Video: The auto bailout bill is a “travesty,” says Shelby
posted at 1:35 pm on December 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A snippet from the noon presser on filbustering; behind him are Ensign, DeMint, Vitter, and Coburn, “five true mavericks” in the boss’s words. I maintain that she’s setting herself up for disappointment, but the public’s firmly on her and Shelby’s side when it comes to prospects for recovery. Just 14 percent think the Big Three will do better under government supervision than they’re doing now. Fully 67 percent think otherwise.
Even so, note well: He’s not saying they’ll filibuster any auto bailout, just this one in its current incarnation. The goal isn’t necessarily to cut off funds but to use the feds’ leverage to exact a sustainable restructuring plan. To that end, a highlight from the House GOP’s alternative proposal calling for a pre-packaged bankruptcy and insurance:
Congress should instead establish firm benchmarks and a tight timeline for restructuring. Such benchmarks will include for example requiring that by March 31, 2009 each company should reach agreement whereby:
* The companies’ creditors agree to a framework to reduce each company’s indebtedness by at least 1/3.
* The UAW holds to concessions already made and further:
o Concedes the elimination of Supplemental Unemployment Benefits;
o Concedes elimination of the Jobs Bank Program;
o Agrees to either reduce company retiree health care obligations or otherwise convert a portion of such obligations into equity; and
o Agrees to reduce wages and benefits to the levels paid by non-Big Three manufacturers.
Good luck on those last two, even though no less than the NYT concedes that it’s retirement benefits more than any other element of compensation that puts U.S. auto at a competitive disadvantage. Exit question one: How much will it cost taxpayers if Congress doesn’t act? Figure somewhere in the range of $13 billion to, er, $156 billion. Exit question two via Time: Reid’s not going to bring this to the floor unless he knows he has the votes to beat the filibuster, right? Please, one FUBAR congressional floor vote to avert economic catastrophe per year is more than enough.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
TESTIFY.
Skywise on December 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM
big 3s new ad is already out
CaptainObvious on December 10, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Tell me again what program the government has ever taken over that has been glowingly successful??!!
Badger40 on December 10, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Well.. we can ALL dream!
upinak on December 10, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Shelby needs to go to the Toyota/Nissan/Honda plants in his Home State and do a Photo-Op and make the point.
All this really is: a UAW bailout, and all we will accomplish will be punting GM/Ford going bankrupt down the road several years while UAW and the Execs and the Floor Sweepers continue to get paid for producing a sub-par product the market does not like.
jp on December 10, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Then they should have voted differently in November, at least for congressional races, if not for president.
Vashta.Nerada on December 10, 2008 at 1:49 PM
The non-big3 only pay as much as they do to keep out the UAW. When the UAW drops then those employers will drop a little more. Does the UAW have to keep up with them until there is a real market wage, instead of the current extortion market?
pedestrian on December 10, 2008 at 1:50 PM
On a side note, if as I hear Ford says it can last through 2009 without a bailout, why isn’t Ford seizing the competitive opportunity to differentiate itself from the others in the Big 3? They should spin out ads convincing Americans to buy their products instead of GMs and Chrysler’s (Daimler).
btw, is Daimler/Chrysler foreign owned or not? If they are, why are they eligible for any fed money?
Y-not on December 10, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Shelby has something of a conflict of interests. I was impressed with a senator from Indiana who I recently heard criticizing the bailout. He has big3 auto related industries in his state. Likewise, Senator Corker from Tenn has been very good. It’s harder for Shelby to be impartial, as his state stands to benefit if the big 3 wither.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2008 at 1:50 PM
actually, if the MSM were worth anything they’d be doing this already. Granted the unions may have the mob busting heads for them still.
jp on December 10, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Hey , whats wrong with that , spread the wealth.
the_nile on December 10, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Daimer sold
that pigChrysler back to the American private equity group Cerberus. They refuse to put any more money into Chrysler. As was reported in today’s WSJ, Cerberus refuses to put good money after bad. In fact, they’re suing Daimler, claiming Daimler misrepresented the material conditions of Chrysler before the sale.No, it’s not a foreign company, and it’s not really a big3 car company. Like the Tribune Co, it’s the plaything of venture capitalists. Now they want the taxpayer to bail them out. Cerberus would probably sell the whole damn company for a dollar
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Well, those who want to get rid of Chrysler can very easily pocket the money.
tomas on December 10, 2008 at 1:57 PM
He’s right on the issue of the bailout. There’s no conflict of interest.
