Mitch McConnell: We can’t vote for the House’s auto bailout
posted at 1:25 pm on December 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Reid and Pelosi were counting on him to bring Republicans around, of course, which means the bill’s probably dead. The plan now is to let the Senate vote on alternative Democratic and Republican compromise plans later today, followed by a “test vote” tomorrow morning on the House proposal. Should be a fun day on Wall Street if they flunk.
K-Lo has the text of McConnell’s speech. No explicit threat of a filibuster, but given the way things are going I wonder if Reid even has 50 votes, let alone 60. Blue Dog Democrats can read the polls, too; if they think the bill’s going down, they have every reason to jump on the bandwagon. The money bit from McConnell:
Somewhat lost in the recent debate over the auto industry is the fundamental difference between it and the financial rescue plan that Congress approved in October. While that plan was intended to rescue the entire economy, this one is intended to save a single industry. That plan was intended to help everyone — from small business owners to college students; and every lawmaker who voted for it acted on the belief that that is what it would do…
A lot of struggling Americans are asking where their bailout is. They wonder why one business would get support over another. When it comes to the auto industry, many Republicans in Congress have asked these same questions.
There are many principled reasons to oppose this bill. But the simplest one is also the best: “a government big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough to take everything we have.” This is as true for individuals as it is for business. It’s the primary principle on which American industry, including the auto industry, was built. And even in turbulent moments like this — perhaps especially at moments like this — it’s a principle well worth defending.
Some argue that the effects of an auto industry collapse would be too acute and far-reaching for an already-struggling economy to bear. This is impossible to know. And even if we grant that these companies would fail without taxpayer help, we would still have to ask ourselves whether the proposal before us achieves the goal that everyone claims to embrace — namely, the long-term viability of ailing car companies — and, in my view, it does not.
I think Dan Riehl’s idea is better, but you already knew that. Exit question one: Reid’s not actually going to tank the market by putting this up for a vote which he knows will fail, is he? Exit question two: McConnell concedes that the systemic effect of the Big Three going down is “impossible to know.” Wasn’t that also true of the bank rescue in October, which he insists was vital to save the economy? The difference, arguably, is that the risk of systemic failure was much greater in letting banks fail; in that case, what makes him confident that the risk this time is sufficiently low as to be tolerable?
Update: One more belated exit question. How do you suppose those 32 Republicans who voted for the House bill feel right now, with their biting of the bullet having gone for naught?
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:
Spot on.
Corky on December 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Now only if they wouldn’t have subsidized failure in the financial sector or banking sector.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 11, 2008 at 1:27 PM
AND REPEAL THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT. NOW!
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 11, 2008 at 1:27 PM
They are just wanting more pork…don’t be fooled. Losers.
tomas on December 11, 2008 at 1:28 PM
He was re-elected by a very narrow margin. For want of a nail…..
In other news, Ford has apparently backed out of taking the bailout, so that helps too.
Vashta.Nerada on December 11, 2008 at 1:29 PM
You already know THAT answer!
He is hoping for a miracle that isn’t going to happen.
upinak on December 11, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Did I hear correctly on CNBC this morning that Ford is now saying they don’t want the money? That’s pretty big, if so.
Either they’ve decided that bankruptcy is a viable option, or when Congress forced them back to their desks to come with a real plan, Ford actually did the work and realized they can make it happen on their own.
nukemhill on December 11, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Bailing out the unions after they negoitiated contracts that no one would think caoul be sustained.
Some data from last year
GM sold 9.37 million cars lost $38 billion
Toyota sold 9.37 million cars, made $17 billion profit.
Looks like a failed industry to me.
tarpon on December 11, 2008 at 1:32 PM
It is still amazing to me that the talking heads haven’t said anything about Chapter 11. This bailout/loans amount to a watered down version of CH.11 where everyone involved gets to tread water for awhile and then the real decision to accept Ch. 11 PROTECTION gets made. The problem here is that it makes no sense to bailout a failed business model using taxpayer money that could be put to better use by letting the taxpayer spend it that way they want to spend it, instead of bailing out the union, yes I said bailing out the union because they aren’t giving up anything and it will only be a matter of time before our public officials will be debating this again.
belad on December 11, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Ah, you heard that too. Good.
nukemhill on December 11, 2008 at 1:35 PM
O.T. Hey has anyone else heard about the Tran-Canada bailout for help from Congress with the Gas Pipeline from Alaska?
Since we are on the subject of Bailouts and all. They call it a loan, I call it a upscale bailout that they don’t pay for and get all the proceeds aka money. And people wonder why I don’t want it to go through Canada.
