PDA

View Full Version : Reid, Pelosi Urge Treasury to Extend Aid to Automakers



Gan
11-09-2008, 01:05 PM
With the nation's automotive industry hemorrhaging cash, congressional leaders called on the Bush administration yesterday to offer government assistance to the car companies as part of the Treasury Department (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Department+of+the+Treasury?tid=informline)'s $700 billion emergency rescue program.

The call came one day after General Motors (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/General+Motors+Corporation?tid=informline), the nation's largest auto manufacturer, announced another multibillion dollar loss for the third quarter and said it was running out of money fast. Ford, the second-biggest car company, also reported heavy losses. Unless the government steps in, analysts warned, GM could face bankruptcy, endangering the livelihoods of about 100,000 North American autoworkers and hundreds of thousands of others whose jobs depend on the industry.

In a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Henry+M.+Paulson?tid=informline) Jr., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Nancy+Pelosi?tid=informline) (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Harry+Reid?tid=informline) asked Paulson to "review the feasibility . . . of providing temporary assistance to the automobile industry during the current financial crisis."

The letter notes that Congress granted Paulson broad discretion to use the bailout money to "restore financial market stability. A healthy automobile manufacturing sector is essential to the restoration of financial market security," the letter continues, as well as to "the overall health of our economy, and the livelihood of the automobile sector's workforce."

If the request is granted, it would expand the federal government's role in private enterprise far beyond the financial sector. Critics have warned that a bailout of GM would attract a long line of other companies to Washington to argue that their survival, too, is critical to the economic health of the country. The move would push the Bush administration to decide winners and losers in yet another huge sector of the economy, and it would force President-elect Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline) to manage a complex restructuring of the ailing automotive industry.

The Treasury has so far declined to assist the automakers, which have been devastated by the twin shocks of a collapsing credit market and the sharpest drop in auto sales in more than two decades. But as the news from Detroit has grown increasingly grim, lawmakers from both parties, Michigan officials, auto industry executives and labor leaders have stepped up their campaign for federal aid.

A plan is in the works at the Treasury to use bailout money to take ownership stakes in a wide array of companies beyond the banking sector. But Treasury officials have indicated that participants in its recapitalization program must be financial firms subject to federal regulation. That means GMAC (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/GMAC+LLC?tid=informline), GM's auto financing arm, may be eligible for quick help, but GM itself may not.

The rescue legislation gives Paulson authority to consider the automakers for future programs, such as auctions to purchase troubled assets. But the Treasury has yet to establish rules for those programs, which means such help could be months away.

Treasury officials declined yesterday to comment directly on the request from Reid and Pelosi.

"We continue to work on a strategy that most effectively deploys the remaining funds to strengthen the financial system and get lending going again," Treasury spokeswoman Jennifer Zuccarelli (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Jennifer+Zuccarelli?tid=informline) said.

In recent days, top auto industry executives have been making the rounds in Washington, trying to shake loose federal cash from a variety of sources. And there are strong indications that Democrats, newly empowered in Tuesday's election, are inclined to oblige.

Obama and other key Democrats vowed during the campaign to support as much as $50 billion in low-interest loans for the car companies. On Friday, during his first news conference since his election as president, Obama spoke at length about the "hardship" the industry faces and referred to the auto industry as "the backbone of American manufacturing."

Obama's team of economic advisers includes Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Jennifer+Granholm?tid=informline) (D) and former Michigan congressman David Bonior (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/David+Bonior?tid=informline), who is considered a strong candidate for Labor secretary. With Granholm on stage with him Friday, Obama said his transition team is already working on "policy options to help the auto industry adjust, weather the financial crisis and succeed in producing fuel-efficient cars," either under existing law or through the passage of "additional legislation."

In the meantime, however, the automakers have gotten little but sympathy. Congress recently voted to fund a $25 billion low-interest loan package intended to help the car companies retool their factories to produce fuel-efficient vehicles that meet tough new emissions standards.

But that money has been hung up by red tape. Obama and other Democrats have discussed providing another $25 billion in loans, bringing the total federal aid to $50 billion. But unless the Bush administration agrees to work on an economic stimulus package when Congress returns to Washington later this month, that money would have to wait until at least January.

Analysts fear the firms may not be able to hold on that long. GM and Ford posted big losses Friday as they continued to pay out more in salaries and other expenses than they are taking in from sales. GM said it would cut spending and sell some product lines but nonetheless expects to "fall significantly short" of the cash it needs to operate next year. The failure of GM or one of the other Detroit automakers could wipe out 2.5 million jobs and $125 billion in personal income in the first 12 months, according to a report released this week by the Center for Automotive Research.

This is not unfamiliar territory for the auto industry. In 1979, Chrysler (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Chrysler+Holding+LLC?tid=informline) nearly went bankrupt and lobbied the government for assistance. A $1.2 billion loan, coupled with deep executive pay cuts and major union concessions, helped turn the troubled company around. Under Lee Iacocca, Chrysler invented its iconic minivan, popularized the SUV and repaid the loan in four years. The government even made money off the deal.

Asked Friday whether future assistance could mirror the Chrysler bailout, GM executives told investors that they consider the Treasury program a more modern means to solving the crisis.

In their letter to Paulson, Reid and Pelosi wrote that Friday's earnings reports "only reaffirm the need for urgent action."

If the Treasury does decide to assist the auto industry, they wrote, its chief executives should be subject to the same "limits on executive compensation" as other participants in the program and should be required to give the government equity stakes in their firms "to provide taxpayers a return on their investment upon the industry's recovery."

Spokesmen for Ford and GM issued statements thanking the lawmakers for their request.

"We appreciate Congress recognizes the urgency to help the auto industry weather this troubled economic period," GM spokesman Greg Martin said. "We hope Congress and the administration can work together to provide immediate aid."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/08/AR2008110802000_pf.html

Methais
11-09-2008, 01:07 PM
They should just pull $50b out of the $700b wall street bailout money. Nobody will ever notice.

Parkbandit
11-09-2008, 01:07 PM
I'm sick of hearing how capitalist companies are too big to fail.

Gan
11-09-2008, 01:12 PM
I voted yes but with major concessions from the receipients and the unions within.

Keller
11-09-2008, 01:16 PM
I'm sick of hearing how capitalist companies are too big to fail.

While I understand the argument that it would cripple our economy if those companies bankrupted; I can't shake the feeling that American's were cool with capitalism until foreign kids showed up at the sandbox to sell cheaper/better toys.

GM is to Toyota today as Hudson was to GM 60 years ago. Except we were fine when Hudson "lost" to GM, but we're somewhat uncomfortable with GM losing to a foreign company.

Methais
11-09-2008, 01:34 PM
Maybe they should stop making vehicles that are pieces of shit. I bet that would help.

Keller
11-09-2008, 01:35 PM
Maybe they should stop making vehicles that are pieces of shit. I bet that would help.

That would require more R&D money -- which is one of the first casualties of pleasing shareholders (or in their case, not making them swallow the barrel of a shotgun).

Parkbandit
11-09-2008, 01:45 PM
Maybe they should stop making vehicles that are pieces of shit. I bet that would help.

Besides my work truck (Ford), I haven't purchased an American vehicle in 20 years.

Daniel
11-09-2008, 02:28 PM
I voted yes but with major concessions from the receipients and the unions within.

If this happens I'll be pissed if it doesn't include money to develop more fuel efficient cars.

Gan
11-09-2008, 05:51 PM
If this happens I'll be pissed if it doesn't include money to develop more fuel efficient cars.

There's 25m hung up now for retooling factors formore emission friendly cars.

I've not heard anything about fuel efficiency requirements.

Either way, its a Pelosi/Reid ballgame as I dont think there will be any major threat from a Bush veto.

We'll see what happens.

Tolwynn
11-09-2008, 06:14 PM
Good luck with union concessions, considering how much the unions helped, and are in turn going to expect help from Obama and the Democrats.

Though without concessions, it probably won't be a matter of if the Big 3 die so much as when.

Daniel
11-09-2008, 07:36 PM
There's 25m hung up now for retooling factors formore emission friendly cars.

I've not heard anything about fuel efficiency requirements.

Either way, its a Pelosi/Reid ballgame as I dont think there will be any major threat from a Bush veto.

We'll see what happens.

25m from the Government or from some company?

Also, what specifically does this get us?