Bugler on December 10, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Use your bully pulpit to demand a restructuring of CAFE.
BadgerHawk on December 10, 2008 at 2:00 PM
We should all stop funding the government right now. Enough is enough. They are wiping their arses with the Constitution.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 2:00 PM
I think he’s right too. But all the Senators have to weight the costs and benefits of a bailout. To Alabama, the costs are higher. Is that not true?
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Bottom line- we’re soft, and we’re suckers.
50 years ago, a car company ran out of money, it closed its doors and another company built cars somebody would buy.
Today- everybody knows the “Big” 3 aren’t competitive. The NYT acknowledges they spend more on labor costs than their competitors. We all know a painful hit is coming, but we “hope” the govt. can bring some “change” to delay the inevitable.
I am pleased the Rs actually are pushing an alternative to giving away $15 billion dollars to noncompetitive businesses.
cs89 on December 10, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Chrysler is owned by cerberus, which is basically a whole bunch of super rich guys. I have no idea why anyone is considering giving them money.
BadgerHawk on December 10, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Chrysler was bailed out in ‘79. It was exceptional. Your point is otherwise well taken.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Three words.
PERSONAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS
We’re going to see Bush’s 2005 SS plan passed by a Democratic Congress and Democratic White House in the next 4 years. The Democrats have eliminated the primary obstacle to passing Bush’s plan: Republicans in power to assume all the credit.
Just watch.
gabriel sutherland on December 10, 2008 at 2:03 PM
I don’t think Alabama has a Honda or Nissan plant. Hyundai, Toyota and Mercedes-Benz.
angryed on December 10, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Good point. No one is discussing the value of reducing government restrictions on the Big 3 as a way to help them survive. In particular, the high-mileage clean diesels that are popular in Europe should do well here also. My understanding is that regulatory restrictions currently make it unprofitable for Ford and GM to sell these cars in the U.S.
Bugler on December 10, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Would you buy a car designed by Congress?
a capella on December 10, 2008 at 2:06 PM
This bailout is going to fail. Taxpayers will be hurt. The reason I believe this is for the most part the people who oppose this drive American cars, they will be mad and allot will take their business elsewhere. The big three will drive off most of the buyers of their cars, but with the car czars help they can build a customer base from scratch. It’s going to cost us a whole lot of money and were going to end up with the 2010 version of the Gremlin, Pinto or Pacer.
JackS on December 10, 2008 at 2:06 PM
The Democrats are just trying to protect the Unions for their own self-interests.
If the auto companies go then that is the end of unions in the U.S.
If there are no Unions where will the Democrats get all their campaign money and logistical support during the election time?
albill on December 10, 2008 at 2:07 PM
No, Cerberus refuses to put THEIR money into the company. It’s the same situation with the banks. They won’t give money to a company they know cannot survive without a restructuring or an Uncle Sam bailout.
These 5 Senators need more Senators. Their opponents are going to pummel them and blame them if 1 in 10 American jobs disappears if they have to filibuster the bill.
Senator Shelby was right about the TARP bill. He gave the best speech opposing it. He’s right about the Big 3 bailout. All of this legislation is just cold medicine for people that live in an influenza lab.
gabriel sutherland on December 10, 2008 at 2:09 PM
The main impact of CAFE is that is requires GM and Ford to build millions of little, fuel-efficient cars to balance out their gas guzzling trucks and SUVs.
It’s impossible to hide the labor disadvantage is small cars that only cost 10 or 15k. In order to sell cars at the same price as Toyota, GM and F have to take an equivalent value worth of ’stuff’ out of their cars. This obviously results in crappy vehicles.
If CAFE standards were changed to allow, say GM, to make what it wanted and the market would buy it would be in a much better position. They make a damn fine truck, and lots of people buy Cadillacs. It’s easy to hide a 2,000 labor disadvantage in those vehicles.