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=9502324&nav=menu510_2
upinak on December 11, 2008 at 1:35 PM
They better bust that dang union and start exploiting like the Asians!
I want to keep gettting Cadillacs it drives the liberals in their Subarus NUTS!
IlikedAUH2O on December 11, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Reid is absolutely spineless. He won’t bring a vote up for anything controversial unless he has Republicans to hide behind/ blame it on later.
BadgerHawk on December 11, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Yes, apparently they are on the deal only to keep their suppliers in the loop, but will only take loan guarantees if the situation declines in 2009. I am seriously thinking about buying a Ford now.
Vashta.Nerada on December 11, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Yeah, McConnell should deliver some terms to Reid in the form of riders on the bill:
Repeal of the CRA.
Outlawing earmarks.
Death of EFCA.
Death of FOCA.
You get the picture…
Kafir on December 11, 2008 at 1:40 PM
There are two factors. First, the price tags are very different. He sees a smaller price tag and assumes a smaller systemic risk – which is not really a good assumption. Second, he’s willing to make what he assumes to be a smaller risk to strike a blow to the UAW.
Big S on December 11, 2008 at 1:41 PM
More importantly, how will they feel around election time. Wasn’t our hard core conservative Duncan Hunter one of the fence jumpers?
a capella on December 11, 2008 at 1:42 PM
If only he was this principled on No Bank Left Behind.
lodge on December 11, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Senator McConnell,
4 words of advice: Delta Airlines and K-Mart.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 11, 2008 at 1:43 PM
What will happen next month when there are 58 Democrats in the Senate? Will a few Republicans jump ship to vote for cloture?
Steve Z on December 11, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Stick to your guns Mitch and stick it to ‘em. This insanity has got to stop.
Done That on December 11, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Sorta, tru dat. He’ll keep repeating the mantra of “failed Bush policies” and Republican de-regulation. Yada, yada, yada.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 11, 2008 at 1:44 PM
OR Ford, which would probably survive this recession anyway based on loans they took out a little while back, doesn’t want to dance to Washington’s tune if there are a lot of conditions attached to the bailout.
Big S on December 11, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Where’s Susuan Powter when you need her?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 11, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Well Ford knew a while back they had problems and got other funding…they will turn a profit by 2010
tomas on December 11, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Drudge has a one liner at the end of his article on the bail out that mentions that there is an “unrelated” pay raise for Federal judges inserted into the bill. Yo guys!! remember the recession? Will they NEVER learn that they have no choice but transparency these days. There are too many people watching and everyone has access to everything if they want it. Question: Is it just the old school pols who havn’t figured this out or are the new ones just so arrogant they think they’re above it?
jeanie on December 11, 2008 at 1:46 PM
I’m curious: who here wouldn’t mind a Big 3 collapse (and whatever economic damage came with it) if it meant the death of the UAW?
I think I’d be for it, but I’m not sure.
BadgerHawk on December 11, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Dingy Harry and the San Francisco Freak shouldn’t have sent Rahm Emanuel’s operatives to Kentucky to work so hard to unseat McConnell this year. He won, deservedly so, and now he’s got no reason to try to work anything out with these assclowns. In spite of the fact that he probably hates them, I think he would work on behalf of the bailout if he thought a) It would work and b) It was right. But it meets neither criteria, so good for him. I love that man.
CornFedBeauty on December 11, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Wasn’t that also true of the bank rescue in October, which he insists was vital to save the economy? The difference, arguably, is that the risk of systemic failure was much greater in letting banks fail; in that case, what makes him confident that the risk this time is sufficiently low as to be tolerable?
Isn’t extending the cautionary principle to failed industries a bit of a stretch Allah? And btw the bailout of the financial industry has done nothing except delay the coming failure. How about we stop writing checks against my future earnings now.
PierreLegrand on December 11, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Phil LeBeau on CNBC is going to have a seizure if this goes down.
aquaviva on December 11, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Hurrah for Mitch McConnell
Now, how about proposing an alternative?
And there is one – remove the thorn that’s killing the big3: CAFE.
Repeal the entire thing – let the Big3 sell what their customers want, and the whole issue goes away.
Cost to the taxpayer? Zero.
Paul Murphy on December 11, 2008 at 1:51 PM
The failure of the American auto industry, is a failure of management. My suspicion is that the Auto Corps has increasingly relied on political deals to trump “bankruptcy”.
How else to explain unsustainable Union contracts?
Too big to fail. High stakes poker.
