Bailout Watch 143: Dallas Morning News Ed: "Enough is Enough"

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago
“Yes, the auto industry is big. And important. But Congress shouldn’t dole out more taxpayer dollars to save firms that missed opportunities to help themselves.” And so begins The Dallas Morning News‘ editorial advising its readers that Motown should be left to its own devices. The News is home to one of automotive journalism’s genuine gems: writer Terry Box. Box has always been loyal to his readers’ best interests; this editorial has his fingerprints all over it. Be that as it may, Motown may wish to point out that Texas is home to Toyota’s massive– and now underutilized– Tundra factory. Of course, it’s also the state where you’ll find GM’s Arlington plant, once-proud maker of the GMC Yukon, GMC Yukon XL, Chevrolet Suburban, Chevrolet Tahoe and Cadillac Escalade. No matter how you slice it, The Lone Star state has at least one dog in this fight. Make the jump for the rest of the ed [thanks to peakwarehouse for the link].

“Rick Wagoner, GM’s audacious chief executive, wants the federal government to invest $3 billion in a merged GM-Chrysler, take over about $3 billion in pension obligations and buy another $4 billion in commercial paper to keep the newly combined automaker flush with cash. And he wants the money to come out of the $700 billion that Congress recently approved to rescue financial institutions.

Gee, Rick, why not ask the Treasury to pick up the lunch tab, too?

The demise of these companies would come at a terrible time for their workers and the economy as a whole. By some estimates, more than 2 million jobs would disappear, and the federal government would inherit massive pension obligations if the automakers landed in bankruptcy court.

But both automakers have known for years that this day of reckoning was coming yet steadfastly resisted the long-term manufacturing and cost-cutting decisions that would have made them leaner and more competitive with foreign automakers. They repeatedly opposed attempts to improve fuel-efficiency standards and placed the lure of short-term profits from oversized gas guzzlers ahead of their long-term health.

To add insult to self-inflicted injury, the industry’s latest request for federal welfare comes barely a month after the government agreed to loan them $25 billion to retool factories for fuel-efficient cars.

A bailout would not solve the automakers’ problems. Standard & Poor’s Ratings Service predicts that the companies would still be on life support. Both are bloated and aren’t making cars that Americans want to buy. Although onerous, bankruptcy would finally force the automakers to address the market and financial realities.

A government commitment to prop up the automakers would squander good taxpayer dollars on a bad deal. Enough is enough.”

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 7 comments
  • Bloodnok Bloodnok on Nov 03, 2008

    given i wouldn't part with my hard-earned to acquire a d3 product, why should i part with my taxes to support those products? it's totally unlikely that $25b + $10b + $?b will ever result in the d3 making anything i'd buy so why am i expected to piss away this money? time for another tax revolt, methinks. i've been trying to find a soapbox app that would allow me to send this message to my congress critters ...

  • No_slushbox No_slushbox on Nov 03, 2008
    SexCpotatoes: I was oversimplifying things a bit - the equity is that of both Cerberus and other large investors from the island of Manhattan – Cerberus is kind of like a very high fee mutual fund for institutional investors. My point was that this GM-Chrysler merger is just another Wall Street bailout. It is not about jobs in the heartland and it will not save jobs in the heartland. In the Chapter 7 the pension obligations will fall on this agency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Benefit_Guaranty_Corporation , basically the pension version of FDIC. Like the FDIC it is self-supporting and does not rely on taxpayer money. Chrysler is an LLC, and would likely be sold to GM under that structure, which means that the owner, whether Cerberus or GM, will have no personal liability for any Chrysler obligations unless special circumstances cause the court to pierce the veil ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_the_corporate_veil ). I don't particularly think that Cerberus should be held personally liable, unless they did something like "Siphoning of [s]corporate[/s] LLC funds by the dominant [s]shareholder[/s] member", but if Chrysler is insolvent or becomes insolvent then Cerberus should lose every cent that they and their backers invested.
  • Redapple2 I gave up on Honda. My 09 Accord Vs my 03. The 09s- V 6 had a slight shudder when deactivating cylinders. And the 09 did not have the 03 's electro luminescent gages. And the 09 had the most uncomfortable seats. My brother bought his 3rd and last Honda CRV. Brutal seats after 25 minutes. NOW, We are forever Toyota, Lexus, Subaru people now despite HAVING ACCESS TO gm EMPLOYEE DISCOUNT. Despite having access to the gm employee discount. Man, that is a massive statement. Wow that s bad - Under no circumstances will I have that govna crap.
  • Redapple2 Front tag obscured. Rear tag - clear and sharp. Huh?
  • Redapple2 I can state what NOT to buy. HK. High theft. Insurance. Unrefined NVH. Rapidly degrading interiors. HK? No way !
  • Luke42 Serious answer:Now that I DD an EV, buying an EV to replace my wife’s Honda Civic is in the queue. My wife likes her Honda, she likes Apple CarPlay, and she can’t stand Elon Musk - so Tesla starts the competition with two demerit-points and Honda starts the competition with one merit-point.The Honda Prologue looked like a great candidate until Honda announced that the partnership with GM was a one-off thing and that their future EVs would be designed in-house.Now I’m more inclined toward the Blazer EV, the vehicle on which the Prologue is based. The Blazer EV and the Ultium platform won’t be orphaned by GM any time soon. But then I have to convince my wife she would like it better than her Honda Civic, and that’s a heavy lift because she doesn’t have any reason to be dissatisfied with her current car (I take care of all of the ICE-hassles for her).Since my wife’s Honda Civic is holding up well, since she likes the car, and since I take care of most of the drawbacks of drawbacks of ICE ownership for her, there’s no urgency to replace this vehicle.Honestly, if a paid-off Honda Civic is my wife’s automotive hill to die on, that’s a pretty good place to be - even though I personally have to continue dealing the hassles and expenses of ICE ownership on her behalf.My plan is simply to wait-and-see what Honda does next. Maybe they’ll introduce the perfect EV for her one day, and I’ll just go buy it.
  • 2ACL I have a soft spot for high-performance, shark-nosed Lancers (I considered the less-potent Ralliart during the period in which I eventually selected my first TL SH-AWD), but it's can be challenging to find a specimen that doesn't exhibit signs of abuse, and while most of the components are sufficiently universal in their function to service without manufacturer support, the SST isn't one of them. The shops that specialize in it are familiar with the failure as described by the seller and thus might be able to fix this one at a substantial savings to replacement. There's only a handful of them in the nation, however. A salvaged unit is another option, but the usual risks are magnified by similar logistical challenges to trying to save the original.I hope this is a case of the seller overvaluing the Evo market rather than still owing or having put the mods on credit. Because the best offer won't be anywhere near the current listing.
Next