Good news: Obama pushes for auto bailout plan; Dubya going along with it
Good news from the meetings between Obama and Dubya: it looks like we’ll see some kind of auto bailout:
The troubles of the ailing auto industry are quickly becoming a major focus for President-Elect Barack Obama’s young administration. As Congress and President Bush debate an industry bailout, sources indicate that Obama may favor creating a White House office, headed by an “auto industry czar,” to oversee reforming the troubled American auto industry.
The Detroit News reports that both “Bush and Obama are signaling they may favor appointment of an auto czar to oversee the government’s efforts to funnel emergency assistance to automakers.” Congressional leaders and members of both the outgoing and incoming administrations have all said that automakers might receive federal aid only on certain dictions, including efforts “to further improve fuel efficiency and show that they have a plan to return to profitability. Automakers could also be required to give the government preferred stock in the companies and accept government representatives as board members. As in the 1979-80 Chrysler bailout, workers may have to make wage concessions.”
The press was unable to get direct confirmation of the plan yesterday. John Podesta, the former Clinton administration official heading Obama’s transition team, told the Washington Post “When we have an announcement about that, we’ll raise it.”
Now, many (usually on the right) have expressed their disdain for the plan. Malkin says:
The Master and Overlord Obama is ready to appoint an Auto Czar.
And the lame-duck George Bush is going along.
God save us from bipartisanship.
But again, I ask: Do you have a better idea? If so, speak up! Should we just let the auto-industry fail? Would you be happy with a 10-15% unemployment rate? Let’s hear your bright ideas, righties!
November 12th, 2008 15:59
How much is this bailout going to entail, because GM just reported that they are in debt by something like $11 billion a week…or something like that. Sounds like it would be a hell of a lot to contribute to an auto industry that makes vehicles that no one wants to buy.
November 12th, 2008 16:28
No, they shouldn’t be bailed out for dragging their feet in developing fuel efficient cars and turning a blind eye to hydrogen celled vehicles. Honda has rolled out a hydrogen vehicle here in California and they did it all on their own. How many times has GM received a bailout from the government?
GM right now is one of the most bloated examples of union greed, corporate dysfunction and all around bad leadership, and the only way to make it worse would be to have an Auto Czar and a bailout for them.
Maybe they need to crash, pick themselves up from the wreckage of their own failed policies, union contracts and bad ideas and start over. Will it hurt? Sure, but not as bad as it will when the government gets done ‘helping’
November 12th, 2008 16:31
Here’s the problem, Instinct. It’s not just cars. It’s a lot of industries. The whole manufacturing base in this country is in trouble. You can say let them all fail, but if that happens then there goes our economic superpower status. We’re gonna be in some serious trouble if all manufacturing goes away.
A certain level of protectionism is called for here. The question is how little we can get away with.
November 12th, 2008 16:35
But at least you admit this is very problematic, scholar?
November 12th, 2008 16:36
What is problematic? The situation is problematic for sure. Normally I’m not a fan of protectionist measures, but given the costs of inaction I’m not entirely convinced that it isn’t the best move at this point. This country is caught between a rock and a hard place currently; there are no good options.