Is the Auto Bailout Bill a Trap?

Is the Auto Bailout Bill a Trap?

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

As my colleague John Nichols noted, the House passed the $15bn auto-bailout deal yesterday, with little Republican support. It now goes to the Senate where it’s passage appears doomed, according the Times. I feel incredibly conflicted about the deal, but end up thinking that allowing the industry to implode, in a manner not dissimilar to Lehmann Brothers, is likely to be incredibly painful for millions of people. That said, a smart observer who’s been following the legislative wrangling over the issue, writes in to tell me that he thinks this version of the bill is a terrible deal for the Democrats, politically:

Seriously–why are the Democrats walking into this Republican trap? They’re passing a bill that sets March 31 as the next milestone without giving the auto companies nearly enough money to make it to March 31. This 14bn will be gone by Lincoln’s birthday, and then there will need to be additional, emergency, legislation to provide for more capital. Plus, you can’t even just add more money in the stimulus bill next month because the March 31 roadmap, along with car czar, will have already been set by this bill. Pelosi should tell the GOP that they have two choices. Let the automakers fail today on Bush and Paulsons watch or allocate 10bn for GM and Chrysler to get to January when the Democratic Congress will put together a comprehensive package. This current bailout will fail miserably and Shelby will make huge political hay.

We’re once again legislating at the point of crisis, which does not, as a rule produce good policy (cough, TARP, cough), but I really, really, really letting the whole industry die in the next few weeks would be horribly ugly. I think the reader’s second option makes more sense: pare back the amount of money and the timeline, get them through the recess and tackle the issue in the next congress. But it’s unclear that shaving $4 bn off the price will get enough GOP senators to switch their vote. In which case, oy.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x