No Bailout
| Thu Dec. 11, 2008 10:18 PM PST
NO BAILOUT....Senate Republicans have scuttled the auto bailout bill. Apparently Democrats and the UAW had agreed to deep wage cuts and work rule changes, but it still wasn't enough:
The automakers would [] have been required to cut wages and benefits to match the average hourly wage and benefits of Nissan, Toyota and Honda employees based in the United States, and the companies would have to impose equivalent work rules.
It was over this proposal that the talks ultimately deadlocked with Republicans demanding that the automakers meet that goal by a certain date in 2009 and Democrats and the union urging that the deadline wait until 2011 when the U.A.W. contract expires.
This is nuts. If you're just flatly against the bailout, fine. Vote against it. But if the wage cuts, along with the debt-for-equity swap that was also part of the bill, were enough to bring you around, why would you cavil at the cuts happening in 2011 instead of the end of 2009? It's only about an 18 month difference, and cutting wages makes a lot more sense in 2011 than it does in the middle of a massive recession anyway.
Another shining moment in the history of the modern GOP. Ideology uber alles.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
The GOP, the anti "spread-the-wealth" party, pro-free enterprise, killed a bill because they could not set workers wages? 35 senators thought they were smart enough to set wages and working conditions but management was stupid? GOP = "Anti-worker, anti-middle class party."
Submitted by Jonathan Dresner (not verified) on Thu Dec. 11, 2008 10:46 PM PST.
Well, that's it then: it's the 21st Century Great Depression, now.
Last time we had one of these, we had fairly lively communist and fascist parties active in the US; wonder what we'll get this time?
I know dems can't do anything about republicans thinking fiscal responsibility is the way back to power, but sweet jesus, are dems so ineffective they can't even bargain their newfound majority into some kind of half-assed deal? I mean, like kevin says, dems capitulated on everything but the timeline and still couldn't get the deal done with the minority party.
Republican congresspeople still have legislative responsibilities. They can't filibuster everything, they have stuff that needs funding back home. The dems really can't find some leverage here?
Submitted by Alan in Elk Grove (not verified) on Thu Dec. 11, 2008 11:08 PM PST.
Well... it appears to the majority of senators that they have no recourse for action against the Confederacy Republican senators with foreign auto plants located in their states...but wait...Hyundai allows only 5,000 U.S. built cars in Korea each year. How about we submit a bill that mandates 51% of total car volume in U.S. must be produced by American car manufacturers. That way the foreign competitors will have to pare production from those plants that are taking away jobs from our American industrial base. Some will yell "protectionism", but I'm sure those Confederacy senators can ramp up cotton production or something to make up the difference. We can't afford to lose 2-3 MILLION JOBS in this rotten economy...PERIOD!!!
If Bush threatened a veto, I can understand how Dems can fail to push this through. But Bush is behind the bill and Dems couldn't even push a 14 Billion dollar loan/bailout at this time? Or is this a clever ploy to get Bush to pony up the 15 Billion dollars from the TARP?
Submitted by Captain Future (not verified) on Fri Dec. 12, 2008 1:32 AM PST.
There's a CNN report now that Paulsen may pony up. If he doesn't, the stock market really tanks and it's no longer the Great Recession, it's a Depression for years. And we will remember December 11, 2008 as much more destructive than September 11, 2001. Terrorist could only dream of doing the damage these fossilized Republicans have done.
Submitted by Sammler (not verified) on Fri Dec. 12, 2008 2:01 AM PST.
Mr. Drum: I don't think your confusion can be genuine. You are essentially asking why Republican Senators wouldn't give up billions of dollars now, in exchange for unsecured and unenforceable promises maturing in two years, and you honestly can't see how that's different from an up-front exchange? That's just not plausible. Don't affect naivete.
All this might be a way to defer real action until Obama gets in, to better argue the point that the real traction against the downhill slide began with him. It sounds cynical and I'm not knowledgable enough to argue this point strongly, but it wouldn't be the most surprising motivation, either.
All this might be a way to defer real action until Obama gets in, to better argue the point that the real traction against the downhill slide began with him.
Posted by: Paul Miller on 12/12/08 at 7:12 AM Respond
Perhaps you only skimmed the article, but for some reason I doubt that "to give credit to Obama" is a reason that Senate Republicans voted this bill down. Call me the skeptical one, but I don't think bolstering the Democratic party is high on their list of priorities.
Mr. Drum-- "This is nuts ... Why would you cavil at the cuts happening in 2011 instead of the end of 2009?"
To see why, just turn it around--If you're pro-bailout, why would you cavil at the cuts happening in 2009 instead of the end of 2011? The reason is simple, and both sides know it--a 2011 deadline is much less likely to be enforced.
So the real question is, does Detroit need the cuts to reverse its continuing gradual decline? Or are they merely a distraction?
Submitted by Alan in Elk Grove (not verified) on Fri Dec. 12, 2008 5:31 AM PST.
In a simple sense, it would seem possible for Paulson to ask his banking buddies, who got bailout funds, to form a consortium to form a loan package for the "small 3" and just have the loan package backstopped by the gov't. In other words, just go around Congress rather than through it...
