by Frank James
The White House is trying to shift blame to congressional Democrats if the auto industry doesn't get the financial bailout it's seeking, saying Democrats appear unwilling to loosen restrictions on $25 billion that's already been approved to help the industry retool to make their vehicles more fuel efficient.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, reflected that view in an exchange with a reporter today:
PERINO: Well, Senator Reid (the Senate majority leader) appeared to foreshadow this morning that the Congress will fail to address this issue before they leave. And I'd like to just make a few points clear on that. One, there is legislation that's being introduced by Senators Bond and Voinovich that the administration supports. That proposal would redirect existing funds already appropriated for the auto industry, rather than spending an additional $25 billion on top of the $25 billion we already support using, as we've said over the last few days.
That proposal of theirs would not rob the Treasury program of much needed funds to help save and strengthen the financial system. The purpose of the $700 billion was clearly intended for financial institutions, and we wanted to keep that whole.
The Bond-Voinovich amendment would require that the auto manufacturers make the hard choices necessary to become financially viable. The Reid proposal does not. And we think that is a key difference. There's a difference between restructuring a loan for viability and just an out and out bailout. And we think that that is something that the American people would not want. We think that the American taxpayer dollars should go to firms that can prove long-term viability. And there's some hard decisions that they're going to have to make in order to get there.
We believe that the Bond-Voinovich amendment would have bipartisan support if Senator Reid would allow it to come to a vote. And we are extremely concerned that he may not even be willing to allow a vote on such a proposal. It's hard to imagine that the U.S. industry -- auto industry, in it's current condition, that Senator Reid would just go home and unilaterally decide that they don't need to have a vote on something that actually could be supported for manufacturers that have a plan to become financially viable.
Senator Reid said this morning that if the Senate fails to act, he would hope that Secretary Paulson would just go ahead and use the TARP money. There's no appetite for that, and Secretary Paulson discussed that yesterday with members of Congress.
If the Congress fails to act, the most logical interpretation would be that they don't agree than an additional $25 billion needs to be given to the auto industry. And therefore we would hope that they would look at this bipartisan solution of using the $25 billion that's already been agreed to, authorized, and appropriated, and is there for the taking.
We support the Bond-Voinovich amendment. What we are concerned about is that Congress could leave without acting on it. And if Congress leaves for a two month vacation without having addressed this important issue, and especially if the Senate leaves without Senator Reid even allowing a vote on this amendment, then the Congress will bear responsibility for anything that happens in the next couple of months during their long vacation.
Q So you take issue then with what Reid said -- you were obviously quoting in there, but he says, well, if they're not able to work things out, he says, "It will still be up to the White House and the Treasury Department." So he's trying to say, no, you're going to be the ones to blame.
MS. PERINO: Look, I think if they don't act, what is clear is that they don't agree that there needs to be an additional $25 billion for the auto industry. And if he doesn't even allow a vote on it, it hardly seems that it would be our fault.
Q What if they come back, though? There's been reports they might come back after Thanksgiving.
MS. PERINO: I think you'd have to ask them. I don't think that they have indicated that they would come back. Now if Congress doesn't act on the proposal that the President can sign and a firm faces imminent failure, then we would expect that the Congress would want to come back. But they've certainly not said that they would. And I don't think that that would be necessary. We have a bipartisan solution that could be voted on if they would just allow a vote. And let's see how that goes. And if it doesn't pass, well, then we'd have even more clarity as to where everybody stands.
Q How come you didn't put as many caveats on Wall Street in viability in terms of $700 billion?
MS. PERINO: I'll disagree and say that there is. The firms that we have invested in are ones that we think will hopefully make the taxpayers whole, or even make the taxpayers money in the long run. And there are executive compensation limits on the firms, and a whole list of things that they have to agree to. And part of it is that they have to pay back the taxpayers, and they have to pay them back first. And so that is one of the limits we've put on them.
Comments
It never ceases to amaze me, every time, this President opens his mouth, another distortion flies out, our another falsehood. So, I have actually learned how to understand his pronouncements. What ever he declares, I always reverse it. So, when he claims the Democrats are at fault for the Big 3, not getting any help, than I know, he really means, that it is the Bush administration that has failed the Auto industry, and in turn, America. That is obvious, just look at the last 8 years, which are littered with his failures, to act, to tell the truth and to do things for the nation, as a whole !!! Now, he expects us to accept his nonsensical announcements. He should have taken the hint, after, his policies, in the form of the McCain-Palin ticket, took such a drubbing, in the latest election. Can we expect anything less, from a C student from Harvard and Yale ?? Those, much-vaunted institutions of elite education !! It sure pays to have a rich and powerful Daddy, doesn't it !! Come on Georgie, pack them bags and vacate the premises, your 15 minutes are up !!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | November 19, 2008 3:35 PM
Same old finger pointing by George Bush.
The behavior of the market looks like there will be some bailout money going to Citigroup. Their stock is getting pretty close to worthless. And the rest of the market has plenty of indigestion.
Posted by: Ron M | November 19, 2008 3:46 PM
Ron M,
Yeah, Citigroup is tanking, so what do they use the bailout money for? Mergers, among other things. Unbelievable. Paulson should use the Brit model and put serious strings on everything. These crooks haven't learned a thing.
Posted by: dt | November 19, 2008 4:01 PM
Chrylser needs to be allowed to fail - we have too many auto makers. Ford will likely make it, but GM needs to declare bankruptcy, be reorganized, and the UAW needs to not be allowed to call the shots. Toyota and Honda aren't winning just because of innovation - they're winning because their union workers have not been allowed to run the show. The UAW doesn't need to make concessions - they need to be locked out completely.
Posted by: Rachel | November 19, 2008 4:05 PM
The auto makers do not deserve a bailout The CEO of GM rode his private plane to Washington at a coast of 20000 dollars. Whats wrong with this picture
Posted by: bioll van | November 19, 2008 4:05 PM
Thankfully, Boehner, and Cantor are here to show the "new" change in the republican party. The same party now complaining about Obamas choices have choosen again, the same partisan hacks who will continue the division of America...congrats republicans...
Posted by: bill r. | November 19, 2008 4:08 PM
Im curious as to how many people howling for the govt to hand over money to the auto industry are driving honda's, toyota's ,etc....I'm just sayin'
Posted by: sean | November 19, 2008 4:23 PM
Typical of the past 8 years. W to Congress: Do it my way or else I will veto it andit will not get done.
Posted by: Chicago Terry | November 19, 2008 4:27 PM
Sean, it's also curious that the same people who have put shackles on the U.S. auto industry to succeed and thrive are the same ones looking for a bailout. $25 BILLION already has been set aside for the auto industry. That is more money than those companies are worth. If they are to get more, then the UAW needs to make concessions just as the airline unions made concessons so the U.S. airlines could survive.
Posted by: John D | November 19, 2008 4:33 PM
How about we blame President Bush and his compliant Democrats and Republicans in Congress if the auto bailout goes through? If the Democrats are blocking it, I applaud them for doing so (regardless of why). I would be ashamed that the President supports this, and I would be ahsamed of any Republican in Congress that supports it - just as I am of anyone who supported the Wall Street bailout. It's all a lot of large scale insanity and folly.
Posted by: John W. | November 19, 2008 4:49 PM
Let's see, the Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress for two years now but it would be Bush's fault if they can't pass a bailout? I guess the best part about Obama's win is that any problems after January will be entirely on the Democrats. You can't blame Bush anymore.
Posted by: VivianC | November 19, 2008 5:04 PM
You're one of those fuzzy thinkers, who is blaming former President Clinton for President-elect Obama's resounding victory over the Ticket to Nowhere, sponsored by the Incompetent One, President Bush. Maybe, you, the Bush-McCain Republicans, will quit blaming former President Clinton for anything, by the year 2050 !! Probably not, though, it's your kind that always needs a scapegoat, you can never accept responsibility for your own incompetence !! Go, blame it on, former President Clinton !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | November 19, 2008 7:45 PM
John D.--What the f%$# do you know about the airline business? My brother worked for Delta for 36 years, had to take four pay cuts, had health insurance slashed, lost half his pension, while execs ran off with their golden parachutes. BTW, the pilots have a union, most Delta employees don't. Blame it all on the unions, jerk!
Posted by: dt | November 19, 2008 8:14 PM
The auto companies have known for years about Kia's, etc. warranties. There's an ad in my local paper for a 2008 Pontiac G6 FOR $13, 000...IT SOUNDS GOOD, BUT WHAT KIND OF WARRANTY DO THEY HAVE??? IF AMERICAN-MADE CARS ARE MADE SO WELL, WHERE'S THE WARRANTY THAT'S COMPARABLE TO KIA'S 100,000 MILE WARRANTY????
Posted by: Dawson | November 19, 2008 8:39 PM
FITZ,
If the Big 3 is such a great investment - go down and plunk some of your hard earned money on the table and buy some stock.
I don't see Buffet out there buying GM or Ford stock and he could buy 100% of both companies w/o breaking a sweat. Since BO gets all his financial advice from Buffet, I would guess this isn't a good investment.
Posted by: Terry | November 19, 2008 9:39 PM
The potential bail out of the auto makers presents legitimate ethical problems - no one wants to reward inefficiency - but the CEO's claim the problem is a result of general economic conditions. This is their opportunity to break the United Auto Workers by declaring bankruptcy - but they do not appear to relish that role. ..
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/11/19/detroit-bailout-an-ethical-conundrum/
Posted by: Ohg Rea Tone | November 19, 2008 9:58 PM
Let's see, the Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress for two years now but it would be Bush's fault
Posted by: VivianC | November 19, 2008 5:04 PM
Lets explain one thing once and for all to all of you "Real Americans" out there that don't seem to know anything about how our government runs.
FIrst of all. The Democrats have not had control over both houses of Congress the past two years! While they are the majority they do not have the 60 seats to have total control. So please Vivian and the rest of you wing nuts out there - Stop using that same old excuse! Besides, most educated people out there, know it's inaccurate rhetoric.
And secondly, if Bush veto's this bill it is he who is to blame and nobody else.
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | November 19, 2008 10:27 PM
Say Hey! The neo-cons have bailed out their base on wall street, which was caused by greed, corruption, and lack of regulation. Why in the hell would they be interested in bailing out the auto industry. I say take 25 billion out of the 350 billion that is still on the books for the financial's and loan it to the big three. Bunning and Boner don't want the competition for their toyota plants that are and have been subsidized by Japan for decades. Do we still have time to impeach Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney? whiteagle38
Posted by: R. Juneau | November 19, 2008 10:28 PM
My neighbor recently said that canines have no memory. To illustrate his point, he said, "Think about it like this. Every time a dog blinks it's like a whole new day for the dog who has no awareness of what happened before." Now, I personally do not believe this of dogs. I have observed too many instances where dogs have very long memories. On the other hand, it seems like every time Bush blames somebody, ANYBODY, especially the Democrats, it is like he is unaware of what he did himself the day before to contribute to or cause the problem. Is that an example of what my friend meant?
Posted by: Julian Lev | November 20, 2008 12:18 AM
Let's see, dt call me a jerk and the Tribune Pick-and-Choose Censors let that through. I note how Eric Holder also was involved in the coverup of various Clinton scandals such as the Chinese Campaign Donations and FBI Files in the White House, and the Tribune Pick-and-Choose Censors don't let that go through.
Anyway, "dt" I was not blaming the unions. Regarding Delta or the airlines in general, you say most airline employees don't have a union, all the while you criticize me about what I do or do not know about the airline industry. So, dt. you gonna tell me the flight attendants aren't unionized? What about the mechanics? The luggage handlers? Sorry, dt, but they are all unionized. And, as far as I know, most airline executives have been taking pay cuts just as the union employees have too.
Also, dt. I was noting that if the U.S. automakers are to survive then the auto unions will have to make concessions just as the airline unions made concessions to keep the airlines in business. Not knocking the unions, dt. just pointing out that the airline unions gave concessions to keep their companies in business. If the U.S. automakers are to stay in business, then ALL the employees will have to make sacrifices. U.S. taxpayers cannot be throwing money down the drain if the current business models do not work. Ford, GM and Chrysler cannot stay competitive when they have to pay an average of $75 an hour per union worker while Toyota, Nissan and the rest pay an average of $45 an hour per nonunion worker.
Posted by: John D | November 20, 2008 9:41 AM
I sure wish people who choose to pontificate, knew what they were talking about. The unions in the Auto Industry have made enormous concessions, if people would just do a little homework before firing their blanks!! Check out the two-tiered wage scale the unions introduced in the 2007 contract and placing retiree health care liability into a trust managed by the UAW. You may be surprised, and pleased, with what they gave up and what the CEOs and their team, didn't give up !!! These are concessions that the UAW has committed to, already. Do you think we can have the Executive Officers crew, give up their Lear jets !!? I sure hope so !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | November 20, 2008 10:41 AM
* * * * *
Posted by: R. Juneau | November 19, 2008 10:28 PM
.
I question your premise that it was the "neo-cons" who bailed out their base on Wall Street. I agree that Bush, neo-con numero uno, proposed the bailout. But he didn't have the power to spend a dime of federal money for it. Only Congress could authorize the bailout. And guess who voted in favor of it? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Senate and House leader, respectively, strongly backed the measure. Accordingly, more Democrats voted for the bailout than their Republican counterparts. More Republicans voted against it than their opposite number. So, tell me again: Who bailed out Wall Street?
Posted by: John W. | November 20, 2008 2:11 PM
We spend millions TRYING to put drug dealers out of business. As soon as we take one out another pops up. Why?...Demand.
My simple question is this…why would letting the Big 3 file bankruptcy and reorganize be such a bad thing. They will reorganize and continue to fullfill the demand of the consumer. (when demand returns).
I vote we let them file bankruptcy and reorganize. We should give the money to PEOPLE impacted NOT to companies that are miss managed and can't control costs.
Posted by: D. White | November 20, 2008 9:55 PM