Look, I understand that government bailouts are not very popular. Nobody, and I mean nobody wants to finance private business, and that is all well and good, but there is no arguing that there are definitely times (like now) that it needs to be considered. What is troubling, is not that people are trying to figure out whether or not to bail out the Big 3 automakers. No what is troubling is that is the political games being played, like It’s North vs. South in Big Three bailout fight, where it starts out asking:

Should taxpayers in Alabama be required to bail out automakers whose plants are concentrated in Northern states like Michigan and Ohio?

And I am sorry, if that is the question being asked, it is soundly wrong in the way it is being reasoned. Was anybody asking, should people from northern States be forced to pay for the reconstruction of southern States after Katrina? After all, they should have planned ahead, so why should I have to pay part of the $105 billion (which unlike the automaker loan was a hand-out for reconstruction)? Why should States like Michigan have a negative return on Federal Tax dollars, when States like Alabama take in considerably more than they pay in?

The answer should be quite simple, because we are supposed to be the UNITED States. I know, I am silly like that. Because being against spreading the wealth only works when States like Alabama have to actually pay into something. They are more than happy to take though as the Per-Capita Tax Burden and Return on the Federal Tax Dollar clearly shows. But instead, they see it as a potential boom to their economy (conflict of interest) since non-union shops like Hyndai have set up shop in Alabama. This boom even comes to the detriment of the people of Alabama.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R- Ala., told reporters Wednesday, “I can not imagine a real justification for a worker in Alabama who does not have any health insurance at his company to be taxed to maintain a Cadillac health care plan for somebody in Detroit.”

So, tell me why isn’t Sen. Sessions fighting to make corporations provide healthcare for the people of Alabama. I guess it is OK if the people of Alabama toil with no healthcare so long as it helps fill State coffers.

But pure greed isn’t the only negative force at play here. There is also the union busting efforts as well. Listen to Sen. Jim Bunning, (R- Ky) speak and it becomes clear that his idea of a good business model is one that throws healthcare, employee benefits and retirees to the wolves. When asked about a potential bankruptcy of GM or Chrysler he said (emphasis added):

“I think that’s probably the best thing that can happen,” Bunning replied. “Then there will be a reorganization and they’ll be able to jettison things they couldn’t ordinarily jettison, like health care benefits, like pension benefits and there will be someone to pick those up like the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. And then they will be able to restructure their salaries to get more in line with foreign producers and they may come out of bankruptcy a heck of a lot better off than they go into it.”

So lets recap. Toss out healthcare benefits, let insurance pick up the pension plan (and who pays for that? Those premiums come from other pension plans.), and while he can’t actually say bust the union, “restructure their salaries” is clear enough a statement, in other words take away the benefits and pay less.

Yes, there are concessions that will probably have to be made (and some that have already been made by the UAW). I have already pointed out that the UAW has not exactly handled this well (though certainly no worse that the Big 3 execs flying in on Private Jets to ask for money), but do we really need to strip every worker of protection in this country? Is that the sole answer to every problem?

There seems to be a hangover from the days when the unions in this country probably did have too much power. However that was quite some time ago, now it is just a myth pushed (predomininatly by the GOP) to justify a “Wal-Mart style” of maximizing corporate profits at the expense of employees. We have returned to a time where employees are “expenses” rather than “assets” of a company. Nobody says that corporations are entitled to make money, but let us be clear, the employee should be entitled to a reasonable living as well. After all, if they want the United State to be a “consumer society” we actually have to have money to buy those items they are selling. America is over extented, we faked it the past 20 years or so, extending credit to everybody and anybody to keep consumption up, while income only went to the top. And this is what they want to continue and exacerbate by attempting to bust up the unions.

The Big Three, Bunning said, “overpromised and couldn’t deliver. They overpromised benefits, they overpromised and didn’t have the product to produce the amount of money necessary to pay them.”

Economists and auto industry experts might or might not agree with Bunning’s assessment, but what matters is that he has a vote.

So regardless of whether economists or auto experts agree, it comes down to those like Bunning and Sessions with a clear agenda are the ones calling the shots of what is “best” for America. If it is not the right decision to be made, that is fine. But lets not make this decision for all the wrong reasons.

Filed under: Uncategorized