Bailout Watch 206: Here's the Deal

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

Senator Harry Reid has revealed the devilish details of the bailout bill for Motown’s meltdown. First, as predicted here, the Dems are sticking to their guns. They’re insisting that the money come from the preexisting $700b Wall Street bailout, not the $25b Department of Energy Loans (which would incur the wrath of environmentalists everywhere). Under the Congressional bailout plan, Detroit could stick their snouts into $25b worth of Department of Treasury funds exactly one month after the authorization receives the President’s signature (should he decided to so affix). Automotive News [sub] crosses the i’s: “If enacted, the bill would direct the Treasury secretary to accept loan applications from companies three days after it becomes law and would require a decision on the applicant’s eligibility within 15 days. Disbursement of funds would have to occur within the following seven days.” Or what? They turn into a pumpkin? As for those strings attached, they’re no longer of the Jewish maternal nature (i.e. made of piano wire). “Companies getting loans would have to grant stock warrants or senior debt instruments to the government. Top industry executives would have to give up bonuses and golden parachutes; stockholders would receive no dividends.” Oversight board? Perhaps when Harry met Nancy they read TTAC. It’s nowhere to be seen. But there are other caveats…

“On the issue of viability, raised most vocally by the Bush administration, each company would submit to the Treasury secretary ‘a detailed plan on how the government funds requested will be utilized to ensure the long-term financial posture of the company.'” Erect?

And just in case some of those pesky transplants have their beady eyes on bailout bucks… “The bill restricts the funding to automakers and suppliers that have operated U.S. plants for all of the past 20 years. The interest rate would be 5 percent in the first five years and 9 percent thereafter.”

Hmmm. Don’t Honda and Toyota have 20-year-old U.S. plants? They wouldn’t, would they? In a world where the Chinese threaten to gobble-up GM and Chrysler whol e, anything becomes possible.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 16 comments
  • Durishin Durishin on Nov 18, 2008

    Either: 1. This is (wasted) water on dead vegetation or 2. Nancy and Harry are going to find much displeasure among the Unions

  • Landcrusher Landcrusher on Nov 18, 2008

    brilliant tactic by the dems here. This way they can put the blame on Bush either way it goes.

  • MaintenanceCosts Poorly packaged, oddly proportioned small CUV with an unrefined hybrid powertrain and a luxury-market price? Who wouldn't want it?
  • MaintenanceCosts Who knows whether it rides or handles acceptably or whether it chews up a set of tires in 5000 miles, but we definitely know it has a "mature stance."Sounds like JUST the kind of previous owner you'd want…
  • 28-Cars-Later Nissan will be very fortunate to not be in the Japanese equivalent of Chapter 11 reorganization over the next 36 months, "getting rolling" is a luxury (also, I see what you did there).
  • MaintenanceCosts RAM! RAM! RAM! ...... the child in the crosswalk that you can't see over the hood of this factory-lifted beast.
  • 3-On-The-Tree Yes all the Older Land Cruiser’s and samurai’s have gone up here as well. I’ve taken both vehicle ps on some pretty rough roads exploring old mine shafts etc. I bought mine right before I deployed back in 08 and got it for $4000 and also bought another that is non running for parts, got a complete engine, drive train. The mice love it unfortunately.
Next