The World According to Nick
Politics, News, Photography, and Triathlons... What don't I talk about?
Monday, December 08, 2008
<< How Do You Define "The Battlefield"? Monday Music >>
Time for Paul Ryan to Prove What He Believes In

According to the the White House, a deal on the Big 2.5 Auto Bailout is "very likely":

The White House said Monday that it was "very likely" to reach a deal with Congress to help failing U.S. automakers but warned that Democratic lawmakers need to quickly provide their specific proposal.

"It sounds like we have agreement on those basic principles that would be required for a bill that the president could sign," White House press secretary Dana Perino told reporters.
...
House and Senate aides were putting the finishing touches on a proposal that would draw emergency aid from an existing loan program meant to help the automakers build fuel-efficient vehicles. The size of the package hasn't been finalized, but it is expected to be between $14 billion and $17 billion.

It would create a presidentially named overseer charged with running a broad auto industry restructuring, with the power to require immediate payback of the emergency loans early next year if the companies fail to take the steps necessary to overhaul themselves. It could also include a Cabinet-level oversight board composed of the heads of the departments of Treasury, Energy, Labor, Commerce and Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency. Congressional aides outlined the emerging measure on condition of anonymity because it is not yet completed.

This is probably the worst of any of the ideas I've seen so far, which more than likely means it will pass.  What it will do is create a goverment oversight board to do potentially run the auto companies, and assist them in "restructuring".  Do you know what also allows for restructuring with oversight?  Bankruptcy!  The advantage of Chapter 11 bankruptcy however, is that ill-advised labor contracts can be renogiated, and more importantly, the people with the most at stake (those with debt in the current companies) are the ones who are placed in charge of the restructuring.

What the White House wants to do is to first give the companies money, then say that this money gives them enough debt to claim that they should be in charge of the restructuring.  Why not just let the current debtors do the job that bankruptcy law already allows for, and not put the taxpayer on the hook for any more?  The added advantage is that it will keep politics out of the process.  Otherwise, we'll see suggestions float in like this:

To satisfy Rep. Waters’ desire to protect African-American dealers, to exempt them from the inevitable cull, Chrysler, Ford and GM would have to discriminate against both rural dealers and well-managed non-minority-owned urban dealers.

Of course, that’s exactly what Rep. Waters wants. She wants to make any loans to the domestic automakers contingent on their continued support of dealers that are part of their problems in the first place. "Do you believe that if we are to rescue these big automobile manufacturers we should insist or include in our language support for the small independent dealers?"

Via VodkaPundit.  Paul Ryan has already mentioned his support for some kind of bailout.  He needs to change his mind, and prove to his constituents that he is what he claims to be, a principled Republican.  Contrary to popular belief, our manufacturing economy has done very well without help from the auto industry.  Wisconsin's economy has even benefited from many non-auto related manufacturing jobs:

Indeed, until the globalization of the financial crisis, American manufacturing exports were reaching record levels. Overall, U.S. industry has become among the most productive in the world – output has doubled over the past 25 years, and productivity has grown at a rate twice that of the rest of the economy. Far from dead, our manufacturing sector is the world's largest, with 5% of the world's population producing five times their share in industrial goods.
...
Fortunately, the Big Three do not represent the entire picture of American manufacturing. Even within the Great Lakes region, Wisconsin, which ranks second in per capita employment in manufacturing, has held onto most of its industrial employment due to its large, highly diversified base of smaller-scale specialized manufacturers.

If Congress and President Obama want to figure out how to restart our industrial economy, they need to travel not to Detroit but to an alternative universe that includes the South and Appalachia, where most of the new foreign-owned auto manufacturers have clustered. States like Alabama, with the second-largest per capita concentration of auto-related jobs, as well as South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia and Mississippi, have been growing these high-wage jobs for a new generation. In the process, they have brought unprecedented opportunity to some of the nation's historically poorest regions.

We need to keep money out of the hands of government, so it can be used by those who know how best to use it.  The real engine of the economy is you and I, who start businesses, study what will make money without worrying about politics, and respond to consumer demand.  It's time for Paul Ryan to man up, and remember what party he belongs to.

