An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

CNN Poll: Six In 10 Oppose Federal Automakers Bailout

_3DCE1BF7_4F78_4369_A6FA_5E2FC5A5218B_.gif

When President-Elect Barack Obama said a few weeks ago that the automakers had not made their case very well for getting a big, fat federal bailout, it turns out he was speaking for a growing number of Americans: a new poll finds that a politically-poisonous six in 10 now oppose the federal government bailing out the big three auto makers:

A national poll suggests that six in 10 Americans oppose using taxpayer money to help the ailing major U.S. auto companies.

Sixty-one percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey out Wednesday are dead set against the federal government providing billions of dollars in assistance for the automakers, with 36 percent favoring such a bailout.

The poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday, also indicates that a majority of Americans, 53 percent, don’t think government assistance for the automakers will help the U.S. economy.

“Only 15 percent say that they would be immediately affected if the auto companies went bankrupt,” CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. “Seven in 10 say that a bailout would be unfair to American taxpayers.”

According to CNN, this poll represents a significant shift. In November polls showed nearly 50 percent of the public supported a bailout when the automakers were about to testify before Congress. But various other data, CNN says, “suggests that the poor performance by executives from GM, Ford and Chrysler at congressional hearings, and the admission that they had taken private jets to get there, resulted in a steep drop in support for government assistance to automakers.”

The bottom line: it is not easy to undo a bad image, and when the automakers came before Congress to plead they desperately needed the money and then the news came out that they had flown there in their private jets, their trip was a bust. Not only were they denounced by politicos and newspaper editorials due to their lousy performance and judgment, but they were lambasted by the Internet’s new media and — worst of all — ridiculed by comedians.

But is the tide now turning for the automakers? And, if it appears it is, CAN IT turn in their favor given numbers like this? Here are some new developments:

*President-Elect Barack Obama says he reserves judgment on the automakers plans. He says Congress has the right to demand to see a plan but that the new plan that’s being presented does seem “more serious.” The transcript of Obama’s sixth press conference (he is proving to be a highly accessible Oval Office winner) is HERE.

*The UAW is making some concessions to help the Big Three.

*But Senator Carl Levin says big hurdles remain in Congress.

*The Christian Science Monitor looks at where this issue is with Congress in this MUST READ

*Port workers are watching the auto industry’s ills and worrying: does this mean their jobs are in danger?

*Automakers sales continue to show a big decline.

The problem with the poll: it indicates many in the public feel money spent on the automakers is either a lost cause or they simply don’t deserve it after their private jet public relations fiasco and the resulting condemnations and comedian punch lines. This makes it all the more difficult for lawmakers who might feel it is vital to rescue the industry and who are willing go consider going out on a political limb. A top carmaker executive is arguing that, if the companies fail, it could lead to a full-fledged American depression. Other dismiss such talk as hype to get a bailout.

Cartoon by RJ Matson, The St. Louis Post Dispatch

  • JSpencer
    While I have to struggle to come up with much sympathy for the automakers (afterall, they are in this fix due to their own greed and lack of vision) I realize how important the impact of auto manufacturing is on the economy as a whole. Check some of these figures out if you don't think so:

    http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/

    Also there is the matter of bailing out Wall St. but not Main St. - the latter of which is asking for far less money as well. If they can be held accountable and prove they have a viable model from here on out, then I think it would be a mistake not to give them the money. I don't like "bail-outs" anymore than the next guy, but we have to look at the big picture here.
  • jchem
    They are going to end up getting the money they are asking for one way or another, regardless of what the public polling data show. Why doesn't the government structure this as a line of credit, similar to a credit card that the "average folks" have? What's the average interest rate on a credit card? 10%, 15%, 20%? If they intend on paying it back, make them pay interest on it, just like everyone else has to.
  • DLS
    The complaining I hear on the radio and see on-line about bailing out Wall Street now amounts to but an irritating distraction, because a) it's _irrelevent_ to the Detroit bailout; b) so many of us were opposed to the Wall Street bailout as well as being opposed to bailing out Detroit and its failed captive-market business-labor model that was obsolete a generation ago.

    There might still be a bailout, if not to repay the UAW for delivering for Obama and to give unions a future chance to go backward to the way things used to be, then to avoid a deeper economic slump that would not be limited to Detroit metro. But to prop up these long-failed companies makes no sense. (Besides, Ford at least is showing signs of some change -- most likely due to an outsider running the company.)

    It's bad enough that the UAW is still engaging in fits and starts in long-overdue reform, but Chrysler already is a goner (it has tried and failed to merge in the past, and its plan now is simply to merge in the future), and why does GM deserve to die, ultimately? Because of what its financial head said, that's why -- GM has no Plan B, and cannot conceivably remain in business without a bailout. That alone should settle it. (As for Ford, if either of the other two companies goes bankrupt, it will, so that it is competitive -- reorganization and cost shedding that is long overdue.) I suspect what the Congress must be thinking now is, exactly on what grounds would a bailout of these companies truly be justified? (Note that we can discount the three million job loss figure from Center for Automotive Research, and the recently rosy-future-for-Detroit-if-it-just-gets-a-bailout-now testimony in Michigan from David Cole of that organization, which is a Detroit arm. We don't see the modern auto industry, such as Toyota, Honda, and Nissan, about to go bankrupt, nor predicting a rosy future, for that matter.) Exactly why would or should Congress give these companies anything?


