I have to say, the Senate failing to pass it because of a few Southern Republicans makes me extremely mad that our system allows for such pettiness. AL Senator Shelby, TN Senator Jim Corker and KY Senator Mitch McConnell all were playing political games when they should have realized what the House and the White House were behind. They were behind a plan to allow GM and Chrysler to survive another few months without having to file bankruptcy. They pretty much saved jobs that were on the verge of extinction. They were behind a plan to keep American products from falling to foreign products. However, the three leading Republicans that defeated the bill in the Senate prevented all that to add their own little pettiness.
Some believe it is because they have foreign automakers in their own states, like Honda and Hyundai in Alabama, Toyota in Kentucky and another, which I can't think of right now, in Tennessee, and that may well be, especially since those companies do not use union labor. I think the labor is definitely is the root of the problem, which is an unfair attack on the UAW and other labor unions. One of the tenets of Republicanism is free market all around, and labor unions prevent that because it is an unfair advantage to the workers to get the compensation that they think is just, but the market does not. It's unfortunate that a person who works in the United States Senate gets to decide what people who work for a living make and holds the fate of their company hostage to get what they want.
It's unfortunate that the worker has the become the focal point of the conservative voice on this issue, especially since they only do the job assigned to them for adequate compensation. They didn't run the companies into this mess, they didn't create the mission to create Hummers or other gas guzzlers that eventually hurt the business. That's not up to them. They get just compensation and some health and pension benefits, just like government employees, like Sen. Shelby, albeit a lot less. It is not fair to throw the problem onto their backs to make a point, not in these tough economic times. Not to benefit any other entity or the like.
So here's the thing: If those automakers fail, say hello to even more economic woes. Say hello to HUGE job loss, and not just at the factories of the automakers, but at the dealerships, especially ones with service stations and shops. It's pretty much guaranteed that if GM or Chrysler files for reorganization bankruptcy, nobody is going to buy from them, even if they sell their cars for way less than they're worth, because there is no trust that the car will be taken care of, with respect to warranties and guarantees. The companies are done and liquidation bankruptcy will be their last resort.
There has also been this disconnect with the financial bailout and the auto bailout. Why is one more important than the other? Why is no one caring about those executives or their employees pay scale? Why do automakers have to define exactly what they are going to do with the money when we have no idea what the banks are doing with the money, nor resuming normal lending practices? It doesn't make any sense to treat all these entities so differently when they are all in the same boat.
The bottom line is if the auto bailout fails, even though it's a loan, and not injecting capital into banks like Paulson did with the banks, you can expect huge ripple effects in the entire economy. Think of how much money states get from sales tax revenue on new car sales, and then you'll see why it is important for these automakers to stay around.
One last thing: I'm not sure if Sen. Shelby realizes, but the foreign automakers aren't doing so hot right now either, especially those in Japan, which has been hit hard by this economy. We probably wouldn't know much into it, like if Honda or Toyota are asking their government for money to stay afloat. Those automakers could pack up and leave Alabama if they needed to, and we'd be out of manufacturing of cars for good. We'd have to import all of our cars, and they'd be that much more expensive.
Also, I hear everyone getting all butt-hurt about the government using our tax money for these bailouts. What do you think they use to pay for other normal government programs, like defense or education? You don't hear everyone crying about that. Once you give it up, it's no longer yours. Just some food for thought.
2 comments:
I've been on the fence about the auto-bailout, as I was about the financial bailout, for a variety of reasons. Ultimately, I know it will likely have to be passed to save some jobs in light of this economy, and not just the factory workers themselves, but dealers, mechanics etc (which I'll admit I hadn't thought too much about previously). I get that.
But on a fundamental level, I am completely opposed to this bailout, to the financial bailout, to any. I'm a pretty liberal person, and I believe in all of our social programs and taxes (as much as it sucks seeing my paycheck cut in half). But along with this, I believe in some sort of oversight or regulation in the market.
With deregulation by the conservatives, the limited government oversight we've had has pretty much disappeared (not counting the SEC). All of these companies that are now failing are failing in the free market economy that they wanted and lobbied the government for.
To me, it is hypocritical and wrong for them to now go "Oops we fucked up," and come to the US government to bail them out when their free market principles fail. If they want the government to stay completely out of their businesses, then they have to accept the consequences that come when their business decisions fall flat. In this case, by declaring bankruptcy, as any other smaller business must do. It is the nature of the free market economy that there is turnover, that companies die and are created in a cycle.
It makes me angry that we may step in and help the auto companies simply because they are in such a large sector with a large number of jobs. Where do we draw the line then? Why didn't the government help out Circuit City, or any number of the hundreds (or even perhaps thousands) of companies nationwide going under in this economy? Too bad because they're just one other electronics company? Well, that's stupid and rather unfair.
The auto-companies have been run terribly for many, many decades. The fault lies with many people and groups, including management, the autoworker unions, and the autoindustry lobbyists. Yes, even the union. That's a whole other issue that I don't want to go into, but a portion (albeit a much smaller portion) of the blame of the current situation lies with the UAW. Regardless, in this free market economy, these big three automakers have failed, and failed miserably. And a lot of the blame lies with them and has been years in the making- the crappy economy is just a nail in their coffin.
It's a dilemma for me, because you're right, in the end the workers at these companies whose jobs and livelihoods are on the line. And I can't quite distance my beliefs and position on this bailout from the actual lives of these individuals, who will be unemployed and unskilled in one of the worst economic times in modern history.
The world is a pretty crappy place right now.
Also, one of my biggest issues with these bailouts is what seems to be a rather lack of oversight over how the money will be spent. We are watching now how the financial sector bailout is being handled, and what we're seeing isn't very promising.
Quoted in Forbes Sept 23: "It's not based on any particular data point, we just wanted to choose a really large number." — a Treasury Department spokeswoman explaining how the $700 billion number was chosen for the initial bailout (courtesy of list of top 10 quotes of 2008)
How are they coming up with these ever-changing amounts for the auto-bailout? Another large number?
An interesting article to read: http://simonarcher.ca/?p=482
If there are controls that are put into place with the auto-bailout forcing the auto companies to make drastic changes in the ways that they are run and forcing them to make changes with the times, then I might be less opposed. But I'm not a fan of blindly giving them a couple billion dollars to save them from bankruptcy without forcing them to make changes. Otherwise, we'll likely end up right back where we are now in a few more months.
Post a Comment