BadgerHawk on December 10, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Where’s McConnell on this? Goddam RINO. Challenge him, Shelby
lodge on December 10, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Chrysler was bailed out in ‘79. It was exceptional. Your point is otherwise well taken.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Yep. It was exceptional, and they brought in Iacocca to turn things around. If they hadn’t done it, we’d probably have the Big 2 today. I don’t think Carter should have signed this bill then, but maybe it’s one of the few things he did right.
It also established a precedent for today’s news. Oh goody!
cs89 on December 10, 2008 at 2:16 PM
We need to put that on a T shirt
Vashta.Nerada on December 10, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Is this magazine cover in our future? I bet the cars will suck just as much as they did then with the congresscritters pulling the strings.
JackS on December 10, 2008 at 2:21 PM
And now they’re back in bankruptcy.
lodge on December 10, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Sorry link
http://www.carlustblog.com/images/2008/04/16/gremlin3.jpg
JackS on December 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM
I wouldn’t buy a Congress designed by Congress.
Cindy Munford on December 10, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Enjoy the moment gentlemen because in the end there will be enough repubs voting for the bailout and the other bailouts, still unknown to come. Never forget there are more repubs in the house and senate who never saw a big bill they didn’t like if it has slice in it for them.
They are careerists, first and foremost.
patrick neid on December 10, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Mc Cain will vote for the bill. Hes a true turncoat.
Benedict Mc Cain!!!!!!
Rick007 on December 10, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Joe the plumber is right. Benedict Mc Cain turns my stomach also?
Jindal/Palin 2012 or Palin/Jindal.
Forget the not American buisness “O” Dumbo is stopping that Constitutional Requirement now.
Rick007 on December 10, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Alabama has Honda, Mercedes, Hyundai. Kia is building on Ga./Al border in SE Al. VW is building on NE border of Al/Tn..
My father, God rest his soul,a WW11 vet(Italy and Germany), was somewhat taken aback when Mercedes-Benz built 30 miles West of Birmingham and then Honda built 30 miles East of Birmingham. He felt surrounded.
dragonash on December 10, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Foreign automakers on US soil. What a gift.
Employees in small towns. Who do you think pays for their health benefits and pensions? If you think the Germans or Asians are building plants to create jobs or wealth in this country. I have a bridge to show you.
All the Asians have is labor and if you believe the Torrens/Ricardo standard theory of trade we should let our carmakers fail. Just don’t believe that Korea or China wants to pay US workers even $10 an hour. They will do it until the tax free land runs out or the pensions run up. A Chinese worker makes $50 a month and all of Asia has tens of thousands begging for work.
Our manufacturers are dead men walking. And I love Cadillacs…
IlikedAUH2O on December 10, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Hmmm
When the Auto Co’s built small cars nobody bought them.
So now the Liberal Democratic plan is to keep Gas prices up and then people will have to buy them.
They win they win!
We need Citron Cv2’s now. LOL Anybody remember tham from the 50’s???
Boycot US auto’s till they file for bankruptcy and reorgnise.
F— the UAW. Uonions have closed more buisness in the U.S. than any other factor. And they do shoddy work.
Rick007 on December 10, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Aaah, “fond” memories of an 11-hour drive up to college in Vermont with my dad and mom crammed into the back of a Gremlin…
Really, it’s sad. My dad always buys American cars (only foreign one he ever bought was a Toyota copying one that I had bought the previous year) and most of them have been fine… except the two small ones: Gremlin and Pinto.
I agree with BadgerHawk. Let the Big 3 make the vehicles that are actually in demand, at least for now. But even without the CAFE standards, they are still screwed unless the labor situation gets fixed.
Y-not on December 10, 2008 at 2:37 PM
All the Steel Mills have relocated to the south also and making a profit.
Unionise Wal Mart. We need to bring it down also.
Whats the difference????
Chi Town politics or Unions???????? None.
Rick007 on December 10, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Another reason why Senator Shelby made my Nice List” Not to be confused with those who made the “Naughty List” this year…..
BiasedGirl on December 10, 2008 at 2:50 PM
I just want to make the following minor point: Whomever demands that Cerberus put more money into Chrysler needs to ask the same of all common stock shareholders of GM and Ford. It’s the exact same thing. Cerebrus is an investment management company, like Fidelity or Vanguard, and while it’s true that some of its clients are “super rich guys” (as someone said earlier), I expect that most of its money comes from pension plans, insurance companies and university endowments.