I wasn't entirely clear but what I'd like to see is some substantial investment in promoting viable alternatives to oil (i.e. Hydrogen or something similliar) or other such things that would dramatically reduce our dependency on oil.

More fuel efficient cars are nice, but going from 25-30 MPG isn't exactly going to change much.

crb
11-09-2008, 07:46 PM
While I understand the argument that it would cripple our economy if those companies bankrupted; I can't shake the feeling that American's were cool with capitalism until foreign kids showed up at the sandbox to sell cheaper/better toys.

GM is to Toyota today as Hudson was to GM 60 years ago. Except we were fine when Hudson "lost" to GM, but we're somewhat uncomfortable with GM losing to a foreign company.
With all the foreign car makers opening up plants here in the US... can we really call them foreign anymore?

I think not.

Let the car companies go into bankruptcy, they won't vanish, they'll restructure with the help of bankruptcy protection, they'll get rid of their legacy costs, and come out of bankruptcy leaner, smaller, better.

It is 25b, not 25m they already got, they want another 25b. The stupid thing is, that buys them 3 months at the rate they're losing money.

At some point you gotta abandon ship, the parasite has killed the host, the host needs to die.

But, as Tolwynn said, it is unlikely to happen after Jan 20th.

g++
11-10-2008, 09:28 AM
While I understand the argument that it would cripple our economy if those companies bankrupted; I can't shake the feeling that American's were cool with capitalism until foreign kids showed up at the sandbox to sell cheaper/better toys.

GM is to Toyota today as Hudson was to GM 60 years ago. Except we were fine when Hudson "lost" to GM, but we're somewhat uncomfortable with GM losing to a foreign company.

Well that does make sense right? I mean if we take a hands off approach forever its just a matter of time before foreign government controlled companies monopolize us out by under selling until our businesses are gone and then jacking up the price right?

I mean I dont know this Its more a question than a comment, like would that happen?

Keller
11-10-2008, 10:11 AM
Well that does make sense right? I mean if we take a hands off approach forever its just a matter of time before foreign government controlled companies monopolize us out by under selling until our businesses are gone and then jacking up the price right?

I mean I dont know this Its more a question than a comment, like would that happen?

I don't know either. My comment was more toward the "capitalists" and "free-market supporters" who support not allowing American auto companies to fail.

The fact is that we'd all still have cars to drive. They'd be cheaper, both in initial cost and also in maintenence costs. Conventional wisdom says they'd be more efficient. In general, they are the better widget; but the rub is that the wealth would be going to other nations.

Sure, we might have some manufacturing plants here to save on freight -- but the high dollar jobs are in S. Korea and Japan. They are not in Detroit. And we're not willing to see capitalism bring us down.

crb
11-10-2008, 10:34 AM
I don't know either. My comment was more toward the "capitalists" and "free-market supporters" who support not allowing American auto companies to fail.

The fact is that we'd all still have cars to drive. They'd be cheaper, both in initial cost and also in maintenence costs. Conventional wisdom says they'd be more efficient. In general, they are the better widget; but the rub is that the wealth would be going to other nations.

Sure, we might have some manufacturing plants here to save on freight -- but the high dollar jobs are in S. Korea and Japan. They are not in Detroit. And we're not willing to see capitalism bring us down.
That is not entirely true, the high dollar jobs being in Japan.

My father in law is an autoworker at a Japanese supplier with plants in europe, here in Michigan, down south in Alabama, and in Japan. He was hourly for a long time but as of two years ago became salaried, and works in quality control. So he isn't designing the parts, but he isn't just working the line either.

Anyways, a couple times a year he has to go to Japan for a few weeks to program their robots and help setup manufacturing lines and make sure they're within tolerances and whatnot. He goes to Alabama sometimes too, but usually he goes to Japan.

Seems to me it'd be cheaper for the company to have Japanese personnel do the work in Japan, than to pay for his travel, a higher daily rate, his lodging, and a per diem. But, they do pay for him, so I must assume no one in Japan is trained for the work.

Keller
11-10-2008, 10:42 AM
That is not entirely true, the high dollar jobs being in Japan.

My father in law is an autoworker at a Japanese supplier with plants in europe, here in Michigan, down south in Alabama, and in Japan. He was hourly for a long time but as of two years ago became salaried, and works in quality control. So he isn't designing the parts, but he isn't just working the line either.

Anyways, a couple times a year he has to go to Japan for a few weeks to program their robots and help setup manufacturing lines and make sure they're within tolerances and whatnot. He goes to Alabama sometimes too, but usually he goes to Japan.

Seems to me it'd be cheaper for the company to have Japanese personnel do the work in Japan, than to pay for his travel, a higher daily rate, his lodging, and a per diem. But, they do pay for him, so I must assume no one in Japan is trained for the work.

My point was that at the end of the day, the foregin car companies are opening US branches because it is more profitable. And that profit is returning to largely foreign shareholders/members.

crb
11-10-2008, 11:08 AM
Ya... but didn't Toyota just open a plant here in the US that will actually be exporting? So in a way, that will be bringing wealth into the country.

Plus, with global investing as it is, there is no reason why you can't own a foreign car company, foreigners own ours.

Parkbandit
11-10-2008, 11:10 AM
Good luck with union concessions, considering how much the unions helped, and are in turn going to expect help from Obama and the Democrats.

Though without concessions, it probably won't be a matter of if the Big 3 die so much as when.

B-I-N-G-O

The Unions paid good money to get Obama elected... and they will want to see some return on their investment.

When you make a shitty product and pay your employees huge wages compared to other non-union manufacturing jobs.. gee, is it really a surprise that they are failing?

Daniel
11-10-2008, 11:12 AM
Ya... but didn't Toyota just open a plant here in the US that will actually be exporting? So in a way, that will be bringing wealth into the country.

Plus, with global investing as it is, there is no reason why you can't own a foreign car company, foreigners own ours.

.....

What does exportation have to do with where revenue goes?

Keller
11-10-2008, 11:14 AM
Ya... but didn't Toyota just open a plant here in the US that will actually be exporting? So in a way, that will be bringing wealth into the country.

Are you talking about taxes now? Otherwise I don't see how it will provide more than an ancillary benefit (additional frieght revenue from shipping to Vancouver instead of Seattle).


Plus, with global investing as it is, there is no reason why you can't own a foreign car company, foreigners own ours.

Do we?

Jorddyn
11-10-2008, 11:19 AM
I voted yes for purely selfish reasons - my family owns a GM dealership.

If we do bail them out, it should be with major caveats, as others have said - restructuring of union deals, money ear marked for R&D only, limits on executive compensation, limits on bonuses, limits on dividends to name but a few.

Parkbandit
11-10-2008, 11:29 AM
I voted yes for purely selfish reasons - my family owns a GM dealership.

If we do bail them out, it should be with major caveats, as others have said - restructuring of union deals, money ear marked for R&D only, limits on executive compensation, limits on bonuses, limits on dividends to name but a few.

How about limits on benefits to workers and limits to wages of workers?

Competitive Labor Cost Comparison
2006 Average Labor Costs — UAW represented (per hour worked)

DaimlerChrysler $75.86

Ford $70.51

General Motors $73.26


U.S. Japanese Transplants Labor Cost Comparison
2005 Average Labor Costs

*Honda $42.95

*Nissan $41.97

*Toyota $47.60

http://chryslerlabortalks07.com/Economic_Data.rtf

There is a reason why American car manufacturing is failing to remain competitive... it's called almost double the employee costs of their competitors. With 335,000 employees at GM... you do the math.

Jorddyn
11-10-2008, 11:44 AM
How about limits on benefits to workers and limits to wages of workers?

See bolded below.


If we do bail them out, it should be with major caveats, as others have said - restructuring of union deals

The vast majority of hourly employees are paid based on union deals. GM can't just declare they're cutting wages, they have to restructure the contract.

crb
11-10-2008, 11:54 AM
Are you talking about taxes now? Otherwise I don't see how it will provide more than an ancillary benefit (additional frieght revenue from shipping to Vancouver instead of Seattle).



Do we?
A car that is made in the US and sold in Europe, or South America, even if the brand is Toyota, is an export for the US and provides manufacturing jobs, and income here, and so transfers wealth from where it is sold to where it is made.

Currently most foreign plants here JUST sell here, no exporting, which is why Toyota's announcement that they will be manufacturing here for exporting was such a big deal.

Keller
11-10-2008, 11:57 AM
A car that is made in the US and sold in Europe, or South America, even if the brand is Toyota, is an export for the US and provides manufacturing jobs, and income here, and so transfers wealth from where it is sold to where it is made.

Currently most foreign plants here JUST sell here, no exporting, which is why Toyota's announcement that they will be manufacturing here for exporting was such a big deal.

1) I've already said that there will be manufacturing jobs.

2) Did the release say where we were exporting to?

crb
11-10-2008, 12:04 PM
I don't remember if it said where, only that it said they were, for the first, going to be exporting US produced vehicles.

Parkbandit
11-10-2008, 12:16 PM
See bolded below.



The vast majority of hourly employees are paid based on union deals. GM can't just declare they're cutting wages, they have to restructure the contract.

That's the thing though.. no matter HOW much they restructure the contracts, they will ALWAYS be paid FAR more than the real industry average, resulting in higher costs and a competitive disadvantage.

And liberals want to bring unions to all businesses... because they work so well

Jorddyn
11-10-2008, 12:21 PM
That's the thing though.. no matter HOW much they restructure the contracts, they will ALWAYS be paid FAR more than the real industry average, resulting in higher costs and a competitive disadvantage.

I agree. But since they have unions, they have to deal with the unions.


And liberals want to bring unions to all businesses... because they work so well

You forgot the vital word "some". I am not pro-union, nor are many of my liberal cohorts.

Parkbandit
11-10-2008, 12:30 PM
I agree. But since they have unions, they have to deal with the unions.

You forgot the vital word "some". I am not pro-union, nor are many of my liberal cohorts.


I didn't use the term all, so you shouldn't assume I meant all.

Atlanteax
11-10-2008, 02:00 PM
As I said in the other thread, "Yes" but with granting them the power to freely axe employees at will, along with reduction of pensions (some terms are obscenely generous).

Atlanteax
11-10-2008, 02:05 PM
And liberals want to bring unions to all businesses... because they work so well

I think that's mostly because... the typical Union members of Walmart or Krogers or Sears or etc... are the uneducated low-wage blue collar voters that the Democrat party targets ... with the secondary benefit that the Union is a ready-to-go political network to generate votes.

A fine example of political interests (Unions = votes) trumping economic interests (Unions = drag on business).

crb
11-10-2008, 03:03 PM
There is an advocacy group that is testing the waters of putting right to work on the ballot in the next election here in Michigan. I'm going to rofl so hard if it gets passed.

Parkbandit
11-10-2008, 04:08 PM
I think that's mostly because... the typical Union members of Walmart or Krogers or Sears or etc... are the uneducated low-wage blue collar voters that the Democrat party targets ... with the secondary benefit that the Union is a ready-to-go political network to generate votes.

A fine example of political interests (Unions = votes) trumping economic interests (Unions = drag on business).

Wait.. Walmart is unionized? I thought they were profitable and the scorn of all Dumbercrats everywhere!

Got a source on this unionizing?

g++
11-10-2008, 04:21 PM
Wait.. Walmart is unionized? I thought they were profitable and the scorn of all Dumbercrats everywhere!

Got a source on this unionizing?

Wal-Mart burns down any store where the word union is spoken aloud.

Parkbandit
11-10-2008, 05:00 PM
Wal-Mart burns down any store where the word union is spoken aloud.

Smart company imo. I would too.

Jorddyn
11-10-2008, 05:03 PM
I didn't use the term all, so you shouldn't assume I meant all.

But when Murtha said SW PA was "a racist area", he meant every single person there was racist?

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=829849&postcount=9

TheEschaton
11-10-2008, 05:52 PM
They should just pull $50b out of the $700b wall street bailout money. Nobody will ever notice.

JEsus titty-fucking Christ, it's in the first sentence of the article. Did you even read it?


With the nation's automotive industry hemorrhaging cash, congressional leaders called on the Bush administration yesterday to offer government assistance to the car companies as part of the Treasury Department's $700 billion emergency rescue program.

This isn't Vietnam, man, there are rules.

-TheE-

g++
11-10-2008, 05:55 PM
Smart company imo. I would too.

Well we will see how smart it is when the class action law suit is resolved. It could be the stupidest business move in the history of the world.