THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume X, Issue # 323, December 9, 2008
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
BANKRUPTCY BEST REMEDY FOR BIG THREE
By Brad O'Leary
BANKRUPTCY, RATHER THAN A GOVERNMENT BAILOUT, OFFERS THE BEST REMEDY FOR AMERICAN TAXPAYERS & THE
U.S. AUTOMAKERS. FILING FOR CHAPTER 11 PROTECTION WOULD ALLOW THE AUTOMAKERS TO RESTRUCTURE
THEIR COMPANIES, USHER IN NEW LEADERSHIP, RENEGOTIATE A MORE AFFORDABLE LABOR CONTRACT, ADDRESS THE
PROBLEM OF UNSUSTAINABLE PENSION PROGRAMS, & SCALE BACK CONSIDERABLY QUESTIONABLE PERKS FOR SENIOR
EXECUTIVES & RETIREES
FULL STORY:
The people have spoken and the proposed bailout for Detroit automakers is enormously unpopular.
According to a just-released ATI-News/Zogby poll, 62 percent of American voters are opposed to a bailout for the
automakers, compared to only 26 percent who approve of a bailout (the rest are unsure). And most surprisingly, the
poll found that 58 percent of self-declared union members think Congress ought to deny the automakers a bailout,
while only 30 percent approve (the rest are unsure). American union members oppose a bailout by a nearly two to
one margin.
In addition, 69 percent of independent voters oppose a bailout, as do 43 percent of those who voted for Obama (41
percent of Obama voters favor a bailout, and 16 percent are undecided).
This poll can be compared to a bank asking their stockholders to act as a loan committee to determine if a company
should receive a loan. Americans know that the companies they would be loaning the money to could very easily
declare bankruptcy, and if they did, under bankruptcy rules, the loan money would never be returned.
Of course, the poll question wasn’t framed in this way, but had it been, the scant 26 percent who approve of the
bailout may very well have second thoughts. Especially if they knew that current bond holders who had loaned these
companies money in the past sold their bonds for a measly 30 cents on the dollar. The current bailout “loan” under
consideration is worth even less and is certainly more risky.
The ATI-News/Zogby poll also found that 63 percent of Americans who pay federal income taxes (as opposed to
those who are not required to pay) are against the bailout, and only 25 percent are in favor of it. This means that, if
Congress decides to bailout the Big Three, it will be a direct contradiction to the wishes of the clear majority of those
Americans who would be forced to foot the bill. Even 60 percent of Americans who are exempt from paying federal
income taxes oppose the bailout, while only 28 percent are in favor.
In addition, Republicans oppose the bailout 81 percent to 9 percent, while the poll found Democrats are roughly split
on the issue, as 41 percent oppose and 43 percent are in favor. Self-described “Liberals” are also split, as 40 percent
oppose the bailout and 42 percent favor it. Moderates oppose the bailout by a 55 percent to 32 percent margin, and
Conservatives resoundingly oppose it 85 percent to 7 percent.
Despite this overwhelming opposition, Democratic congressional leaders and Republican administration backers got
together over the weekend and, in an about-face, decided to buck the views of American union members, Republicans,
and Conservatives by giving a cash loan of $14 billion to General Motors – a company on the verge of bankruptcy.
They also decided to give an additional $4 billion to Chrysler. Left out is Ford, which appears not to be in such dire
straits. The goal here seems to be to keep GM alive just long enough to dump the problem into the lap of the incoming
Obama administration.
Apparently, Congress and the Bush administration had a change of heart because of a series of fantasy plans
submitted to them by GM. The plans read as follows:
GM Fantasy Plan #1: GM arbitrarily changed its projection of achieving a 20.6 percent automobile market share for 2009,
to 22.5 percent. This, of course, is predicated on Congress giving them more money to lose, and ignores the fact that
most GM vehicles are among the worst in resale value and Americans won’t increase their purchase of them until they
drastically improve.
GM Fantasy Plan #2: GM says it will cut their fixed costs, which, over the last five years, have fluctuated between 30 to
35 percent, to 25 percent. This would be quite a feat, especially considering GM submitted no details about how they
will accomplish this.
GM Fantasy Plan #3: GM says it will reduce its number of brands from eight to five by 2010. This means GM would still
be carrying two more brands than most experts think it should, if it wants to achieve profitability. It is also doubtful that
GM could get past certain state laws that prohibit this cutback.
