Bailout Watch 24: "The Playing Field is Not Balanced"

So writes former Chrysler outside counsel Steven Roby in a rebuttal Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times today (the original LAT Op-Ed contended that the US government should not bail out American manufacturers). His thesis of “It’s not the Big 3’s fault” is supported with inventive arguments such as “It’s not the Big 3’s fault” and also “It’s not the Big 3’s fault.” More specifically, he writes that GM, Ford, and Chrysler are just ridiculously, unreasonably burderend by high health care costs, that foreign governments directly subsidize manufacturers, and that other countries manipulate currency. We’ve been through this, time and time again. (He also accuses foreign governments of indirectly subsidizing “their” automakers through grants to research universities. Apparently this lawyer has never heard of the Bayh-Dole Act, which allowed for private patents of government funded research at Universities. And I take it he also has never visited Stanford, Berkeley, Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill, Michigan State University, and so on.) But the big problem is that Roby’s article never recognizes any Detroit mistakes: that the Big 3 spent years raking in piles of cash because of SUVs, or benefitted from the chicken tax on pickups, or benefitted from the special EPA status of “light trucks,” or that Chrysler already was bailed out in the past 30 years, or that GM, Chrysler, and Ford haven’t built a truly competitive small car. Roby writes that “The Times should not judge GM, Ford and Chrysler unless it can walk in the shoes of the executives and production workers.” The production workers have gotten the shaft, and nobody is blaming them. But I’d love to walk in the shoes of an executive like Rick Wagoner, whose company can lose billions upon billions of dollars and still go home with a $14 million paycheck. No, the global market for cars is not completely fair. Time to stop complaining and deal with it. Still.