Randy
williars on December 11, 2008 at 1:51 PM
One thing about this bailout that should be considered is the bad blood that a bailout will cause. I, for one, would never buy a big-3 car if they get bailed out. Am I alone?
Someone should mention the backlash meme.
joeindc44 on December 11, 2008 at 1:51 PM
The big 3 are a red herring. This is a bailout of the UAW. For the big 3 to survive, they could benefit greatly from chapter 11. Then they could reorganize, renegotiate, and not skip a beat in making cars. They would not disappear. Just like you fly “bankrupt” airlines.
The bill is to save the UAW, which is a democrat voting bloc. If they are broken, the labor union is greatly hurt.
I purport this has NOTHING to do with cars.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 1:51 PM
It would be pretty painful. How about a compromise: GM goes down alone and permanently weakens the UAW.
Vashta.Nerada on December 11, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Democrats really are smarter than the rest of us.
Via K-Lo at The Corner:
I feel better about the people serving me in Congress and deciding how to spend my money, don’t you?
meltenn on December 11, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Thanks for that. What a load of crap-trying to change things at the last minute. Perhaps they are getting greedy when they see our govt. bailing all these industries out, they just want a piece of the action. Very scary.
They suck, too. I wish someone would make a pickup that was useful. That can take a beating and not have costly repairs all the time.
We have broken 2 Ford 90’s model pickups in half, not to mention all the frigging stupid little things that cost $1200 here, another $500 there.
My husband is a great mechanic, but he’s finding it harder and harder to do anything simple on these new vehicles bcs they make everything so complicated a person can’t fix it without “special tools” or without having to pull the damned engine to replace something that costs $5 to replace.
I am waiting for Toyota or Honda to make a heavy duty (1 ton) pickup that can take a beating. No frills please-just something that will live through a drive over the prairie at high speeds for at least 10 years, being able to drive through all kinds of terrain without the damned 4WD going to hell, etc.
I say let the auto industry tank. It may be hard for consumers at first, but I would bet $$ that someone would come in and fill the gap.
Badger40 on December 11, 2008 at 1:53 PM
That is too logical to even be considered by the clowns in DC
Vashta.Nerada on December 11, 2008 at 1:54 PM
The only thing I care about is to be able to continue driving large Suburbans and full-sized vans! I haul around a kid in a wheelchair, I need a full sized van. I am not aware of any rice burners that would do the job.
bopbottle on December 11, 2008 at 1:55 PM
In addition to being the official Washington spokesperson for Al Qaeda, Harry Reid is spineless so he will not push this any further. What will be interesting is what Pelosi does with a so-called compromise. What will the GOP accept as a compromise that does not include bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler? Pelosi has stated this will not be allowed to happen. Once bankruptcy occurs the Big Three can tell the unions to piss off. I can understand their posturing and desire for a handout but more and more, bankruptcy is the way to go. And if they manage it well, like Delta, they may come out of it in pretty good shape.
grdred944 on December 11, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Now I’m reading on the AP that AIG is still giving “retention” pay(read that bonuses)to many of its employees in return for staying on a year. These range from 92 thou to 4 mil. Does AIG really think these people will leave or do these people really think there are jobs out there for them if they do. That’s our money folks, get ahold of your pols and raise H–l!!!
jeanie on December 11, 2008 at 1:57 PM
The UAW is the most even more anti-American than moveon.org and nothing would please me more than to see their demise. If that means a few hundred thousand people in states that vote Democrat are out of work until they can be retrained to build Harry Reid’s solar farms, then so be it.
grdred944 on December 11, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Obama has half of this country mesmerized and if the other half of the country and our conservative senators don’t speak up forcefully, he’ll steal your wallet, relinquish your liberties and control every aspect of your life. Wake up people before it’s too late.
rplat on December 11, 2008 at 2:01 PM
The House GOP has. It basically reduces wages to Toyota levels. the UAW could never accept it but atleast they (the GOP) tried.
lodge on December 11, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Precisely, this all about the unions.
thomasaur on December 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM
I wouldn’t buy a car from a bankrupt company. I do think Ford could benefit greatly from a GM bankruptcy, though.
BadgerHawk on December 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM
The Big 3 aka The Three Stooges made their own lousy mess, so let them clean it up themselves.
I was not for Putz Paulson handing over $700 billion of taxpayers money to bail out the fatcats on Wall Street, and I sure as hell am not supporting bailing out the automakers.
Let them declare bankruptcy!
pilamaye on December 11, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Reports are that Ford has said that it doesn’t want the taxpayer money, so therefor if any taxpayer money is given to the Detroit Three it should all be to Ford for having passed what could be looked upon as a test.