GM Fantasy Plan #4: GM says it will reduce its number of dealers to 4,700 – down from 7,500. This would still leave them
with 3,000 more dealers than Toyota needs to sell the same number of vehicles.
GM Fantasy Plan #5: GM says its new “Volt” car, which would run exclusively on electricity, will go into production in
2010 and be a game changer, replacing its previous game changer, the hydrogen-powered “Sequel,” which was
introduced as a concept car in 2006. (After reading this report, there is no doubt that, somewhere in the bowels of GM,
there is a team of researchers working on a new game changer – a car called “The Fantasy,” which will run on pure
rhetoric.) Of course, GM’s Japanese competitors have traditionally cornered the market on game changers, and
considering Toyota is also planning to produce an all-electric car in 2010, this trend is likely to continue.
GM Fantasy Plan #6: GM says it will magically reduce its debt from $62 billion to $30 billion by 2009 without expending
money or assets, and without an actual plan for doing so. If GM can pull this off, perhaps they can also help reduce the
$750 billion Wall Street bailout to $300 billion.
Apparently, congressional leaders wanted GM to submit a plan, but they had no intention of actually reading it. Were
they to actually read GM’s fantasy plan, they would realize that a bailout is not the answer.
Bankruptcy, on the other hand, offers the best remedy for American taxpayers and the automakers. Filing for Chapter 11
protection would allow the automakers to restructure their companies, usher in new leadership, and begin to climb out of
the very deep hole they have dug for themselves over the years.
How do they dig out of that hole? First and foremost, the Big Three must at least renegotiate a more affordable labor
contract, and this can only happen in bankruptcy.
GM must also address its unsustainable pension program. Its current pension obligation is $85 billion. The automaker
has three times as many retirees as it does active workers and will be paying its retirees roughly $7 billion per year for the
next 10 years.
Furthermore, questionable perks for senior executives and retirees need to be scaled back considerably. For example,
executives at GM receive a new vehicle every four years, which is taxed as income by the IRS – but not to worry, GM
reimburses them for the amount taxed. GM also covers the cost of their residential security systems, golf club
memberships, chauffeured vehicles, and private aircraft. All of this, plus bonuses and stock benefits, as a reward for
losing $39 billion a year.
Why not suspend all raises, bonuses, and perks for senior, mid-level, and lower-level management until the company
actually turns a profit? If labor can reduce their perks, so can management.
American taxpayers object to the bailout for good reason, as history has taught them an important lesson. In the 1970s,
Leland Motors, a British car company, was going through bad management, a bad economy, and a bad labor deal and
was on the cusp of bankruptcy.
The British government decided to bailout Leland to the tune of $16.5 billion, making the same arguments we’re hearing
from our government today: Leland is too big to fail; too many people will lose their jobs; and the economy will be
devastated. Guess what happened? Leland went bankrupt, despite the bailout, and British taxpayers took a bath on
their “investment.”
Though many Americans may not remember the Leland lesson, they do seem to understand a bad investment when they
see one. The aforementioned ATI-News/Zogby poll also found that a majority of Americans (54 percent) favor
bankruptcy for General Motors (GM alone, not Ford or Chrysler), with the caveat that $1 billion of the previously
approved bailout money go toward guaranteeing pensions for auto workers affected by the bankruptcy.
To his credit, President-Elect Obama has shown leadership in refusing to be swayed by the panicky rhetoric coming from
Big Labor leaders. Obama’s stance is a reflection of the stance that a majority of all Americans hold.
Nor was Obama swayed by GM CEO Richard Wagoner’s "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" act before Congress and a
national televised audience. Someone needs to tell Wagoner that, if GM, which has 20 percent of the automobile market
share, can’t compete without billions of dollars in government welfare, then Ford and Chrysler (which have 25 percent of
the market), and their foreign competitors (which have 55 percent of the market) would be happy to make automobiles that
Americans like to buy.
Remember, if Congress approves this bailout, it will be paid for by the 63 percent of American taxpayers who disapprove
of it. And, considering the U.S. government doesn’t have any cash, this means we’ll have to either print more money or
borrow from our Arab friends.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Political Economy -- Philosophies, Systems, & Public Policies:
Government, the Economy, & Economic Prosperity
Brad O’Leary serves as President of ATI-News (www.ati-news.com) and is Chairman of the Board of American Radio Free
Speech (www.AmericanRadioFreeSpeech.com).
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume X, 2008
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity