Obama to Bail Out Auto Industry

November 8th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

America’s automobile industry has suffered tremendous losses for decades. For as long as most can remember, automakers have received hand outs from the U.S. government every few years, in order to safe themselves and their companies from bankruptcy due to increased competition from abroad and decreased sales at home.

Time and again the U.S. government has bailed those companies out, thereby allowing sick companies to function and weaken the entire economy. These companies should have been allowed to go bankrupt many years ago, for they do not strengthen the economy as a whole. Instead, they slow it down, for they cannot survive without constant government interference.

In order to survive if a free market, these automakers will have to reform and become more efficient. However, the federal government has helped them out time and again, thereby encouraging them not to push through necessary changes.

President-elect Barack Obama now seems to prepare to do exactly what his predecessors did: he promised the automobile industry during the campaign to bail them out, and repeated that promise recently.

Although this makes Obama quite popular among automakers and liberal Democrats, many of whom are owned by lobbyists for the auto industry, centrist Democrats have signalled they are not willing to help automakers out until these companies prove that they are willing to make themselves more efficient and to reform.

Moderate and fiscal conservative Republicans too have made clear they do not support a bailout at this point in time. Former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney worded it as follows recently for Forbes: “Before the government issues loans to the auto industry, as has been authorized by Congress, it should insist on seeing credible and independent strategies that will return the companies to long-term sustainability. Government should not finance ongoing losses and declining market shares.”

Since Romney is considered to be one of the new leaders of the Republican Party, it seems likely that Congressional Republicans agree with Romney and follow his lead.

If Congress wants to make sure that automakers are not bailed out without “seeing credible and independent strategies that will return the companies to long-term sustainability,” it would be wise to act before Obama takes office. This is a subject on which centrist Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on with each other, meaning that they should be able to act before president Obama occupies the White House and pushes through a bailout plan for automakers.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. No
    November 9th, 2008 at 20:13
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Do you have any idea what you’re saying?
    According to the Center of Automotive Research, a highly respected think tank, 2,5 million jobs will be lost if America’s auto industry will fail. Furthermore, in the first 3 years of the dissappearance of the autoindustry, the government will lose approximately 160 billion dollars. 1 out of 10 jobs in America is closely connected to the auto industry. And last but not least, both Canada and Mexico rely on America, producing parts with low fees due to the NAFTA. If the Big Three fail, so does America, and loads of other people.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.