MB4 on December 11, 2008 at 2:06 PM
We can subsidize failure, but we can subsidize the reason for that failure? Right.
Paying men to not work is foolishness. A moratorium on union negotiations for 5 years would do us more good than any bailout.
spmat on December 11, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Bleh.. “We can’t subsidize failure…”
spmat on December 11, 2008 at 2:08 PM
You forgot to credit where you got that quote from.
BadgerHawk on December 11, 2008 at 2:08 PM
A month ago, I wanted to check my transmission fluid in my Malibu LS. Dang thing doesn’t have a dip stick at all! It is on the bottom of the car! I bought my Malibu from Perry Ford in San Luis Obispo. I took it there because there was oil in my water reserve tank. They flushed it out and said it was a ring that went bad. So, then after getting it home. I find that you cannot check the transmission fluid. Next day I call them up and tell them. Took it back after I had to threaten them that they best give me a loaner car. So, then they tell me that the reserve tank wasn’t properly attached. Which was their fault. They checked the transmission fluid. Told me it was fine. I love my car, but am very bummed that I cannot check the tranny fluid. Being a woman, I love doing that stuff. So, I am thinking of getting a foreign car next. Ford is ok but not my type of car.
sheebe on December 11, 2008 at 2:09 PM
The problem is that if you decide to let GM and Chrysler fail in a disorderly way, Ford will go down also as most its major suppliers collapse. So you kill the one auto company that would be left to dominate the market and keep Americans relevant in a major worldwide industry.
I’m very hesitant about bailing out any industry or company. The one thing that makes the auto industry unique is the incredible difficulty of a new auto company emerging from nothing. In other words, once this industry is gone, it’s probably gone forever. The Europeans had to spend a lot of money to build a company (Airbus) that was capable to competing with Boeing (and the Chinese and Japanese will probably make the same investment at some point over the next decade).
Even though the US auto industry sucks, it’s the only auto industry we have. Tesla and others have learned how incredibly difficult it is to design and manufacture a single models. I fear that its collapse will mark a major turning point in the decline of the US economy and rise of the Asian economies as the new center of economic might. The US can’t remain strong if we become a nation that’s primarily performing services and selling insurance for each other.
bayam on December 11, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Well Mark didn’t say that. It was in the news at least as far back as yesterday. Mark probably would have said something like that but he has been rather indisposed for some time now.
MB4 on December 11, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Another bailout that needs a bullet in the head: Amtrak.
Every year it runs a 1-2B deficit, while industry railroads make money.
Enough already.
It also is a hoax the jobs will all vaporize immediately. We all have flown on aircraft owned by bankrupt airlines, and my LA Times came again this morning though the parent company is in Ch. 11.
Unions and a complicit management have bankrupted another industry that wouldn’t adapt new rules and be competitive on cost. Companies and people who can’t or won’t adapt to changes in their environment just fail.
Harry Schell on December 11, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Is that a quote too, or are you getting out of that business? You’re confusing me.
BadgerHawk on December 11, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Republicans….acting like…Republicans? I’m impressed. Go Mitch.
therightwinger on December 11, 2008 at 2:34 PM
As I said here to some effect last night, those 32 Republicans who voted for the bill have a reason to have voted for it. They probably have a plant or supplier in their district, and will get no flak from local conservative opposition on supporting the bill.
alflauren on December 11, 2008 at 2:35 PM
If we’re worried about “downstream effects” from a bankruptcy (all the suppliers failing because they don’t get paid), there’s an easy fix: have the Feds take over the Little Three’s debt’s to them (and pay them off).
No bailout money for any company that has union imposed work rules, ever. If workers are not willing to be highly productive, then they deserve to have their companies fail, and they deserve to lose their jobs.
Greg Q on December 11, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Maybe it just means they haven’t met McConnell’s reserve price yet.
SKYFOX on December 11, 2008 at 2:36 PM
The stipulations that this bill has should have the CEO’s running from the halls of Congress. Instead these corporate scumbags are willing to sell their business to “Father Government” for a lil bit of temporary financial relief. Soon when they find themselves no longer in control of their own companies will they finally realize the truth the moment after it’s too late.
Scorched_Earth on December 11, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Just need more pay to play money.
China and other auto producing countries are bailing out their auto companies.
getalife on December 11, 2008 at 2:46 PM
The GOP should insist that any defined-benefits retirement plan (whether income or medical) be managed by the union, with funds contributed BEFORE the employee’s retirement and taken as an explicit line item on the pay stub. A side benefit: if the UAW is responsible for this plan, or even for contracting it out to an insurance or investment company, the union will be subject to greater financial scrutiny.