# Posted at 2:47 PM by Nick  |  Comment Feed Link 14 Comments  |  No Trackbacks

 Add to del.icio.us |  Digg this Post | Filed Under: Current Events

Monday, December 08, 2008 5:14:44 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
First off, it's the "Big 2.00000015."

Otherwise you're right, and Belling's wrong (as usual.)
Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:13:35 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Paul Ryan has constituents in Janesville and Kenosha. Not that he should he be exempted from criticism, but he is a politician and those who get all Atlas Shrugged on everything tend to become ex-politicians.

Paul Ryan could simply stay in the background and say and vote exactly how you want and not have a hand in crafting this turd sandwich. Or he can get in the mix and try to make it more tolerable and more effective. Either way this bill will happen. The GOP has a crappy hand with no trump cards. One can play them skillfully and win a point or two or go down guns blazing and get nothing. There is a time for both and there are people for both. An effective minority has people working both ends of that strategy. I would rather have a Paul Ryan in the mix helping craft this stuff and taking a few bullets for the team (and there will be plenty to take) than Tom Petri, who would simply role over and play dead in exchange for some bike trail money.

By all means we on the right should make our frustrations known to Paul Ryan and others, but our system demands a certain pragmatism and throwing someone of Ryan's caliber under the bus is no good for anyone. A key question we need ask is if not Ryan in the mix, then who? And would that person be better?

The time to throw a Ryan under the bus is when a crap bill is truly in the balance and he is the one to get it passed. I suspect we differ on the definition on where is that balance point.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:27:57 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
The problem is... this IS a crappy bill. And using Janesville as an example is a poor one, because those factories were announcing their close before this all went down. So why is that a reason? They are going away whether this bailout happens or not.

The fact of the matter is that Paul Ryan is doing a horrible job of explaining to people, including his constituents, that bankruptcy is not a bad thing for these companies. In fact, this plan is basically bankruptcy, but with all the baggage that comes with government intervention, and none of the protection that comes from bankruptcy proceedings.

What it does do, is to replace existing law on the books (Chapter 11) that would work well, with a system that gives extreme power to government and the executive branch, and takes away power from those who have the most stake in GM, which right now are the debtors, who would have gotten the most relief out of bankruptcy.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:22:16 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I do not disagree one bit on the nuts and bolts of this bill and its impact, my point is that I am willing to cut Ryan more slack than you are.

I know Janesville is going away...however, those people will still be voting once the plant is gone. As we all know, just because a GM auto plant goes away doesn't mean that GM labor (voters) doesn't keep getting paid and is no longer involved in the issue. So I stand on my Janesville point.

I know it's a crap bill and it basically is bankruptcy with landmines attached. However, it is bankruptcy without using the word and in today's marketing-driven age, the car companies and gov't are deathly afraid of the psychological impact on that word. That does not mean that I think it's a reasonable or rationale excuse, it is simply the fact during a time where all rationality is lost and people are following group think.

When you jumped on my last comment about dumping Ryan when it is a crap bill you did not follow through and answer if Ryan could stop this if he wanted to? It's fine to launch on a politician, but it's a bit unfair to launch when he fails to stand in front of a runaway train. Convince me that he is able to stop the train and is choosing not to and then I will concede your point.

I might stop by tonight at PSC if I get my snowblowing done in time. Could be fun.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:38:39 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Its perfectly fair to launch on him when he talks the way he does publicly, and writes the types of editorials he does publicly. In fact, he wrote one not that long ago where he blasted his fellow Republicans for not taking a stand on the tough issues:

"Our party has become too fearful of our own ideas. Since 1997, congressional Republicans began a steady retreat from principled leadership to political expediency. A party built on spending discipline and government reform succumbed to the siren songs of government expansion and earmarked giveaways. Republicans squandered the opportunity to limit and reshape the relationship between the federal government and the individual.

