Democrats Step Back From Big Three Bailout?

The media has been touting the story that Pelosi and Reid are playing tough with the Big Three after they jetted into Washington with their hands out.

Democrats in Congress offered only a glimmer of hope, saying they would reconsider a rescue if General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC submit convincing turnaround plans by Dec. 2.

“Until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat.

CNN chimed in as well, flattering Dems for their tough tone.

Obama adviser warns carmakers, urges swift stimulus

David Axelrod says without a clearly outlined plan, new administration will not support a ‘blank check’ for automakers; urges Congress to pass stimulus plan quickly.

Congress last week rebuffed appeals for help from executives from GM, Chrysler and Ford. Congressional leaders urged them to return next month with a specific reorganization plan that spelled out how much money they need and how they intended to remain financially viable.

How  tough are they really?  As Amanda Carpenter, points out, this is not so much tough talk but escaping responsibility.

So basically we have the situation where all of Washington’s Big Three players (Obama, Reid, Pelosi) are telling Detroit’s Big Three (GM, Ford, Chrylser) to come up with their own bailout package. This has the convenient effect of letting the Democrats escaping any responsibility for it.

But why does anybody, including those Democrats in Washington, think the auto companies would be good stewards of tax dollars? What reasonable person thinks they should be able to dictate their own terms of agreement after we’ve watched them squander millions upon billions of dollars? (After all, these are the people who think cutting back from five corporate jets to two shows signficant financial hardship!!)

Sadly, I think we all know the answer to these questions. It’s spelled U-A-W.

Democrats owe the unions big time.  They are the biggest,  but  not only, reason for the failure of the Big Three.  Their pay and benefits  put the automakers in a significant disadvantage price -wise.   They won’t accept any deal that cuts their benefits.  Democrats don’t want to do anything that would harm the unions.  They want a massive bailout but they know the public doesn’t want it, unless the problems of the automakers are addressed, such as union welfare.

Hence, the efforts to put the onus on the carmakers to come up with a plan.  When it fails, they will blame the corporate honchos.  This is a profile in cowardice.

Ed Morrisey points out another profile in cowardice, the UAW president.

The UAW chief, Rich Gettelfinger, has a courageous proposal to resolve the standoff:

In a news conference in Detroit, Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto Workers, said the Big Three CEOs should consider resigning if that would help win backing for a bailout.

Why doesn’t Gettelfinger offer his resignation as well? Why wouldn’t the UAW offer to help by restructuring its contracts with the Big Three, which shoulder far greater labor costs than its competitors, making them less competitive? It takes a big, big man to offer someone else’s resignation.

This whole episode has been a charade.  The media, the president-elect, the unions, and Congress have talked and talked about the need to do something but have refused to address the elephant in the room, the union contract that gives their workers and pensioners pay and benefits that are way beyond what the market  rate.

But don’t worry, liberals have an answer: unionize its competition!

But what if the UAW could more easily organize workers at Honda and Hyundai? UAW-represented workers at Honda and Hyundai could then bargain for higher wages.

The Employee Free Choice Act, passed by the House of Representatives last year, but stymied in the Senate, aims to make unionization easier by allowing workers to join a union by signing a card rather than by going through a secret-ballot election. The bill is called “card check” for short.

Yes, eliminate a long-cherished right to a secret ballot, enact the so-called “card check” and then Bruiser and The Chin can go from house to house and coerce all  the Toyota and Hyundai workers to sign even though they previously voted against unionizing.

A UAW ally, Rep. Tim Ryan, D- Ohio, said enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act “would level the playing field. Each facility would be competing on the same playing field.”

Yes, it would level the playing field.  Misery would be spread equally.  All autos would be overpriced or of lower quality,  not just GM, Ford, and Chrysler cars.  More jobs would disappear.  And eventually, the Big Three would be joined by Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai in requests for another bailout.  Why vote for a law that eliminates the secret ballot and would end up crippling even more of our economy?

The shrinkage of GM, partly due to competition from Honda, Hyundai, and other plants in Alabama and other states, has decimated the UAW.   And, of course, there’s a political aspect to this: the UAW has long been a bastion of strength for the Democrats.  The UAW’s political action committee spent $11.5 million to help Democratic candidates this year.  The UAW’s political clout will wane as its membership does. The UAW hit a peak of 1.5 million members in 1979, but declined to about 460,000 at the end of 2007. “In Flint, we used to have 80,000 GM employees now we have about 18,000,” Kildee noted.

Change you can believe in!