A weekly column
Economic Freedom or Socialist Intervention?
The freedom to fail is an essential part of freedom. Government- provided financial security necessitates relinquishing the very essence of freedom. Last week, the big 3 American automakers came back to Capitol Hill with their hands out to the government. Congress spent this past week debating how much money to give them and what strings should be attached. Though the bailout plan for the auto industry has suffered what I would call a temporary setback in the Senate, other avenues for public funding are being explored through the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department. I am afraid the American auto industry will soon learn that having billions rain down from Washington will not be the blessing one might expect.
The government, after it subsidizes an industry, tends to become a very demanding benefactor. Politicians may not have any real idea about how to build a car, run a bank, educate a child, heal the sick or build a road, but they are quite adept at using carrots and sticks to manipulate and threaten those who do. Most of the federal control over education, roads, healthcare, and now banking and soon auto manufacturing, is done through money, mandates and conditions. The bailout proposal we were considering would force automobile manufacturers to submit their business plans for the approval of a new federal "car czar." This bureaucrat would have the authority to approve the automakers' restructuring plan, monitor implementation of the plan, and even stop certain transactions he determines are inconsistent with the companies' long-term viability.
One could argue that if billions of taxpayer dollars are going to flow into a failing industry, then representatives of those taxpayers have "bought" a say in how that industry is run - which is precisely why bailouts are such a bad idea for both the industry and the taxpayers. The federal government has neither the competence nor the Constitutional authority to tell private companies, such as automakers, how to run their businesses. I would have thought that failed experiments with central planning and government control of business that caused so much harm in the last century would have taught my colleagues the folly of making businesses obey politicians and bureaucrats instead of heeding the wishes of consumers, employees, and stockholders. But the auto industry is in danger of learning for themselves one of the oldest lessons in politics: he who pays the fiddler calls the tune.
It is not the job of government to sustain business. The government should get out of the way, and instead examine excessive regulations, tax policy and red tape that have been hostile to manufacturing in this country. We should get back on a sustainable economic course in this country, or we are doomed to collapse, as the Soviets did, under the crushing burden of big government and a strangled economy that can no longer pay for it.


Comments: 26
I still fail to understand why Bush is so hated by many on the Left, except for his military policies, he has enacted much of what they've wanted domestically for years in this country. Expanded government, increased control of the economy, almost total Federal control of education, numerous regulations on virtually every aspect of our lives to include travel...Is it just they wanted to get the "credit" for it all? I mean that has been the Left's dream for decades and a REPUBLICAN gave it to them. It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
And no, it wasn't just the war, and it wasn't just Bush either. The Republican Party got us into this mess with their vigor about deregulation, and fat cats jumped over the moon while the dish ran away with the spoon. And then there's the Constitution crumbling, wire taps, and torture the Republican Party supports. The war was just the begiining of a non-transparent government take over. So no, the right wing did not give us what we want, and it's rediculous to imply they fulfilled our dreams. They ruined our reputation abroad, so it's not just American's who dislike the Bush Presidency, after all, we aren't the ones who threw the shoe at him.
If the Government gets into the car business just think of how much a car will cost. It cost the government $500 for a hammer and that is because of the paperwork involved to purchase a 20$ hammer.
This is a tough decision for the government. the tax revenue from the auto industry would hurt the nation if lost. Taxes collected is about 151 billion every year from the industry and related businesses including income tax from the employees. A 14 or 15 billion loan don't seem all that unreasonable. What is unreasonable is all the strings attached to a government loan. a lot of us get government loans now and again, at government backed like a FHA housing loan. I don't see the difference between a bail out loan and a SBA loan to a small business except the dollar amount.
Billy had a warehouse full of cookies. One day he decided to trade some of his cookies for magic beans. When the magic beans didn't grow, Billy knew just what to do. He stamped his feet and cried and begged until Uncle Sam took away Mom's cookies and James's cookies and your cookies and my cookies, and gave them ALL to Billy. Now Billy's cookie warehouse was full of cookies!
The moral of the story: When you're Uncle Sam's favorite nephew, you can't go wrong investing in magic beans.
For decades Detroit has fought tooth and nail against ANY regulation. No, you can't force us to make more fuel efficient cars, because it would put us out of business. No you can't force us to work on alternative energy cars, because it would put us out of business. No you can't force us to stop making gas-guzzling monstrousities, because that would put us out of business. Then suddenly gas prices spike to $5 a gallon and everyone is buying the foreign fuel efficient cars or looking into smart cars and electric cards and Detroit is left wondering what happened?
In principle, I agree that the bailout is a bad idea. But unfortunately we are currently in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario." If the big three fail, then that means tens of thousands more workers are unemployed. And nobody is going to step in to fill the void if there is nobody with a job that can afford to buy. Either the government is going to fund a bailout, or the government is going to fun more unemployment and welfare. Its 6 of one, half dozen of the other.
So perhaps instead of just loaning them money, having us serve as an actual shareholder/investor IS a better option. Shareholders do traditionally have more say in how things run. The gods know Detroit has failed dismally on its own.
I'm not really sure what the real answer is...if there even is one.
Past experience leads us to believe a loan works. Christler paid back their loan of some years ago. That gives some hope that the "big 3" will do the same. I'm glad I don't have to make that decision. The Shareholder would be the government not us as individuals any more than we are in a sense shareholders as the customer that buys their product. They didn't pay attention when we bought cars from foreign companies for the fuel efficiency why would they pay attention now? The government as a shareholder would only raise the price of a car to where no one could afford one and they would be out of business shortly anyway. I say give them a chance don't tie their hands with regulations and micro management.
They still made Cadillacs because people were still buying them; same with Corvettes.
If the government earns $151 Billion in annual tax revenues from the American automakers then it is worth the government's while to give them a $30 billion dollar loan.
New auto makers will not fill the huge labor vacuum that the failing of America's big three auto makers would leave behind. Some new automakers may appear, but mostly it is only the retail vacuum that will be filled; and that will be by foreign auto makers.
The laborers demand too much money. Higher paid management and the wealthy investors will not stand for this drag on profit margins. After the laborers have had to eat bread and water for awhile, then they will once again be happy to work for beans and peanuts while their betters eat steak and lobster.
Long Live The Well-Off.
Car Czar is just the latest term for a new autocrat.
They still make the big ones yes but they neglected a large part of their market by not making fuel effifcient vehicles.
My Olds gets 34 mpg. GM quit making this efficient car in 2002. Why?
Please remember that the Japanese (or the Chinese, Korean, German, etc.) auto makers do not limit themselves to the "free market capitalism" ideas that Americans seem so beholden to.
Col. George W. -- It has always been my belief that good gas mileage American cars have been quashed in our country because it's not so good for the American oil companies. Higher gas mileage equals lower gasoline sales. In 1995, I personally drove a car made by the Saturn company that got 50 miles per gallon on the highway. To my knowledge, Saturn does not make such cars anymore. You tell me why.
I had always thought that it was a completely new start-up company back in the early 1990s, but it would seem that this notion was just a well staged marketing ploy.
As you said - Marketing ploy.