There may be a lot of good arguments for why the gov’t shouldn’t be involved in the US auto industry, but a class warfare argument isn’t one of them.
furytrader on December 10, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Bugler:
Americans will not by diesel automobiles in large numbers. There are four reasons:
Consumer memories are long and people will remember the failed GM diesels of the early 1980s
High price of diesel fuel. Consumers are obsessed with price gallon not cost per mile driven.
People think diesels smell and are noisy. Perhaps they will see the Jetta TDI and change their mind.
Finally, and probably most importantly, Americans are addicted to technofixes and coolness. Diesels, no matter how high tech are “old” technology. Hybrids are cool and the that’s what the people demand. It doesn’t matter whether the only hybrids that make sense are the tiny econobox types which handle poorly and don’t offer a lot features because they drain the battery and reduce its efficency. Plugins and EVs will remain small because of the power requirements. Diesels should be more popular but they never will be in America.
Don’t get me wrong, I love diesel automobiles. I even own one, a 2005 Jetta TDI and with my driving profile I get comfort, handling and a lot of features along with my 40 mpg mileage.
jerryofva on December 10, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Which is why Dems don’t need 60. They need 59 + McCain. Actually more like 58 + McCain + Specter/Colins
angryed on December 10, 2008 at 3:26 PM
The irony is the price, it costs much less to process diesel then gasoline, and you basically have one product for all the states.
but, alas, you are correct, they are not “cool”…
right2bright on December 10, 2008 at 3:26 PM
How to save the big3 – for nothing in tax funds
Simple: repeal the CAFE legislation.
Americans believe that the big 3 cannot make good small cars (they can, but the belief is marketing “reality”). Killing CAFE lets them make what their customers want: big cars and small trucks – at a profit.
It would cost the taxpayer nothing – and bring the big3 back into the black virtually overnight.
Paul Murphy on December 10, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Would you buy a car designed by Congress?
a capella on December 10, 2008 at 2:06 PM
I had one of those. I pedalled as fast as I could, but it would only go in reverse.
SKYFOX on December 10, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Interesting bit of insight on who will benefit from this bailout bill. Not just the big three, but another car company in California. Who represents Silicon Valley..?
Wethal on December 10, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Hmmm
To appease the Enviro Wackos who are the biggest cause of forest burning every year. ( remember trees love co2) They propose to make us drive Mini UGOS. 2 Cyl at that. But they will still need their private jets to fly around and keep us honest to not produce more Carbon then they prescribe.
Rick007 on December 10, 2008 at 3:44 PM
NO BAILOUT. Why reward incompetence and greed? Capitalism works. let the big three DIE. We bailed out Chrysler once before you know.
It didnt work.
dogsoldier on December 10, 2008 at 4:10 PM
not that it matters at this point, but
IF McCain had shown leadership, supported the plan of some of the House Republicans, and
IF all House & Senate Republicans had voted against the bailouts from the git-go, offering a clear alternative proposal
THEN, while Obama might still have won, we’d be in a strong position to start winning back both houses beginning in 2010
Red State State of Mind on December 10, 2008 at 5:58 PM
And if you needed another reason to oppose the bailout and reject a Congress-made care, Iain Murray at NRO’s “The Corner” reports the following:
onlineanalyst on December 10, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Well, there was, um – er, and then there was, um….Give me a minute. Yeah, I don’t know.
They’re really good at telling us what to do though, and creating one-size-fits-all unfunded mandates. That’s gotta be worth something right?
Oooh, ooh, I got it! The U.S. military started out as state militias and now we have a central military. Wait, that doesn’t really work either does it? I forgot about that whole Continental Army thing. Huh. I’ll get back to you.
meltenn on December 10, 2008 at 8:44 PM
One more time people. The House failed to stop this thing yesterday, owing to overwhelming support from the Democrats (surprise)…but now it’s up to the Senate.
And it’s up to us to let them know we oppose this boondoggle.
Click here and send your Senators a fax and say NO BAILOUT!
Drew McKissick on December 11, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Comment pages: