triangle.com | Home

If the government starts giving away freebies everybody else and all their relatives too will want in on this action. A better solution to this could best be described as government sponsored loans to the Big Three. With this incentive and the loan payments coming due it would be in their best interests to get on the ball and become creative at producing much more fuel efficient vehicles and at an affordable price especially starting with basic models with options for luxury add-ons for those who desire more than just a vehicle to get them from point A to point B and back, and meanwhile keeping a hawk's eye on quality control too. Its not impossible.

I am old enought to remember when we could deduct intrest from car loans on our taxes.  First we should allow people to deduct intrest for cars made in the USA.  Remember a lot of foreign companies make cars in the USA.  We should bail out the big three, only if they stipulate to the following, if they don't , then they can file for bankruptcy and it will happen anyway.

1. CEO's salaries MUST be reduced to the same level and Toyota's CEO's.    2. The union compensation packages must be reduced to the same lavel as the foreign companies that are building in the south. You cannot punsih the workers in the south to benefit the workers of the big three.  You cannot ask the American people to bail you out, when they are making less that you are.  How can you ask the guy out there cutting grass to ponie up monies for a guy making $70/hr (with benefits) for putting buttons on radios in a airconditioned work place.  Just doesn't compute.  

--------------------------------------------------

ROOT OF THE PROBLEM  

In the recent Congressional hearings for the Big 3 request for a "BAIL OUT", One of the Congressmen asked Ron Gettlefinger to rank the Big 3 in terms of who would fail first.

Mr. Gettlefinger responds:  1st GM, 2nd Chrysler, 3rd Ford1! (GM 1st !!)

He helped drive the stake in GM's own poorly presented story with that comment.  It made Rick Wagoner's failure to respond to a break down of GM's actual need look like an "oops, I didn't plan ahead again trickster".  ESPECIALLY, when Ford's Alan Mulally comes along afterwards and answers the question directly, for Ford, with a plan to back it up.

Two disingenuous people (Mr. Wagoner and Mr. Gettlefinger) in a row is too much even for our less than always quick, with little information, Congress.  Not everyone can use the Hanky Panky Paulson scare technique of "the sky is falling" and get away with it, especially if caught short of full disclosure and truth.

Folks down here not only laughed, then they started the serious discussions about the fact that they don't get 75k Salaries, Near Full Pay in Layoffs, and 100% Medical here in our State (WHY NOT?). They're waiting for Ron Gettlefinger to get back from his "trip to the moon" with bated breath (AND watching our congressional and senatorial representatives to see if they are paying attention this time around).

BTW--FWIW, the following is a description for Rick Wagoner and Ron Gettlefinger that's going around the circuits, as facetious jokes, about the truth (illustration of public rationale for frustration):

WAGONER:  MR. "didn't plan ahead for Quality", MR "didn't plan ahead for Reliability", MR "didn't plan ahead for Profitability, MR "didn't plan ahead for Credit Crisis", MR. "didn't plan ahead for new Car Mix", MR "didn't plan ahead for "Fuel Efficiency", and MR DIDN'T PLAN AHEAD TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESS.  Or in shorthand, MR."DIDN'T PLAN AHEAD WAGONER".

GETTLEFINGER:  MR "There is a misunderstanding why we deserve 75k per year for low quality high cost production work", MR "There is a misunderstanding why we deserve 100% Salaries when Laid off for low quality high cost production work", MR "There is a Misunderstanding why we deserve 100% Medical Coverage when the Average Joe Industrial Worker doesn't get one".  Or in short hand, MR. "THERE IS A MISUNDERSTANDING WHY WE REALLY DIDN'T GIVE ANYTHING UP, AND DEMAND THAT TAXPAYERS CONTRIBUTE TO OUR UNION, WITHOUT A VOTE, GETTLEFINGER"

SUMMARY: In spite of the rhetoric on both sides, even I have to admit, this stretches even my capacity for wanting to assist with anything more than a well structured Chapter 11 for GM, with Government insured DIP financing.  I'm a little more favorable for giving Ford a "line of credit" with securitization, of course, since they not only had a plan, but also executed on it successfully before the Credit Crisis.  This is a troubling and most difficult decision, but the easy part of the case is clearly that GM needs a lot of help, much more than they seem willing to admit, and far more than a simple infusion of cash.  And, there is little doubt that the UAW is eating the food before it gets to the table, so may need some encouragement to play fairly.  This is too important an industry to not take the time to lead the players through a real reorganization, that is viable, whether self lead or with assistance.  This is far too important an Industry for Congress to just throw money at it, and “hope” it succeeds without significant change, up front, and continually.   

Having watched, first hand the bailouts of the 80’s, All should be aware that Detroit will pull “contract” auto work back from other states, at those states loss/detriment, irrespective of whether the Big 3 are bailed out or not.  So, I am absolutely against taking from the many to give more to the few, in hopes all will prosper. This is anti-American, counter intuitive, and is not the best use of public funds, in the middle of a severe Recession, nor is it in the best self-interests of all U.S. Taxpayers and Voters.  And, no intimidation or threat by the UAW or GM to disrupt U.S. Auto Production, in order to hold America Hostage, to just save Detroit, is acceptable either as an excuse or tactic for considered action, other than as proof positive of needed change. Significant change and considered participation by all parties is required, as a pre-requisite to any plan working, and without all three even Chapter 7 is not off the table.  In the meantime, it's quite likely that Mr. Gettlefinger and Mr. Wagoner should lead with an apology, and a little contrition in their hearts, if for nothing less than the insult, and because they and their "teams" are the "Root of the Problem".

So now come the Big Three, begging for a loan to protect their companies.  

This is a long time coming, and it is a typical story of the American corporate world.  Top management wants to take taxpayer money, but in turn they do not want to pay the price for their failure. Why do they still have jobs, one must wonder.  If a common employee failed consistently to do a good job, you can be sure that he or she would be out the door sooner or later.  Unfortunately, the CEOs COOs, CFOs and other key employees are exempt from that basic requirement, and by lending or giving them money, the government will all but insure that these employees will keep their jobs.  Given their string of failure already, is it a good bet to expect that the these companies will always trail their foreign counterparts.

It is not only management who have failed:

• Where are the stockholders, demanding that the Boards of Directors hold management responsible for their failures in the marketplace? Do the stockholders not realize that their stocks will be essentially worthless the moment the automaker they own declares bankruptcy?
• And why have the boards not given proper oversight and protection of the shareholders on their own accord?

America should ask this simple question: if the stockholders of the Big Three won't protect their investments by holding the Directors and the CEOs responsible for their guidance, why should taxpayers invest in companies that have a history of failure?

If Congress is going to lend the Big Three money, and it appears that it is inevitable that they will, one stipulation is that resignations each board member and executive managers should be delivered before any checks are written.

When the furniture and Textiles industries were collapsing in the USA, was there a bailout? When Chrysler had near financial collapse in the 80's was there a bailout? When Harley-Davidson darn near went belly-up, was there a bailout? no in each case. Our furniture and textile industries are gone. Chrysler repaid a LOAN, early, with interest.  Now, Gettlefinger states that Union member and retiree benefits and salaries are NOT negotiable. CEO's fly in on one of their many corporate jets and DEMAND a bailout? It is a sad state when a person, immune to repercussion for shoddy work, and promised a $70.xx an hour job for installing hubcaps can make more than the majority of pilots of commercial aircraft, or more than the senior operator of a nuclear power plant.  Face it, the best option is for them to go belly-up, reorganize and renegotiate their contractdsv with an arrogant Union. the retirees don't have to worry, cause OUR congress established the pension guaranty trust that We taxpayers fund!    Loan, maybe, after the 'brass take a hike and their replacements receive a salery based on performance, not failure! Their departure shall NOT be a golden parachute, either!