I ran on these bold ideas and innovative solutions in a congressional district carried by Barack Obama -- yet I received 64% of the vote. I challenge my colleagues to rethink political risk taking. Taking on our most serious fiscal challenges will restore relevancy to the Republican Party and will keep alive America's commitment to freedom and prosperity."

So it seems that Ryans thinks other Republicans should stand for small government principles, and not give into political expediency, but somehow its ok for him to do it. He has even claimed that the reason he got 64% of the vote was because of these principled stands! So which is it? Is being principled the reason he got votes, or is it standing in front of a freight train?

And let's be doubly honest here. Do you think any of the UAW folks in Janesville actually voted for Paul Ryan, or for his Democratic challenger? Does he really need to worry about holding onto those voters? Ryan either needs to actually vote the way he editorializes, or he needs to shut his mouth.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:39:35 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
And by the way TosaGuy, you're more than welcome to stop by Papa's tonight. I'm going to try to make it myself, but may be late depending on a few things.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:26:06 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
The central problem with your argument is the premise that chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings provide any hope for survival to the auto companies. The purchase of a new car depends on the perception of buyers that they will have a reasonable expectation of keeping their cars on the road for a period of years. Some will need a reasonable expectation that they will be able to find parts; some will need a reasonable expectation that the vehicles will retain resale value. Bankruptcy eliminates each of those reasonable expectations and would seal the doom of our domestic auto industry along with the millions of jobs that it represents.
If you consider that result acceptable, say so. It might make for an interesting ideological line of reasoning; however, it is dishonest to base your argument on a proposed solution that has no chance of success.

Corry White
Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:58:33 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
You make a good point regarding buyers wanting to believe the company will still be there in a few years in order to make a new car purchase... but whether there is a bailout or bankruptcy, I don't think it will have a dramatic effect beyond what people already perceive.

Plenty of major companies have gone into well publicized bankruptcies and come out intact, and are doing fairly well. Many airlines were able to do just this, and despite their bankrupties, people still bought tickets with those airlines WHILE the bankruptcies were occurring.

I'm not suggesting that any of these auto companies will have an easy and magical time through bankruptcy, but this bailout will do absolutely zero to solve the problem either. All it will do is prolong the agony, and cost billions of our tax dollars in the process that we will never see back.

And while I may never have explicitly said it, I think most people who regularly read here will no Corry, that if the Big 3 fail and we never see them again (something I truly doubt will happen), then I'm ok with that too.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:31:31 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
The airline industry is in the field of transportation, but has a great advantage over the auto industry in that consumers only need their product to work long enough to be returned to their point of origin. Again, people need their cars to work, to have spare parts and need mechanics with the expertise to fix them for...what do you think--I don't believe I would buy a car that I didn't think would be on the road for maybe 10 years? I am just suggesting that the claim only moves your argument forward rhetorically.
I did catch that you are aiming for true conservatism—clearly, your piece attempts to hold Rep. Ryan to those principles… I am curious about what you think might happen to the rest of the economy if our country lost our auto manufacturers, parts suppliers, domestic auto dealers and the associated millions of jobs, lost tax revenue, etc. I did take a class in college, but I’m no economist; however, many who are warn of cascading problems like dominos sending us into depression. Do you reject the doomsayers? You doubt that the ‘Big 3’ will actually fail—what do you think will happen with them?

Corry White
Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:39:21 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
First of all, just because a car manufacturer goes out of business does not mean the car stops working. For any car, going back decades, there are manufactures not associated with the car companies that make after market parts. Not just brakes, but also engine parts, air conditioning, etc. There are more independent auto repair shops that are not associated with car dealerships than there are repair shops that are associated with dealerships. So thats really not much of an issue.

Those who talk about us spiraling into a depression if the government doesn't intervene need to look at the last Great Depression we had. The Depression was not caused by the stock market crash. Had Hoover and FDR not intervened so heavily with government "intervention", what would have been a 2 year recession ended up being a 10 year depression. The topic is a little more than what I'm willing to put into a comment thread... but government intervention distorts markets and prices - which lead to money being invested in failing sectors of the economy, instead of being reinvested in other areas that are rising.

