Auto Bailout Fails in Senate
The Detroit News is reporting that the bailout deal has failed in the Senate.
In the weeks since this has become an issue, I’ve gone from saying let them hang, to doing what we can to help the Big Three, to thinking that maybe bankruptcy wouldn’t be such a bad idea. In normal times, I would say, no to any government help, but then these aren’t normal times.
Maybe my fellow conservatives are correct that giving the Big Three money is just throwing good money after bad. But I keep having this bad feeling that we might be ideologically correct at the wrong time. I keep wondering if one of the automakers goes under, what it will do to an already sinking economy.
But tonight, I keep thinking about my native Michigan and all those families wondering what will happen next.
20 Responses to “Auto Bailout Fails in Senate”
I drive a '98 Ford Escort. It's a great little car, and has nearly 150K miles on it. Let's give the Big Three another chance.
In other words, absolutely nothing means more to Republicans than shafting the unions that have already made multiple concessions.
Dennis, you may think that bankruptcy may not be such a bad idea but I'd like you to answer a question. Where would the DIP funding for their bankruptcy come from? I haven't heard one person making the claim that bankruptcy would work just fine answer that question. Not one. What comes next for Michigan? If the GOP has its way there will be unemployment above 20%, no extension of unemployment and foreclosed homes as far as the eye can see. Because that was the entire point of insisting on massive pay cuts. How many of those workers could keep their heads above water with that kind of sudden shock to their income? Some, but many couldn't. Which is precisely what the Southern Republicans who rule the party want to happen.
McCain, after suspending his campaign to bailout the banks voted NO on this. Lindsay Graham did not vote. I was curious to see how these two voted since Obama met with them just a couple weeks ago (though it already seems like a lifetime). I thought they might try to gather support for this measure if they came to an understanding about a working relationship with Obama and being nonpartisan. (Since Obama supported this). So from that aspect their votes are interesting. And McCain's no vote, particularly after supporting the bank bailout, is really interesting. Though I'm not sure what it means.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALe…
This will have a huge ripple effect on the economy and will just prolong and deepen the recession….. the automakers won't close up right away…. so the effects will sink in over time. And 10% of the nation's jobs are directly or indirectly related to the auto industry.
If the Republicans want to continue their sabotage of the economy as they did under Bush, they certainly are continuing to do so. I am all for the responsibility the Republicans cherish, and one of the reasons I like the GOP. However when we're talking about potentially up to 10% of the jobs in the US being affected, through no fault of the individual workers (just the chiefs, who will remain millionaires) then I believe a little common sense and compassion are in order. As well as looking at the big picture. To me this feels like the Republican Senators who voted against the bailout are cutting their noses to spite their faces.
Just to be clear… I've posted on here before that I don't feel that the automakers drove themselves into this ditch and they should fail. But since the industry employees so many Americans, its failure will affect us all. Even if it doesn't affect my own job, all those unemployed will need unemployment benefits. They will need to go to emergency rooms to get “free” health care to them… the rest of us taxpayers will be on the hook. So we may not have to pay for the bailout of the firms, but more people will suffer and we will all end up paying more so the unemployed will get basic services.
The Democrats are the majority and yet, they still try to blame the Republicans for all failures. Once again,the Democratic leadership has demonstrated that they are incapable of leading. I guess their big labor masters are more willing to cause chaos instead of getting a short term deal that can be fixed later.
It is hard to blame the Republicans when the Democrats are in chage. Maybe they could offer concessions to a few Republicans in order to get them to vote for it. I guess making a political statement is far more important to the coastal elite Democrats than actually fixing a problem.
One of the interesting things about this, is that the Southern Republicans are giving the FU to Detroit to protect the Toyota and Honda plants in their states, BUT, I am watching CNBC and Toyota is saying this is going to hit everyone, they will not be exempt. When the suppliers go out of business, it's going to cause massive shock waves.
That's my “objective” view. Personally I am sick over this, my husband and I are both from Michigan, my father worked for Ford before he retired, my husband's uncle worked for GM, my aunt who is in a nursing home just got a notice that her prescription were no longer covered. The auto industry got punched in the gut then kicked in the face.
OT but HOLY CRAP! On CNBC some chick who is talking about financials is literally dripping with diamonds.. That necklace is something actresses wear on the red carpet. WHAT IS SHE THINKING!
I just looked at the vote tally and noticed that Harry Reid voted against this, one of only 4 Dems to do so. Yet after the vote he gets to the camera. From 'The Hill',
“We have not been able to get this over the finish line,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “There is too much difference between the two sides… I dread looking at Wall Street tomorrow. It’s not going to be a pretty sight.”
So why did he vote against this? In the article it says 'for procedural reasons', whatever that means. Also, the roll was 52 – 35, meaning 13 senators (12 without Obama) did not find this issue important enough to vote on. So where exactly is the leadership?
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-auto…
BTW, don't Obama and Biden get to vote on this? They are still Senators, right? How did THEY vote?
I'm not sure about Biden, but Obama officially resigned his seat, he doesn't get to vote. In hindsight was it a mistake for IL to be left without a vote, yes, but we know what hindsight is and he'd get slammed by repubs if he didn't.
On a tangent, if I was Senator Bunning, I would be rethinking my upcoming plans:
http://www.freep.com/article/20081212/COL04/812…
And at least talking about Chrysler, maybe it is not so bad.
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/12/09/chrys…
I'm not sure about Biden, but Obama doesn't get a vote, he has already resigned his seat.