How is it reasonable to ask UAW workers living in the industrial North to accept the same wage structure as non-union workers living in the rural South? The real dollar wage differences are relatively small -- only a few dollars an hour -- between the Big Three and the transplants, but these Senators don't think there's any justification for that difference? How about the difference between cost of living? To artificially equate the wages would mean sub-standard wages for the Big Three workers, in real value.
I find it incredible that few people in the media are pointing out that the Senators against the auto bailout all hail from states with Toyota and Honda plants--which were built, of course, with huge tax breaks extracted from the pliant governments of those states. In other words, they are in the pocket of those automakers, dutifully busting the union of their major competition. And for this southeast Michigan is going to sink into Lake St. Clair?
This is a damn joke. Bunch of Republican senators have their panties in twist because they're not being allowed to set wages for working stiffs in Michigan.
I don't remember this wailing when it was Wall Street tycoons being bailed out. Isn't the head of Merrill Lynch getting something like a $10 million bonus?
The rich bastards who got us--including the auto industry--into this mess are STILL living high on the hog, but Republicans think the real problem here is that too few Midweast families are losing their health insurance and eating mac and cheese.
Not to mention the Senate's pension benefits are spectacular--their pensions ALONE are damn near the median wage of an entire American family. And that's for people who come out of the senate with spectacular connections, able to take their pick of boards, lobbying gigs, you name it.
Unbelievable. They'll move heaven and earth to save the barons of Wall Street, but if they can't get their pound of flesh from a guy in a union, they'll happily crash the midwest.
As a southerner, there is one striking feature about this situation. The Republican Party is now the hostage of Redneck Republicans.
Redneck Republicans are willing to wreck the entire economy because they believe that is an acceptable price to pay for killing unions. Redneck Republicans perceive collective bargaining to be as inherently evil as they believe homosexuality and racial mixing to be. So, Redneck Republicans just might destroy the Union once again in their single-minded pursuit of hatred.
This what has come of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
Still, when the papers report on it, I hope they clearly state "Senate Republicans Block Bailout Bill", rather than "Senate Rejects Bailout".
Yeah, that's gonna happen.
Actually, I just looked at Google News and the Detroit bailout "failed." Bad bailout.
Submitted by signsanssignified (not verified) on Fri Dec. 12, 2008 7:44 AM PST.
Ditto Catfish's comments. It's not just ideology--also a twisted hostility to unions which, while partly ideological, is also rooted in a deeply cynical partisan calculus: Unions support Dems, so kill unions. Needless to say, the bigger picture--the effects of all this on the economy, our country & the planet--is obscured entirely by the mindset involved here.
If the government is setting wages then I propose the government also set the pay of the executives. I think in general Japanese companies have a much smaller spread between the line workers and the execs, am I right.
Maybe congress should tell the big three executives that they also much match the pay of their Toyota and Honda counterparts.
Yeah, like that will fly. Not.
This is the same old same old double standard. Billions for the executives, billions for the rich, cuts for the workers, cuts for the poor.
If anyone has any doubts left about who has the real power in America I think they are a fool.
This is Terry Schiavo for the corporate side of the GOP. Religion and corporations, strange bedfellows indeed.
Very well played by Corker - managed to insert a dealbreaker in at the end that turned Republican obstructionism ("how can the Republicans let the millions of jobs just vanish?") into all the fault of the big bad irresponsible UAW ("Everybody had a deal except for three little words that the Union wouldn't agree to" he said, sorrowfully on CNBC this morning).
Which side with the corporate media emphasize more - I've seen a lot of Shelby, Corker, Ensign, etc. giving Republican soundbites on TV this past week - can't say I've seen (or expect to see) any UAW-types getting the same opportunity to tell their side.
But if the wage cuts, along with the debt-for-equity swap that was also part of the bill, were enough to bring you around, why would you cavil at the cuts happening in 2011 instead of the end of 2009?
____________
Perhaps because the car companies could burn through all of the bailout money before any wage cuts became effective, meaning that all the bailout money would do is delay entry and exit from Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
So, now the Republicans are against the sanctity of contracts? I thought we couldn't help homeowners with mortgage relief because of the sanctity of contracts. I guess when those contracts benefit working Americans, then that sanctity is more suggestion.
Free trade means US wages have to be brought down to competitive levels if we are to survive, about $0.09 / hour. We're living in such a fantasy world of past glories, maybe Michael Jackson would be best for president and the US renamed the Neverland country.
I have just got through writing the Chairman of the Republican National Party=They won't be getting a Bailout either. Current Michigan Headlines say that it will take a generation before any Republican will get any votes from this State!
Submitted by djw (not verified) on Fri Dec. 12, 2008 11:08 PM PST.
Ideology uber alles
"Must take every opportunity to destroy unions" isn't much of an ideology.
It may not be man-rated now,
Submitted by tiffany jewelry (not verified) on Sat Aug. 15, 2009 1:10 AM PDT.
It may not be man-rated now, but given time guiding packages, perhaps it will be.