Benefits for current retirees should also be absorbed by the union members, although I would be sympathetic to some contribution from the Pension Guarantee program. The government created this mess by creating the union monopoly and encouraging the Big Three to play Socialism Lite. While it’s not fair to make the taxpayers absorb the burden, it’s better than destroying an industry that may be vital to our Defense interests in the future.
njcommuter on December 11, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Grahmnesty is against it!!!!
lodge on December 11, 2008 at 3:04 PM
More likely the poison pills Pelosi insisted on (the automakers accepting the California CAFE and emissions standards) were more damaging than the bailout was helpfull.
MarkTheGreat on December 11, 2008 at 3:07 PM
My senator and right now my buttons are busting with pride in him. Go get ‘em Mitch!
Ellen on December 11, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Ford is the strongest of the three companies, for one obvious reason. Ford still has a strong brand name- for trucks.
That’s the real reason these companies are dying. Oh, the extra layers of management, the retirement liabilities, and the overly high wages are part of it, but the real reason is that they ruined their brand names. Then instead of fixing the problem by rebuilding their brand names with consistency, the automakers kept trying to find that one good car model that would keep them in business- and they occasionally found it, but never made good models consistently.
Ford is the only one that has consistently made good trucks. Their truck division has basically been carrying the rest of the Ford company.
Sackett on December 11, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Any one with relatively deep pockets can buy the factories and such from the remains of the big three at a deep discount and build a new auto company. It’s true that you can’t create a company the size of say GM, without a huge commitment, but smaller companies are much easier to create.
May 100 flowers bloom from the carcasses of the big 3.
MarkTheGreat on December 11, 2008 at 3:45 PM
The markets have already factored in bankruptcy by GM and Ford, and a sale of Chrysler. Unless you are an executive with one of those companies, you won’t be affected. Most line workers will keep their jobs, though they may habve to take some pay cuts. Some suppliers may be SOL as a bankruptcy trustee would look to consolidate the hundreds of suppliers now feeding the grossly inefficient supply chain. It will cost several thousand jobs, but the losses will be widespread and probably not very localized. This is not like 1977 when a UAW strike lowered GDP by a full percentage point.
However, if five of the seven largest banks, investment banks, and insurance companies had been allowed to fail in one week in September, everyone with money in the bank or a real or potential need for credit in the next two years would have been hurt badly. A national bank run would have exhausted the FDIC insurance fund within hours and caused a general panic. Retailers would not have been able to order Christmas inventory. The margin calls as banks desperately sought to raise capital would have been devastating.
rockmom on December 11, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Drive a Porsche it guzzles gas, its wicked fast and comes from a winning and profitable company.
nolapol on December 11, 2008 at 4:22 PM
I think one of the problems for Ford is that not taking the loan, assuming that the loan is a net positive for GM, would put them at a financial disadvantage compared to GM. That’s one of the problems with bailouts like this: by benefiting ailing companies they put less-ailing (or healthy) competitors at a disadvantage.
capvideo on December 11, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Now they want to bail out the RV industry!
Congressmen Try To Save RV Industry
SOUTH BEND, Ind. (AP) — Two northern Indiana congressmen are asking the federal government to help the nation’s struggling recreational vehicle industry.
Democrat Joe Donnelly and Republican Mark Souder sent letters to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke asking them to add loans to RV buyers and sellers to the recently created government program to encourage business and consumer lending.
Brat on December 11, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Even better, a company founded by Nazis. Talk about un-P.C.!
grdred944 on December 11, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Why don’t the Big Oil companies bail out these car companies? They benefit the most by having the U.S. made gas guzzlers (and others) on the road.
Plus the oil companies have lots of extra profits lately…
albill on December 11, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Because they’re in the oil business, not the car business. Besides, why would they put their money into a losing investment? They wouldn’t….they’re not that dumb.
By the way, have you been paying attention to the price of oil and gas lately? HeLLooo. They’re going to need those “extra profits”(whatever that is) to carry them through the lean times that are to come. Because of those “extra profits”, you won’t see them on Capital Hill begging for a bail out. See, that’s how successful, profitable businesses stay in business. Profits have to carry them through the good times AND the bad times.
xblade on December 11, 2008 at 8:32 PM
They’re probably thinking “voters are stupid, they’ll forget about this vote in 6 months”. If the economy is still in the tank in 2 years the onus will be on Team Barry. If things pick up, Team Barry can do no wrong and we’ll march forward urging that the 22nd amendment be cast aside as a racist road block to prosperity.
manfriend on December 11, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Comment pages: