Why Are Congressional Democrats Giving in to Bush on the Auto Bailout?

It is a sad day for Democrats. And I'm not even talking about the unbelievable and despicable acts of corruption committed by the hare-brained and silly-haired governor of Illinois. (Although every Democrat should stand up and call for his immediate impeachment if he refuses to resign.) No, I am referring to the Democrats completely caving in to George W. Bush on the auto bailout.

You would think that winning the White House and overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress would instill some backbone into Democrats on Capitol Hill. You would, of course, be wrong.

Consider this passage from a Yahoo/AP story on the bailout negotiations:

"One potential stumbling block remained. Democrats' were still refusing to scrap language, vehemently opposed by the White House, that would force the car manufacturers to drop lawsuits challenging tough emissions limits in California and other states.

That measure "kills the deal," said Dan Meyer, Bush's top lobbyist.

Senior Democratic aides acknowledged as much Tuesday and said they expected the provision to be dropped."

So let me get this straight: Bush, with his 29 percent approval rating, has the nerve to try and dictate to the Democrats, who just won convincing victories in last month's elections, what the terms of the bailout should be, and the result is ... the Democrats acceding to Bush's demands?

Why? And how? How can the Democrats allow this to happen?

Bush wanted the bailout money to come from previously approved funds that were intended to help the automakers modernize their operations to produce greener cars, while the Democrats wanted the money to come from the $700 billion bank bailout allocations. Even though Detroit's survival is directly pegged to the companies developing the next generation of green vehicles (they have already failed in the market in developing cars consumers want to buy now), the Democrats caved.

Bush then wanted to appoint the so-called "car czar" to oversee the auto bailout money, without the Democrat-controlled Senate having the power to confirm the pick, even though Bush's term ends in a month and a half and, again, the public voted for a Democratic president and increases in the Democratic majorities in Congress. Not to mention that Bush's rhetoric has emphasized busting union contracts over the automakers making energy-efficient cars. And with all this in the hopper, what do the Democrats do? They cave, and Bush gets to pick the car czar.

But the real kick in the butt, the thing that absolutely demonstrates that congressional Democrats have no intestinal fortitude, is the issue quoted above, the requirement that the automakers drop lawsuits over emission standards.

Isn't the whole point of the bailout to let the American car companies survive so that they can make the next generation of energy-efficient cars? So why should they be allowed to fight emission standards? It should be a basic, rock-solid premise of the bailout that the automakers will be full partners in the energy policy of this country that will be seek to end dependence on foreign oil and build a green economy that will both revitalize the economy and help in the battle against global warming. By not agreeing to drop the fight over emission standards, the car companies are demonstrating loudly and clearly that they have no intention of really changing. And if that's true, they shouldn't get a penny of public money.

I just don't understand why the Democrats in Congress are caving so easily. And not just because their electoral success and Bush's all-time-low approval ratings put the party in a position of strength. What I really don't get is what the hammer is that is causing them to crumble. What is the "or else"? The answer you will hear is, "If we don't get money to General Motors and Chrysler, they will go into bankruptcy, and millions of Americans will lose their jobs." But if the party is truly looking out for the workers, why are they allowing Bush to demonize the union contracts? And, more importantly, the future of American auto workers depends on a viable industry emerging from this mess. That will not happen if money is handed to the companies so they can just continue their "business as usual" approach, one that has failed miserably and brought them to near extinction.

The Democrats in Congress should stand up and say the party supports a bailout, but only if it leads to a restructured, environmentally friendly, energy-intelligent, viable American auto industry. The deal the Democrats are striking with Bush doesn't do any of that, and congressional leaders should be strong enough to say that they won't support legislation that won't work. After all, in less than six weeks, the party will control the White House and enjoy large majorities in Congress.

By taking such an incomprehensibly weak position, the Democrats are ceding the high ground to their Republican rivals. In the Yahoo/AP article, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the proposed deal "fails to require the kind of serious reform that will ensure long-term viability for struggling automobile companies." Sadly, he's right, even if he is making the statement for the wrong reasons. By caving on the emission standards and taking the money from a fund meant to modernize the automakers' operations, the Democrats are supporting a plan that does nothing to force the car manufacturers to make more energy-efficient cars.

And there is no evidence that Detroit really understands the need to change how they do business. Thomas Friedman wrote today in his New York Times column that General Motors passed on a revolutionary new electric car plan (believe it or not, a good analogy is to the iPod and iTunes store), developed by an American company, that is about to be rolled out for testing in several countries, and that has the support of Honda, Mitsubishi and Subaru. The current management of GM just doesn't get it.

The bottom line is that the three U.S. automakers have such a failed business model, they do not deserve federal assistance. If the government is going to intervene to save American jobs, then any plan should insist that the Big Three radically change their business models. General Motors, Chrysler and Ford do not seem to want to do that, and Bush is fine with letting them go along as they are (after all, Bush is a friend to the oil companies and no help in helping to combat the effects of global warming). It is the Democrats' place to step in and have the strength to say that if the automakers want taxpayer money, they have to make changes.

But the Democrats in Congress are not acting with strength. They are behaving as if they have no power and no options. And there is no reason for it. They are battling an unpopular president whose failed administration will be swept into the dustbin of history in 41 days, and yet they are losing the fight. From the behavior of congressional Democrats, you would think that John McCain was taking the oath of office on January 20.

As damaging to the party's reputation as Rod Blagojevich's corrupt antics are, his crimes are still the acts of one man. Far more damaging to the Democrats is the inability of leaders in Congress to stand up to a lame duck president and to allow $15 billion of taxpayer money to be handed to companies that have shown nothing but arrogance and incompetence. Everyone said that Barack Obama would have to face many difficult challenges in the early days of his presidency. Sadly, one of the biggest might be the weakness and ineffectiveness of his fellow Democrats in Congress.

Read More:

Should the Government Bail Out the Big Three U.S. Automakers? HuffPost Bloggers Weigh In

Comments

[Artos]

All it take is us calling these guys and complaining loudly and longly. Eventually even a rock will roll over from the vibration of sound.

[Artos]

I have contacted the UAW and offered this bit of advice. That they should tell Republican Senators that when they are willing to take a cut in their pay and part with all of the perks they get then perhaps they will do likewise. In the meantime they should march on Washington in tandem with other Unions and whatever citizens are willing to help them and Protest in front of Congress. They should do so until these idiot Republicans relent. The Unions should make a point of shoving into the Republicans faces the fact that they were willing to help Wall Street which in turn helped the Republicans allies in the Corporations. This strikes me as a form of Class warfare when Republicans help the Upper class and non union Finance but won't help organizations that are Union based. The Republicans continually show and prove their bias and animosity against ordinary people.

[Artos]

It's not all of the Democrats who are wusses, only their Leadership. The other problem is the Blue Dogs who are nothing but Republican wolves in sheeps clothing. In addition they do nothing but help create a bloc inside of the Democratic Party that works against it's interests. Get rid of them, Pelosi and Reid, then the Democrats might have a better chance of getting things done. At least that would be my hope.

[billw8017]

The Democrats are attempting to benefit the country and have been willing to work with Republicans on the country's behalf. It is their greater recklessness in the pursuit of partisan advantage that gives Republicans the edge against the Democrats. As we talk of Democratic spinelessness, we might consider how far we should go. Bear in mind that the Padilla and Hamdi cases show that the administration is willing to hold American citizens in perpetual confinement without charges and torture them. It is not altogether hysterical to suggest violent rebellion and martial law cannot be far behind. People do think about such things. During the Nixon impeachment, his Secretary of Defense, fearing that Nixon might turn the army against Congress, issued orders that no Presidential commands would be valid without clearance from the Secretary.

On January 20th 2009, Barack Obama assumes the Presidency. The trick is to get through the next month, and, maybe, do as much as allowed to fight the recession. Frankly, I think the Democrats are operating heroically against heavy resistance.

[billw8017]

Heavy resistance. The most of the judiciary, all the US Attorneys, a very partisan Supreme Court, the President and executive department appointees, 49 of the 100 Senators. Against this we offer 49 Democratic Senators (one with a brain tumor) and two independents (one Joe Lieberman). and a substantially Democratic House. The House delivers but into a morass.

[iluvcodandwhitepointers]

Good article. Millions of jobs. What that does not say is that it is manufacturing jobs . The USA like Australasia is a service industry based society with employment at 80 percent related to service industry. The manufacturing industry recquires or gives 200 service industry jobs for every one manufaqcturing job. So on that basis USA workers are already servicing overseas industry. Whats new in that. Why slave over a hot smelter or Taylorised factory floor when you can work at Microsoft spreadsheet and drink coffee. Why waste energy and risk ones money being creative in the manufacturing and business world tied to that when the central planned economy shop can provide all and all supplied from overseas. Hell says David Letterman thsi week- the baseball striker got 140 million dollar paypacket-- at least heas a known -- not like Lehmanns lot and their 670 billion handout to themselves [ sorry your super just disappeared ] -- but hold on --lets say 100 strikers gave their wage packets --that would be 14 usa billion [ ie 9 noughts not twelve] -- wouldnt they be the 100 saits-- but no thats a waste surely-- the money hand a outers have other plans-- you work better if you have sport-- But then work-- what work-- what economy -- what tank engine or Ford Finance or Dalgetys sales of Texas - Hell China will employ us all -- at present rates of course -- wont it

[rnadna]

Democrats and Non-repubs unite! Stop buying cars made in the South! Heck, lets all stop buying Foreign!

To have southern senators thumb their noses at AMERICAN industry, and create another 10 million lay-offs, and all with repub support, I say, a POX on all their heads!

BUY AMERICAN! Buy FORD, GM, CHRYSLER!

To think these low-lifes dare to wear American Flag pins on their laples! Sanctomonius hypocrits!

[Artos]

rnadna,

While I support American Industry and the Automobile Industry I do not plan to buy their vehicles anytime soon, until they do start building cars we want and not what they dictate to us what we want. The fault for this does not lay in how the workers perform but in the attitude of those in Management. They wanted us to buy bigger, bigger and bigger to our detriment. The Housing industry is the same way. All of this is perpetuated by their greed. Let them give us quality cars that don't put us into perpetual servitude. We are fortunate that Fuel prices have gone done again, at least for now, but there is certainly no guarantee that that will last. We should make sure we all learn a good lesson from this last years experience and not put ourselves into the same bind in the future. We need a Cooperative Automobile Industry to help in that regard.

[rnadna]

The Auto Bailout has failed! Again, the repubs are at it!

Those 35 Senators who voted against this - most from the south - remember them! Their time in power is limited!

To not care about American Industry and possibly 10 Million jobs is monstrous! Crass! And downright stupid!

Watch the market tomorrow!

[noniel]

If, as the Republicans want the workers to have wages commensurate with the Japanese car companies, then I suggest that the CEOs get paid the same way - $1 million a year, with their henchmen being paid less, which is only right with the boss's salary.

By the way, is there any kind of stipulation in these plans that the jobs we save stay in the United States? I get the impression that there isn't!

Also, while I admit that the US auto companies must be bailed out - for the people they emply alone - but why is it that Ceberus - who has billions of dollars in their vaults - not being asked to throw in some of their own money? Why should we, the taxpayers be asked to kick in money to save them? They'll just take the money and run. Look what happened to Mervyns! I know, I know! John Snow is the alum of the Treasury job now being held by that financial genius, Hank Paulson!

Also do we think that anyone is ever going to require as much foversight and insistence on new business plans rom our friendly bankers!? It's probably too late for that. They just get to sit on the money or buy smaller, competitive banks! Geez!

[berrycooda]

Maybe this is what they really wanted but didn't have the nerve to not put it through.

This way the Pres. can get the blame if it all turns negative.

Anyway, let them do a chapter 11.....reorganize....or sell GM and Chrysler.....

Let someone else run the company. They don't need to close down...just move along...
and let somebody take it who won't be trying to send the work overseas and blaming it on
the American workers.

[goodspeed]

Ya kinda missed the point.

The whole idea is to turn the auto industry around not only to change their business model, but also to start producing vehicles that are more efficient and even maybe all electric.

And at the same time not bust the unions and have those workers lose what ever American dream they've built, or allow the big three to continue to fight against higher fuel efficient standards and flip off the public at the same time

There is no time to play games like "blame it on Bush if it fails". He is a joke and everyone already knows that, so lets not play politics GOP style anymore.

For once there is a chance to something positive, instead of eight years of #@!% crap.

[ageless]

Also has anyone heard of the AMERO? Better start looking and checking on it.

[ageless]

You asked what the "or else?" Bush is using the threat that he used to get the $700B.
It goes like this, YOU DO THIS OR I DECLARE MARTIAL LAW!
He has 41 days to do it.

[odb414]

While agree that the big 3 should have been doing more to develop efficient vehicles, I also agree that they are in need of some economic assistance from the taxpayers? Why? Because we're to blame! Look around your neighborhood and count the Suburbans with soccer ball stickers on them. The American people's appetite for SUVs was insatiable as little as 2 years ago. A big summer hike in gas prices and we're all screaming "Why aren't you building fuel efficient cars?!" The big 3 have already started developing more fuel efficient cars, but you can't just halt production on everything and start cranking out new fleets without a trasistion period. We as a society are quick to point fingers and jump on bandwagons (as evidenced by how we go into the Iraq quagmire in the first place), but slow to stop and ask ourselves "How did we contribute to this problem?"

[goldenrulejoe]

speak for yourself I did not contribute to this problem and also this article is about democrats caving in to bush yet again! I am starting to wonder if all of our hard work getting the dems in will be for nothing ?

[HillbillyBob]

It is about saving the car companies And the unions, the rps hate unions.
I have lived in the South (Nazibama, Florida and NC) all are so called right to work states.
It really means the right to fire you any time for any reason, real or imagined.
I cannot understand why the dems are caving?
I have been saying for years if American cars would hold up. We have a 10 year old Dodge Dakota and several things have gone wrong , one the gear shif knob broke off, now that would not be a problem normally, but the button for the overdrive was in it. It was still under warranty they wanted charge me $600+ to fix it. The heater fan has died and to change it you have to tear out the entire dash, it only got 15 ,[g when we got it. Turned out to be a manufacturers defect that no less than 5 Dodge dealers did not find. Finally in a mechanic at Merchants tires found the problem a solenoid in the transmissio, it showed up on the code reader, that every Dodge dealer used the same code reader and did not find. It cost 2,000 to replace the entire transmission. I put a K&N air filter and put a free flow air tube on it and a transmission cooler too. it gets 22 mpg now.

[Kyllein]

While as a native Californian I like clean air, some of my state's requirements on emissions controls could lead to either the old "California Model/49 state models" again, or might just price cars out of the reach of people with average incomes.
Never mind that California mandates a known Carcinogen as a gas additive, if we are to make any real progress in clearing the air, we need National Clean-AIr standards; not single state demands that add hundreds of dollars to cars sold here.
The net effect of California's draconian smog requirements is that old dirty cars stay on the roads longer and make more pollution than what the Federal Government now requires nation wide. It is just possible that automakers might decide that California isn't a big enough market to merit the extra expense, and not sell anything new here for a few years. It isn't like the dealers are out of last years models yet.

[killerB]

I've been a democrat for 60 years, and as each year goes by, they become more gutless and tend to increase and refine their repulican ass kissing techniques.
The ONLY reason we will be in the White House in January, is because the Bush administration
screwed up this country beyond what ANYONE could have imagined.

[gabemill]

As Will Rogers used to say: "I'm not a member of any organized political party....I'm a Democrat."
Having exhibited the overwhelming propensity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory over the years, the time has come for Dems to make a stand.
It is LONG overdue!