Statement On Financially Assisting U.S. Automakers:The poorly written original $750 billion bail-out plan has already changed targets in midstream. And it's turning out those in charge of the billions don't have a clue how to apply it to benefit the economy.
"With millions of jobs at stake, Congress should carve out some of the Wall Street bailout funds to help U.S. automakers. I am working with members of both parties in Congress to ensure that some of the $700 billion that Congress has already approved goes to help the auto industry. If Congress can provide $700 billion to bail out Wall Street, it ought to be able to devote some of that to helping millions of Americans keep their jobs. If the U.S. auto industry collapses, that would devastate our manufacturing base, wreck our already ailing economy, and possibly end up costing taxpayers even more in pension guarantees, unemployment benefits and other costs. But the rescue package should not be a blank check. It should include protections for taxpayers as well as requirements that the industry reform itself so that it is better prepared to produce the fuel efficient vehicles Americans are demanding while still taking advantage of the incredible workforce that has been the backbone of the automobile industry for generations." -- Sen. Russ Feingold
In my view, at least Feingold recognizes there are multiple problems rippling through the economy and each must be dealt with according to specific needs. His plan lays out conditions the Big 3 must accept before they get any help, but not at the expense of energy independence or the environment. That is the fundamental difference between Feingold's position and those of some Republicans including Rep. Paul Ryan, who would rather eliminate the "green" technology requirements from the previous $25 billion earmarked for the automakers.
6 comments:
At least now we can find out where our representatives and senators stand on the automakers, unlike the run-up that led to the TARP.
First of all I read today where the House Democrats dumped John Dingell from Michigan (a friend of autoworkers) as committee chair for Waxman from California (a product of Beverly Hills elite greens). That is a signal about who is gaining control of the Democratic Party. The honeymoon between the UAW and the foreign buying "greens" should be over. Feingold's statement perpetuates the myth that it was just bad marketing that caused American manufactures to build the SUV we loved in Janesville until less than a year ago. GM has never made a dime on small cars and needed large vehicles to make a profit. I agree with you that trade agreements are a factor but they are not alone. GM would still have lost money because of our own cost structure. The original labor agreement with Saturn was intended to allow more work rule flexability as a move in the competitive direction. GM and the UAW both lost interest in that when SUV profits rolled in. That was no ones fault but our own. If the 2010 and 2011 costs savings were implemented earlier, there would have been a chance. That is all our faults for not happening. I can't blame foreign manufacturers for that and I can't blame them for government regulations such as CAFE which forced GM to build unprofitable vehicles to obtain a fleet average. Feingold is offering more of the same. He does not present solutions - he perpetuates problems - just like the absurd McCain-Feingold bill that invited even more financial corruption into the election process.
This is where I agree to disagree... again. Feingold wants to stick to the national plan to help the Big 3 build fuel efficient large vehicles they can sell. Is there a energy crisis or isn't there? The minute gasoline falls to $2 a gallon, Ryan wants to scrap the green $$ and return to top-down economics, cheap credit and gas guzzlers. That is the same old status quo.
If GM gets through the current crisis and gets costs in line, the market place will determine the place for "green" cars. Those products will have to stand on their own and will be financed properly by profits. Toyota has lost money on the Prius but floats the product based on what? Surprise - the sale of profitable vehicles. They have been able optimize profitability because of their cost advantage over GM. Once the playing field is leveled - there is no need and no place for green cash from the government for green vehicles. I fervently hope the Chevy Volt gets into the market and changes the unfair attitudes that far to many Amercians have towards American Products and American Workers. People also forget that a year and a half ago Toyota was offering incentives on the Prius as the snob appeal was wearing off - then gas went up in price and the story took another turn. As always, thanks for the dialogue. It is stimulating and educational.
interesting. people tend to think fuel efficient 'green' vehicles can only be small death traps, 4 wheels with air bags. Most use vehicles for short trips, there is no reason why they can't incorporate Volt technology for the first 30 miles driven in a 9 passenger Tahoe.
Post a Comment