On a tangent, Senator Bunning (R-Toyota) might want to change his travel plans:
http://www.freep.com/article/20081212/COL04/812…
SD Stop the BS, a simple majority doesn't work in the Senate. 60 votes were required to end the Republican filibuster. AIG is still paying bonuses to management and stock buybacks while credit is still nonexistent. Where is McConnel's outrage over this?
What about the conflict of interest between the Southern Republicans, foreign auto transplants and the massive tax breaks that brought these auto companies to Tennessee and Alabama?
Rudi, You sound like the Repulbicans did in 2005 and 2006 and the left did not give them the benefit of the doubt and call them a do nothing Congress. The Democrats are in charge and they need to lead instead of following their union masters. If a deal was super important, they would have put one together and changed it later. Yet, they would like to continue bashing Republicans instead of working for a bipartisan solution.
Manchester, Biden didn't vote. The votes are in that Hill article I linked to. A more concise roll can be found via the AP:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALe…
Well, for all of those senators that voted against the auto bailout, the Michigan Governor has some choice words for you: You're Un-American!!
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/12/12/mich…
SD Please show some stats showing the number of filibusters/cloture votes from 2004 to 2008. Maybe the Demonoocrats will resurrect the “nuclear option” and apply to all.
jchem, “I just looked at the vote tally and noticed that Harry Reid voted against this, one of only 4 Dems to do so…. So why did he vote against this? In the article it says 'for procedural reasons'….”
I think that if you vote against a bill you have the right to resurrect it later. Smart move if they anticipate the need to bring it up again next year. They may have more support in the new Senate.
After my lengthy posting last night I think I should just say that while I believe that the auto companies should be held accountable, let's not take out our frustrations on the workers who just followed upper management's orders and plans. If we do take it out on the entire industry, plus all the other jobs that are indirectly supported by the automakers, we will still pay for it in the long run. If the auto industry supports up to 10% of the populaiton, and it goes away, that's a significant amount of personal taxes we're not collecting. Plus we have to pay unemployment, emergency room care and everything else that unemployed people need. Plus property values will go down in those areas because local economies will be depressed. The auto chiefs should be shown the door, but we need to keep the workers in jobs.
SB, “I think that if you vote against a bill you have the right to resurrect it later. Smart move if they anticipate the need to bring it up again next year. They may have more support in the new Senate.”
Hmm. That sounds a bit strange, but if thats what they got to do to bring it up again, it makes a bit of sense. However, this thing might have had a better chance if Reid and the other three had voted for it, and somehow talked the Dems who didn't vote to jump on board. They had 10 Repubs jump on board with them so surpassing the necessary 60 votes was a given.
I'd like the media to ask Reid what these procedural reasons are so he has to explain himself. It should also be reasonable to ask those who didn't vote at all why they couldn't make it. I've read a lot about how the Repubs killed this, but to me they almost seem irrelevant once enough of them jump on board to get you past the 60 vote threshold.
jchem, good point and you're right… an explanation from the Dems who didn't vote at all or who voted against it would be good information. I am most surprised that Biden didn't vote at all since he is still a Senator.
An observation… I believe that Obama does want bipartisan support on bills. He doesn't view government as the Dems ruling (or the Republicans ruling). Mr. Obama would rather get Republicans on board rather than turn votes into a partisan celebratory party. Reid has no qualms about pointing the blame at Republicans. Even if Obama were president now I don't think he will engage in the “Dems v. Reps” warfare that the Bush administration perfected and that Reid and some other Dems are engaging in right now.
Interesting about Biden, given his Scranton roots and his “everyday Joe” persona. It seems now that the issue is being framed as “The Repubs shafted the workers”, I would have expected him to have been one of the first senators speaking on the floor.
I agree with you about Obama. He hasn't given any indication that he's the screaming-mad far left liberal that he was portrayed as. He's even ticking off a lot of the “progressive” folks and winning praise from conservatives. That has to be a good sign. Now although I do believe Obama may have his eye on bipartisanship, anything he wants to do has to go through Congress. And given all the uproar over this auto bailout, I'm not sure how willing they are to reach across the aisle. I almost think that Obama may be battling more with his own party than with the Repubs.
jchem: “Now although I do believe Obama may have his eye on bipartisanship, anything he wants to do has to go through Congress. And given all the uproar over this auto bailout, I'm not sure how willing they are to reach across the aisle. I almost think that Obama may be battling more with his own party than with the Repubs.”
On the first…. having to go through Congress… I agree with you… and come January there will be a new Congress and Obama will be president. I don't know how much of the current dynamic will carry over into the new Congress. That's one of the reasons I thought the McCain “no” vote and the Lindsay “not voting” were both interesting…. (given that Obama talked to them both together in Chicago a couple weeks ago, which to me means he's trying to reach across the aisle). Nothing to be decided right now, but something I've filed away in my mind to watch. I also can't help but wonder how much of the Senate Republican lack of support for the bill is the fact that the Republicans are mad at Bush… I should look at the vote of the Republican senators and see if any who were NOT re-elected voted “yes”.
Second, about Obama battling his own party…. I agree with you and have commented on here several times during the election that once Obama is president many Dems win Congress will want to go one way and Obama will want to go another way. Part of that is on style (Dems. v Reps) and part of that is on policy and agenda issues. I thought it was easy to see coming because Obama ran on his positions and yet people seemed to disregard certain statements and see what they wanted to see. One example which hasn't really come up (except perhaps Obama's selection of Gates) is that Obama will be more hawkish than many people think. I thought a lot of people cherry-picked (or just did not get) Obama's positions. As you know I'm a huge Obama supporter since day one and am glad he got into office. But I don't agree with him on everything (I don't even agree with myself on everything) and I wish he would appoint more Republicans to senior administration positions, but I'm very happy with the way Obama and most of his decisions so far.