    “A full 70% of respondents indicated that a bailout is unfair to taxpayers. In addition to being unfair, the poll showed that a majority of those surveyed think a bailout would not help the economy.”

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/autoextremist-...


    Here are 20 direct questions for Wagoner, Mulally and Nardelli.

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/bailout-watch-...
  • DLS
    J. Chem -- a) interest rates can be quite high on credit cards; b) more importantly, the reason that the Detroit Three are seeking bridge loans (bridge to what, we wonder) is that they're so close to being bankrupt and losing so much money that they cannot get that credit in the private sector any longer.
  • Jim_Satterfield
    jchem,

    Amongst all the whining and description of it as a bailout and a handout it is being completely lost that if people only pay attention and get past the constant repetition of the phrase bailout, a line of credit is exactly what is being asked for. In fact the head of Ford thinks that they can weather this with their cash on hand and planned cutbacks but they'd like a standby line of credit of $9 billion in order to make their vendors, dealers and the stock market feel better about their viability.
  • gfranks007
    I work in the repossession industry and taxpayers are already struggling with their own finances, one of the reasons repossessions are now at an all time high...why do we have to pay to bail out companies who do what ever necessary to make the HIGH RISK sales that they make. And then the dealers are making loans to people they know can't afford or pay for the vehicles they sell them, and perform whatever means necessary (adjustments to credit apps, beefing up income requirements, even faking references) to get the "deal" to go through to the finance company. They do what ever it takes to roll that car off of their lot. What difference will it make if they bail out the automakers and the "people" are still broke...they still are unable to buy a new vehicle, dealers will then shut down and even less vehicles will roll off the assembly line. It's just prolonging the inevitable. My opinion is before they get any assistance via money, bankruptcy, grants...they should be forced to place in effect pay cuts to their highly overpaid Presidents, Vice presidents, CEO's and on down the line and drop the prices a bit before they make us broke people even more broke. The only way this $700 billion dollar bail out is going to help is if they give it to the people.
  • jchem
    Jim, I don't care what we call it; bailout, loan, give-a-way, at this point it's pretty much all the same. They'll get something. I'm just saying charge a crap load of interest to it. If that is what is being proposed, then I can live with that. The downside is finding that money. It seems to me that the government is doing nothing more then taking out another credit card to pay off one they already have. The end result is more debt.

    gfranks007 is right; what good will it do the auto companies to get this money if they can't sell any cars? At the end of the day, they need to sell cars, but if folks in the country don't have the money to buy them, they're stuck.
  • DLS
    Bridge loan -- bridge to where? David Cole's rosy scenario expressed here in Michigan is a joke.

    [NOTE: So far, the State of Michigan hasn't been interested in using any of the State's pension funds to keep the Detroit Three alive until that "astronishingly good," "very, very bright" future is reached. From 12-if-lucky currently to 18 million units or more? Really? After how long a wait?]

    http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI...


    Why should a failed model be perpetuated? Why are Toyota, Honda, and Nissan not about to fail?

    Meanwhile:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070...
  • DLS
    "The only way this $700 billion dollar bail out is going to help is if they give it to the people."

    No bailout should be given to _anybody_. But the financial bailout is tained badly enough, it might have been better to just do a "citizen's dividend" of that money as a handout to taxpayers (i.e., to individuals), even though so many would simply save and invest whatever wasn't used to retire debt. Would it have been more effective (and could something like that, if done today, be more effective)? I would say, yes. Even though morally it shouldn't be done, it's better than favoring some Wall Street firms (and financing a consolidation of the financial industry) while letting others fail.
  • DLS
    "It seems to me that the government is doing nothing more then taking out another credit card to pay off one they already have."

    Wait until after January. Did someone say "borrow and spend," to "help" people, states, and cities?
  • DLS
    Meanwhile, on a different bailout front, we're seeing progressive concern by -- look for yourselves.


    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087...


    Have a good weekend, early, y'all. Will check on the gossip vs. real news (like this, e.g., Detroit's predicament) on this site while I head out from Detroit (in my Ford vehicle) to Iowa to check on things out there. Who knows, even if Detroit is turned down (other than for a federally managed and financed bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler -- here's to a slimmer independent Chevrolet someday soon) you might learn of not only more remarks like Bernanke's (see above) but even a willingness of Paulson to "reconsider" foreclosure assistance and even to take Barney Frank's advice about giving Sheila Bair's FDIC plan more attention. "Change" of some kind is truly coming.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103...
  • Jim_Satterfield
    jchem,

    No, when you're asking for lots of other concessions from them and they are agreeing to them you should charge a reasonable rate of interest, not more than the current market rate for this type of loan. According to what I was hearing on NPR today the auto makers agreed to both the idea of an "auto czar" (I hate that phrase.) and an oversight board to make certain the loans are being spent wisely. Given those conditions and the concessions already granted I think we're getting towards something that just might work for everyone.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC