 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Senator Jon Tester ( D Montana ), I have a question for you
Senator Tester made a comment yesterday regarding the Big 3 and their future plans. He commented, "The Big 3 plans help, but there are still some questions like why was it $25 billion two weeks ago and $34 billion today".
I would have loved to ask the Senator the same question as the Government bail-out escalated in just a few weeks from tens of billions of dollars to hundreds of billions to who know what the actual figure will be. Things change. There are too many factors that the car companies have absolutely no control over like, when will the recession end? When will people feel confident enough to spend on a new car/truck? When will credit be available again to finance new vehicles? Will the Government’s bail-out actual work? When will the World economy get turned around? I guess I could throw in, When will Congress balance the budget? When will Congress fix Social Security and Medicare funding? When Congress, and Senator Tester, have the answers to these questions, then they can criticize the Big 3. Until then Senator, get back to work fixing the problem that I feel Congress was complicit in creating through lack of legislative foresight 10 years ago and lack of Government oversight several years ago.
Read all of daperera's blogs >>
Not registered? Click here
|
Share this
|
Report this
|
I watched the senate hearings yesterday and actually found Senator Tester's questions and comments of the Big 3 to be fair. What I came away with was the impression that he would like to see the Wall St. recipients being held accountable to same level as the Automakers; i.e. plans to not use the money for acquisitions, not spending the money outside the U.S., monthly accountability, oversight that was suppose to have taken place and so on. I believe Senator Tester is in favor of the request from the automakers, he just wants to make sure he does more of what should have been done when the initial request from the Administration was authorized.
At this point, I don't know which concerns me more. The loan or letting them go under. I have been personally affected by this economy (no job in months) and the problem with the automakers as well (brother's dealership closing)...but I'm also concerned about the trillions in debt we continue to pile on.
What ever happened to "bankruptcy"???
The problem with "Bailouts" is that rather than an un-elected judge overseeing the re-configuration of a company's debt to ensure it is properly done, we have POLITICIANS doing it.
What is the problem with politicians doing it? Easy answer: They are subject to campaign contributions and therefore bribe able.
Would the Democrats let the trade unions (the major source of problems within the auto industry) lose their benefits, wages, and jobs? No way!! They receive too much money from the Unions. They are not unbiased.
Will the Democrats let the corporate leaders walk away without a scratch? Depends on how generous GMC, Ford and Chrysler are with their campaign contributions. Who knows, maybe they can work something out?
Are we moving away from a system of bankruptcy to one of Government Bailout being the way things are done?
If so, expect to see tons of contributions to the Democrats followed by tons of bailout money being taken from the taxpayer.
Its like paying your middle manager boss to give you a raise. The boss doesn't care, its not his money its the company's money.
One can go to:
http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Articles.Home
to read the submissions to senate committee from the automakers.
It is my understanding that labor contracts account for less than 10% of the costs of the automakers. I'm not sure the trade unions are the major source of problems with the auto industry. I do believe the trade unions must also make contributions to the solutions.
If we lived in a black and white world where one action caused only one reaction than perhaps bankruptcy might be the solution or even letting one or more of the car makers go under would too. I suggest we have to consider or at least try to consider ALL of the possible consequences of our actions.
I'm not so naive as to believe that politicians are not influenced by their desire to be re-elected and thus by the money it takes to get there. I'm also not so jaded as to believe that campaign contributions are the sole basis of decision making.