Stop digging…
The deal the Senate is sending to the House is ridiculous. If just because it adds onto the Big 3′s already large burden the cost of dealing with Congress:
The legislation, among other things, would bar the companies from participating in legal challenges to state laws designed to impose limits on greenhouse-gas emissions. The White House opposes that provision, congressional aides said.
So is it a bailout? A rescue? Or a Christmas list?
The deal gives them money and then we look at it again in March 2009. Wanna bet they will have their legislative ducks in a row for a larger handout?
We have leverage now. I’m only willing to commit loans to a plan that shows it can be repaid. What they need to do is obvious, that this plan doesn’t require of them is heinous.
This is a plan only those playing with OTHER PEOPLES MONEY would enjoy.
December 9th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Filibuster this thing until one of the Big3′s money runs out, then sock it to the UAW for a 30-35 per cent across the board cut to wages, benefits, and retirement income. Same for the next two Big3s. Hardball ain’t fun!
December 9th, 2008 at 9:27 am
“So is it a bailout? A rescue? Or a Christmas list?” Yes. But when a national legislature sees a million jobs problem that can be alleviated with money, why would you expect anything else than a grand bargain? One should be realistic about how governance works. The 2008 election told a lot of “conservatives” that their views were in decline for now. Salvation is in; deficit hawks are out. And “sock it to the UAW” is not a good thing for a politician to do or say. Those UAW members are all good Americans with jobs at extreme risk. If you think it is a good idea, run for Congress with that as your motto. Although there is a chance that the auto industry will go the way of the steel industry, Congress won’t allow it happen all at once and on their watch.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Yes, lets just ignore what is the right course for the Big 3, the nation, and especially Ken’s money.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:37 am
BTW: I’m holding all my Congressman’s feet to the fire. I’m not gonna settle for “that’s how Congress works”.
As to a run for Congress…. I just might. And if I win I’m voting a nice juicy pay raise for myself.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:59 am
You go, guy. Run for office, any office, and get yourself a real education in people’s attitudes toward government. Get up there on that platform and expound a “right course” certainty, but not before you get some protective measures against rotten tomatoes.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I’ll make sure to hit you for a campaign donation.
As to people’s attitudes towards government…. maybe a fresh approach that is honest and principled might win. If not, well, I always thought we were doomed anyway.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Good luck with “a fresh approach that is honest and principled” Every challenger to an incumbent starts with that line and, if somehow elected, waits for that line to appear from a challenger in the next election. Meanwhile, in office, the pressures to maintain a majority, and to satisfy the most people, force compromises to be made. The leadership trick is to convince a majority of your electorate that the compromise is good for them.
If you’re not in office, you can afford to stand for high principle on your favorite issues. When you are in office, you have to govern, which is a lot harder than making speeches.
December 9th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Not caring will set me free.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Well, I agree with that. In the legislature you will be set free (marginalized) for not being a team player, and in the following election will be set free from office for not bringing home some bacon.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:07 am
But I can still count on that campaign donation… right?