
At least, that's how this progressive see's it.

But there's a saying that when elephants tussle, it's the grass that gets trampled.

Auto workers outnumber executives by hundreds of thousands. When the US auto industry shrinks, workers will outnumber executives in the unemployment line, too.

I totally hear you about Enron, but the comparison is invalid. US automakers did not commit Enron-style crimes and then criminally cover up the evidence, they committed bad planning and execution. One is illegal, the other is not. The idea that I or any reasonable person would want a wink and nudge for Enron is not tenable. That company needed to be yanked out by the roots. The US auto industry does not, and its death will have major ramifications far outside automotive circles.

My first concern is for the hundreds of thousands of autoworkers whose future is dim and getting dimmer. Entire cities will suffer, and I mean SUFFER. People who haven't seen a Pennsylvania steel town shuttered up, or a New England textile town shuttered up, or a Michigan auto factory town shuttered up, probably don't realize what we're talking about here. Drugs, broken families, abandoned buildings, crime, shitty schools, on and on and on.

It seems like every thread having to do with the US auto industry on DU is full of people taking delight in the decimation of the industry, and trotting out the same tired bullshit snark about Hummers and Navigators. I will not join them. I believe it is the job of progressives to extend compassion and political support to our workers, and to the industries that write their checks.

Ok, I hope that didn't sound too much like a rant. I can tell from your post, LanternWaste, that you have sound progressive cred. Glad to see your post.

Peace.

The company also seeks health legislation down the road that would unburden it of the huge cost of medical coverage that it now offers its 450,000 retirees and their spouses.

One proposal that's being floated is for the government to provide catastrophic health care coverage.

sounds like a pretty "lib-rul" proposal to me

---snip---

"It is wrong to destroy the middle-class dream in America," Schwarz said. "We are going to have to find a way as a country to work our way through this."

ummmm.....bush* has already pretty much destroyed the middle-class dream

We can talk about the poor management decisions, poor vehicle production choices, poor mileage, poor design and so on, but the elephant in the room is health care. Lack of national health care is putting U.S. industry at a huge disadvantage, especially established companies that are supporting a lot of retirees. Something like $1,500 of the cost of each car GM sells is health care. Ford is a bit less.

There is a way out, and it requires the U.S. to join the rest of the industrialized world and give a damn about the health of its citizens.

the steel industry ask for help we got no sympathy from the auto industry. The American auto industry fought against the tariffs the steel industry begged for back then. What you see happening to the auto industry is exactly what happened to steel. The steel companies from asia and the former Soviet states dumped steel in this country at well below our production costs. Over the years the US companies gradually lost market share and could not afford to modernize to compete with these government subsidized companies. Then the American auto industry said no let the US steel industry die, if they can't compete, we want cheap steel, screw the steel workers. Well we also begged for the federal government to take over our health plans but Noooooo! the Bush Administration said why should the taxpayers pay for their health insurance and pensions when many of them don't have them either. So the steel companies went bankrupt and eliminated the retirees pensions and health insurance and most companies have been gobbled up by foreign owners now. One close by the former Weirton Steel was bought out ISG and then Mittal, last week Mittal announced it will permanently shut down the hot metal part of the mill eliminating 800 more jobs because they can produce steel cheaper in other countries. Weirton Steel once had 13000 employees they are down to 1300 now.

800 workers a $25 gift certificate for Christmas.

the final steps of the big 2.5 moving operations to asia...and I agree with that other poster that said there should be a LOT of conditions attached with that cash

I'm Changing My Name to Chrysler
by Tom Paxton

Oh the price of gold is rising out of sight
And the dollar is in sorry shape tonight
What the dollar used to get us
Now won't buy a head of lettuce
No the economic forecast isn't right
But amidst the clouds I spot a shining ray

I can even glimpse a new and better way
And I've demised a plan of action
Worked it down to the last fraction
And I'm going into action here today

CHORUS:
I am changing my name to Chrysler
I am going down to Washington D.C.
I will tell some power broker
What they did for Iacocca
Will be perfectly acceptable to me
I am changing my name to Chrysler
I am headed for that great receiving line
So when they hand a million grand out
I'll be standing with my hand out
Yes sire I'll get mine

When my creditors are screaming for their dough
I'll be proud to tell them all where they can all go
They won't have to scream and holler
They'll be paid to the last dollar
Where the endless streams of money seem to flow
I'll be glad to tell them what they can do
It's a matter of a simple form or two
It's not just renumeration it's a liberal education
Ain't you kind of glad that I'm in debt to you

CHORUS

Since the first amphibians crawled out of the slime
We've been struggling in an unrelenting climb
We were hardly up and walking before money started talking
And it's sad that failure is an awful crime
Well it's been that way for a millenium or two
But now it seems that there's a different point of view
If you're a corporate titanic and your failure is gigantic
Down to congress there's a safety net for you

CHORUS

©1980 Accabonac Music (ASCAP)

http://www.arlo.net/lyrics/chrysler.shtml