Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid Want Henry Paulson To Use Bailout Money For Auto Industry

But who would the bailout really be for? The auto industry? Or the autoworker unions that are dragging the auto industry down?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to Paulson today saying the rescue bill gives him “broad discretion to purchase, or make commitments to purchase, financial instruments you determine necessary to restore financial-market stability.”
Pelosi was among the lawmakers who met two days ago with the chief executives of General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC. The three companies are seeking $50 billion in federal loans to help them weather the worst auto market in 25 years, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The letter increases pressure on the administration of George W. Bush to take action as he prepares to hand power to president-elect Barack Obama on Jan. 20. Obama said yesterday that policy options to help the industry will be a “high priority” for his transition team.
“A healthy automobile manufacturing sector is essential to the restoration of financial market stability, the overall health of our economy, and the livelihood of the automobile sector’s workforce,” Pelosi and Reid said in their letter.

Frankly, I think Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid don’t care a bit about Ford or General Motors. What they really care about are their political benefactors at the UAW who would be up a creek without a paddle if one or both of those companies failed.
Think about it. For the most part, foreign automakers aren’t unionized. Or, at least, they aren’t unionized here in America. If one of the major domestic automakers folds that means a whole lot of union autoworkers out of jobs and not paying dues. And that would put a serious crimp in the six-digit salaries union administrators are raking in, not to mention the millions those administrators spread around to liberal politicians and causes around the country.
Undoubtedly if a Ford or a General Motors were to fold another company, perhaps domestic, would rise to take their market share. But that company’s labor force is going to be harder for the UAW to unionize. The labor forces at Ford and GM were organized long, long ago. Under modern labor laws, which protect workers from thuggish organizers who bully them into joining the union, labor forces are much harder to organize.
And with union enrollment on the decline in America already, this isn’t something the UAW and other unions are going to tolerate. So they get their paid-off puppets in Congress (Reid, Pelosi, pretty much any other Democrat you can think of) to bail out the automakers so that they can continue to slouch along for another decade or two and, in turn, keep paying on the ridiculous labor contracts the UAW has foisted on them.

Tags:


«
»
  • http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

    Didn’t algore say cars are evil?

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

    Welcome to the socialist republic of the United States of AmeriKa

  • 2Hotel9

    Death to socialism.

  • di butler

    Let ‘em all die out like the dinosaurs they are. And the same goes for the big three.

  • john

    I think the best bailout package for the auto industry would be to give a final payoff to the UAW for them to go away-permanently. The auto industry then may have a chance to recover withtout the UAW ball & chain tied around their necks. It would eliminate many of the democrats funding for re-elections and other bribery purposes. This would fix a lot of things.

  • ollie-B

    As I have said in the past, I am against giving any financial assistance to the auto industry. The auto industry is highly unionized, as were many former industries that used to dominate the country, in order to make sure the employees were given a living wage in consideration of the huge salaries the CEO’s were making. GM, Ford and Chryler have failed the U.S. consumer. Why are we rewarding failure. Before a penny is spent on assisting these companies, finances should face extreme scrutinity. Let’s see how much the CEO’s and others in the higher echelon are making. I don’t think there is a law saying that a CEO is entitled to make $100 million a year.
    If the upper echelons are making exorbitant amounts of money then why don’t they forego that excess and put it into the company. Those against unionization always point to benefits and health care costs. I would dare to say that the salary paid (and the stock options given) to CEO’s and others could more than cover a large amount of benefits and health care costs. I say let them fall. People who really want to work and prosper, will pick up the pieces and start over with a new spirit of cooperation between management and employees. But we must get over the American propensity of a quick fix. We must have a plan based on a long term outlook for future prosperity.

  • 2Hotel9

    Was not the bailout all about people losing their homes? What happened to that?

  • WOOFX

    “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate”

    “It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people.”
    -Andrew W. Mellon, Sec treasury under Hoover

    Open a pitchfork and torch manufacturing factory.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development