As for the Big 3 - I see their best bet to be Chapter 11. This will allow for some of their debt to be thrown off, the companies to reorganize, potentially with new management, and for them to get more of a fresh start. That will mean that many of the current contracts with the UAW will be re-negotiated. Some dealerships will suffer, but thats because there are really too many of them. I suspect that with GM especially, we will see many of the seperate companies go away. There will be no seperate Pontiac, Cheverolet, etc. Instead, it will all come under a GMC umbrella with one car line. But thats far more efficient.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:31:02 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
So, you really do think that bankruptcy can save them… Reorganization is certainly needed and I believe that those who support some kind of government action also seek functional reorganization. As well, I am not arguing that the car itself cannot function without the company, but that the Market, the consumer, would perceive cars potentially without a company as a risky purchase, one that few would undertake—which would lead to the inevitable failure of the auto manufacturers.
I understand your reluctance to tackle the whole depression issue in a chat, but the topic would seem to be timely. Perhaps you could write a feature on the subject in the coming weeks. I have always had Roosevelt presented as a hero and Hoover as a villain—as you might imagine. It is interesting that you seem to lump them together. I have been aware of a conservative dissenting view, but have only seen it presented as a conclusion, as you do here. I would be interested to hear the argument fleshed out (at your convenience…).

Corry White
Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:35:52 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I am reluctant to have the government take on the reorganization for many reasons. One, I see it as another move by the executive branch to take on powers that do not belong to it. We already have a means, coddified into law, which has been used to reorganize companies that are failing. It's called Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It gives power to those who have the most stake in the failing company, and that are the debtors to that company. What Congress, and George Bush want to do is take that working system and replace it with yet another executive branch model, making the President more like a king, where the reorganization will now be highly politicized, and the best interests of the politicians will trump the best interests of the debtors, and the company itself. That is doomed to failure.

As for the Depression... the here/villian story you mentioned is the common one taught in school. But from a legal/economic perspective, Hoover actually did many things before FDR came in, and then FDR continued many of those policies, and then expanded with many of his own. FDR was just a hell of a lot better at PR. The reality is, if FDR happened to be in office first, then Hoover would be seen as the hero today.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:55:28 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I continue to see it as extremely unlikely that consumers will purchase cars from a company in bankruptcy (would that not void warrantees?) and see that avenue as doomed. I am not overly hopeful about our bailout fever, either and I, too, am concerned about unconstitutional expansion of executive power. I also find the bailout process far too opaque. I do fear the dissolution of components of our economy. Its a sticky situation.
At a later date I would still like to see your analysis of the depression. you're right, I did learn about it in school.
Corry White
Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:04:39 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Would warranties be voided? Another good question. The answer is... maybe. Under Chapter 11, a company like GM could choose to void factory warranties. However, they are under no obligation to do so. So the question is, would GM benefit from doing so. The answer is no, and so it is highly unlikely that they would. Voiding factory warranties would be market suicide, and would in fact stop people from buying their cars. Just like Oldsmobile's were serviced, even under warranty, after GM shut the doors of that subsidiary (though that was not under bankruptcy), they would want to continue to honor customer obligations in order to keep customers.

Also, many warranties, including virtually all "extended warranties" are not actually held by GM (or Ford or Chrysler). They are actually not warranties at all, but are rather insurance policies against something going wrong with the car that you pay extra for. Those are almost exclusively held by third party warranty companies, and would not be affected by a Chapter 11 filing at all.

But you bring up a lot of excellent questions. And I think what you illustrate is that government actors (and to an extent the companies themselves - by virtue of the government carrot and sticking them) are stoking worries of calamity that are not deserved in order to get this money and or control.

If members of Congress and the White House were acting as responsible leaders (which none of them are in my view), then they would be seeking to educate people on these issues, instead of scaring them with half truths and misinformation. That is one of the reasons why Bankruptcy is seen as this ugly scary thing, while this bailout/reorganization (which is worse) is somehow seen as a savior.
Comments are closed.


© Copyright 2010 Nick Schweitzer
Powered By newtelligence dasBlog 1.9.7067.0
Theme Based on Design By maystar