|
December 11, 2008
Bail Out Boat Sinking
It looks like the unpopular auto company bail out is going to have a tough time passing in the current Congress. Republicans were preparing a strong fight against the aid plan in the Senate, not only taking on the Democrats but standing in open revolt against their party's lame-duck president on the measure.Yep. Tough love all right. So tough that it will force the auto companies into a position of building cars they can't sell. The fuel-efficient "green" cars GM, Ford and Chrysler profess to be thrilled to be developing at Congress's behest will be unsellable unless gas prices are much higher than today's.I must admit that it is about the toughest love Congress could impose on the auto companies. Let me translate: in order to get the money stolen from the taxpayers the auto companies will have to increase their loss rate. This from the geniuses who brought us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And it gets better. The government will appoint a commisar of auto production to watch over the companies to make sure the money isn't wasted building cars the consumers want. Besides providing cash for the auto companies, it would create a government "car czar," to be named by President George W. Bush to dole out the loans, with the power to take back the money and force the carmakers into bankruptcy next spring if they didn't cut quick deals with labor unions, creditors and others to restructure their businesses and become viable.OK. We have a drug czar to fix our drug problems, and an energy czar to fix our energy problems. How is that working out? "To give up on the auto industry now would be to condemn the American economy at one of its most vulnerable periods in our economic history to a degree of further hurt," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, the Financial Services Committee chairman.And just to maintain the hilarity, it was Barney Frank, who once said, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis." I have an existential dilemma here. Should I laugh or should I cry? Opposition from Republicans reflected the tricky task of pushing yet another federal rescue through a bailout-weary Congress, with Bush's influence on the wane.It all started with Saint FDR and the National Labor Relations Act or NLRB which got the government involved in labor/management relations. It is one of the prime reasons the auto unions have been able to suck the auto companies dry. It is a neat little trick they pull. They strike one auto company while letting the others operate. Thus the guys still working can support the guys still out on strike. What is an auto company to do? What do they do? Cave in to union demands or go out of business. Forty years of that and it looks like at least two of the big three will be going out of business anyway. Either that or they will become GSEs. That would be Government Sponsored Enterprises. Another way to put it is that they will become slush funds for Congress Critters. And it only gets better. In the Senate, opposition to the auto rescue wasn't limited to Republicans.Let me see here. If a little guy is engaged in an abusive tax shelter they can pay penalties and even go to jail. If city governments engage in such shenanigans Congress will pass a law making it all nice and legal like. Where can I buy a Congress Critter? Besides Illinois I mean. I wonder if they are selling in New York? And really. Congress is keeping an eagle eye on the the government purse. The carmakers initially asked Congress for $25 billion, then returned two weeks later to plead for as much as $34 billion. But with the White House refusing to dole out new spending for the Big Three, congressional Democrats agreed to use an existing program that was to help carmakers retool their factories to make more fuel-efficient cars.It looks like there are too many people working at cross purposes here. This has got to be a bonanza for the Congress critters who should be getting huge "donations" to their reelection funds. And what does our Smartest President Elect Ever™ have to say? "As messy as it may be, I think there's a sense of, 'Let's stabilize the patient,'" he said in an interview published in Wednesday's Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times.Stabilize the patient? I wonder what his cut is. Maybe his wife will get a seat on another company board. And the final kicker? Also included in the bill is an unrelated pay raise for federal judges.I don't think it is unrelated at all. It is how you keep the law from being declared null and void. Are the judges going to rule against their own interest? I think it is wise to keep in mind the near iron clad law of human nature - Honor dies where interest lies. Them Congress Critters are crafty in a low sort of way. Well. It is not their money. H/T Instapundit Cross Posted at Power and Control Welcome Instapundit readers. posted by Simon on 12.11.08 at 07:43 AM
Comments
edh, Wouldn't it LOOK unseemly if everything (or almost everything) but judges pay was struck down? M. Simon · December 12, 2008 07:11 AM This is silly: "Also included in the bill is an unrelated pay raise for federal judges. Why would the "pay raise" ever be litigated and therefore come before a judge? I suppose it is within the realm of possibility that the bailout bill itself could be litigated, but that would have no effect on other provisions of the bill. Furthermore, knowing the history of the judges pay makes this much less sinister. The "pay raise" restores the cost of living increase that all federal employees will receive this year to judges, who were singled out for exclusion for some reason. I agree it's odd to attach it to a bailout bill, but the situation has to get corrected somehow. kwh9 · December 12, 2008 09:37 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
December 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2008
November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Oil Has Not Reached Bottom
Hideous cuteness In the trenches A Voter's Guide To Illinois Politics Steampunk Fusion Something Interesting In The Oil Market An Awful New Game More Power From Less Wind That Was Unexpected Not by bread alone...
Links
Site Credits
|
|
It is how you keep the law from being declared null and void. Are the judges going to rule against their own interest?
Are you arguing the federal courts wouldn't strike-down a law that included a pay raise for judges?
Does separability have to be written into a law? Wouldn't separability apply by default, so that any part of a law struck down by the courts would not take out the other provisions with it?