Thoughts on bailing out Big 3

Congress passed the $700 billion pork bailout though a huge majority of the electorate was against it, and the market dropped more than 20 percent. Thanks, Congress. Pandora’s’ box is open, and now they want to do it again for the auto industry. Who will be next in line?

The bailout will simply be the first installment in an endless addiction to bailouts unless the American auto industry is reformulated in every way. The concept that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Congress will give them our money and tell them how to run their business is a terrible joke.

The only solution is to let the automakers file for bankruptcy so that they can restructure from the top down and restructure the union contracts. What they need is less government, not more.

I own two Fords, but I can promise you this: I will never purchase another car or product from any company receiving a bailout. Ever.

Bruce Smith
Overland Park

I am concerned that members of Congress are considering bailing out the auto industry with taxpayer money. The auto industry has displayed poor business practices. They have had the technology and the resources to create more fuel-efficient vehicles and refused to do so. Now members of Congress are proposing that we, the taxpayer, reward these poor business practices with a bailout.

I hear the media talk about how there will be so many people out of a job if the auto industry collapses. I say that the autoworker had a responsibility to voice better business practices to management rather than allowing their company to fall behind the manufacturing curve. They are the voices of the consumer. Who better to represent the buying public than the autoworker? But, as I have seen in large corporate businesses, management rarely listens to employees.

Management had a responsibility to ask their employees and, better yet, ask the consumer what changes needed to be made to improve the company. I believe that both the autoworker and upper management dropped the ball on this. And I am not about to advocate that the taxpayer pick it up.

I do not support any legislation bailing out the auto industry.

Kim Oursler
Mission

For all those who think bailing out the Big Three is a bad idea, consider that in addition to the approximately 2.95 million people that will be added to the unemployment rolls, think about this: Approximately $21.1 billion in Social Security deposits will disappear, approximately $24.7 billion in income taxes will be lost, and an additional 2 million Americans will go without health care.

Al Rolls
Kansas City, Kan.

It seems appropriate that if Washington is going to bail out the Big Three automakers with taxpayer money, there should be guidelines set in place for them to follow.

Build the cars in the U.S. with hardworking American labor. We have plenty of idle assembly plants and an abundance of laid-off autoworkers.

Parts to assemble the automobiles should also be manufactured here in the U.S., creating even more jobs. Many of these parts-manufacturing places have been outsourced. Let’s bring them back.

With that accomplished, all the bailout money will stay here in this country and eventually find its way into the pockets of those who gave it in the first place — American taxpayers.

Can anyone disagree that there would be a tremendous amount of money and pride pumped back into the economy by just recovering our work, putting our skilled workers back on the assembly line and then, with pride, label it “Made in America?” I have to search long and hard to find that label anymore, a once valuable, sought-after identification piece that guaranteed the best, and there was no substitute. “Made in U.S.A.”

David Stegmaier
Shawnee

Last year, President Bush visited the local GM Fairfax plant. Many of my fellow workers rushed to shake his hand. Unfortunately, as they shook Bush’s hand, they did not see the knife he had in the other hand that he is now sinking into our backs by delaying loans to the American badge auto companies.

Could this be why the United Auto Workers does not generally support Republicans?

Mike Thomas
Lawson, Mo.

Comments

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

The economy will not recover under Obama, higher taxes on businesses, union thug mandates and more global spending will not stimulate anything. Explain how higher taxes on capital gains and mandating unionization is enterprise friendly? Who supplies more jobs government or private sector Mike?

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Those that believe they do not make a fair wage working under the UAW, should simply find another nob, start your own auto company or whatever. Little do these people understand just how much companies have to pay in payroll taxation, workers comp, etc to provide employment. What decides what is a fair wage? The market does.

[Sammy]

I don't get it Mike. If the UAW pay and benefits aren't that great, why keep working for them?

[Mike Thomas]

marc, as my posts says, I'm not for a blank check as it will not help. I'd rather keep working for my pay. Sadly, the economy will not recover until the republicans have quit pouting over Obama's victory....

[Marctnts]

"...that Bush was ready to push the auto loans through if Obama would get on the Colombia free trade band wagon."

Bush may have said he would GIVE HIS SUPPORT. It's up to congress to pass the bill, and like I said earlier, it's such a stinker with the public that neither party is going down that road unless they're sure that the other is following.

"They can help and pay us now or pay us later (unemployment, loss of tax base, ete.etc.)"

So, the question is not what is the right or proper role and action of government, it's when you are going to get yours. Maybe we should give cash to every business laying off people, after all, they'll get it anyway.

[Mike Thomas]

marc and cas.. alas some can't see the forest for the trees. We all read the same paper and one of the first leaks from the Obama-Bush meeting was that Bush was ready to push the auto loans through if Obama would get on the Colombia free trade band wagon. True politics in action.
In other words, as Bush often says, he's not interested in helping the auto business.
And I'm sure not for a blank check to them also, even if it puts me out of a job sooner than later. They can help and pay us now or pay us later (unemployment, loss of tax base, ete.etc.)
After all the talks, not much is being said about the union giving up anything as the union has pretty much given up a fortune already. If you're not in the know about that, time to get educated.
This $70 hour wage the media is quoting is a joke, even with benifits.
During the last contract, GM slid a paper in for us to agree to a $10,000 cap on yearly profit sharing. Amazingly enough, since they didn't get that, the NAO has been bleeding red ink.
GM's biggest sin in all of this: building what the American consumer wanted when gas was cheap.

[Casady]

Hey Marc.

I was thinking the same thing regarding Mike's comments on Bush (Mike as a frequent commentor on these issues, perhaps you can provide some addition insight behind your letter). I'm not sure exactly where Bush fits into all of this but he certainly shouldn't shoulder the blame. It seems that both the auto makers and the UAW refuse to take any responsibility for their current dillema. Besides, when you have the likes of GM hemoraging $8B in cash in September alone, I am really not sure how $25B between all three represents some kind of silver bullet.

[repete]

Bankruptcy or bailout? I vote bankruptcy. Bankruptcy, though a bad sign, does not equal collapse, so this doesn't automatically mean 3 million people out of work.

Auto makers don't buy American parts because they aren't a good value--the same reason so many people don't buy American cars.

[Marctnts]

BANKRUPTCY REORGANIZATION, people. This is the type of situation the statutes were designed for. The ability to renegotiate labor and vendor contracts, modify schedules, and come under the supervision of an independent conservators would probably do more for the ailing Big Three than a check for $25 billion and a promise "to do better".

The only argument I have heard against bankruptcy reorganization is that "people won't buy from a company in that situation". Don't you think the damage has already been done by all the dire predictions given by the CEO's?

[Marctnts]

"Unfortunately, as they shook Bush’s hand, they did not see the knife he had in the other hand that he is now sinking into our backs by delaying loans to the American badge auto companies."

I'll give ole' Mike one thing, at least he's consistent.

I would love to know how the UAW (or maybe just Mike) is pinning congress' lack of action on a bailout on Bush. Yeah, I get that he said they couldn't use the financial industry bailout for the automakers, but other than that, where do you get this kind of "bogeyman" mentality?

Face it, Mike. Just like the ill-conceived financial industry bailout, the automaker proposal is such a stinker with the American taxpayer that NEITHER party will go out on a limb for it without assurance that the other side will follow. I guess they figure it's okay to go against the will of a majority of the populace as long as you do it together.