In what is now my third installment on this subject, (see the first and second), I would like to continue to challenge the intellectually deficient notion that the bridge loan to the American auto manufacturers was defeated by those who were "ideological," and supported by those who were not "ideological." My ongoing contention is that everyone has a system of values, also known as an ideology. As such, the Senators who voted against the auto bridge loan simply attach higher value to things like destroying unions and punishing blue states more than they do to the economic well-being of the three million workers employed by the auto manufacturers. Thus, differences on the auto bailout arise from a differences between ideologies, not on the chic, but just flat-out wrong idea, that it is was caused by differences between those who have an ideology and those who do not.
We need to get used to the idea that when politicians vote in ways we do not like, it is not necessarily due to a lack of political courage in regards to the pressure they will feel for the vote, or because they are unaware of the potential consequences of their vote. Instead, it is often because they simply have different values, aka a different ideological outlook, from us. While it is attractive to believe either that "ideology" is simply an unwillingness to look at the facts, or that we all have the same values and disagree with one another only because of some form power-seeking politics, neither is the case. Anyone trying to convince you otherwise is offering you a deluded interpretation of how to deal with disagreement in our political system.
How this relates to the specific case of the bridge loan to the Big Three in the extended entry.
Over at Daily Kos, DHinMI has been accurately writing that Senate Republicans are more interested in destroying the UAW than in saving the economy (see here and here). This is definitely true.
I do take issue with one aspect of DH's writing, though: the part where he argues that the desire to destroy a union instead of saving the economy makes someone an ideologue. This is because wanting to save three million middle class jobs is itself an ideological position. It isn't so much that Senate Republicans are being ideologues, and those who want to save the three million jobs are not being ideologues, but rather that it is a clash of ideologies. Wanting to save three million jobs instead of destroying the UAW is itself an ideological position.
So, it's possible that the GOP Senators like Corker and McConnell are stupid, and just don't understand some of the basics of the global auto industry. But we shouldn't dismiss the possibility that the ultras who've taken over the GOP, the people for whom ideology is more important than consequences and reality, would rather risk destroying one of our most important industries in an attempt to destroy a labor union.
This isn't about a clash between ideology and reality. This is, instead, about different ideological desires for what should happen in reality.
Senate Republicans would rather see the UAW destroyed than save the three million jobs at the U.S. auto manufacturers. However, working to save three million jobs is not a value-neutral position. Instead, it requires an ideology that believes those three million jobs are a good thing that must be valued more than, say, the belief that government should not step in and save three million jobs. Both the belief that destroying the union is more important than saving the jobs, and the belief that saving the jobs is more important than destroying the union are values and, thus, ideological.
The White House and the Treasury gave strong indications Friday that the U.S. government, at least temporarily, would help prop up the American auto industry.
"Because Congress failed to act, we will stand ready to prevent an imminent failure until Congress reconvenes and acts to address the long-term viability of the industry," Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said.
And White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the administration is considering using the Wall Street rescue fund to prevent the USA's strapped carmakers from failing.
While the White House is considering using TARP funds as a stop-gap measure for the automakers, there is "only" $15 billion left in the first installment of the TARP fund. First Read reports:
The Treasury Department tells NBC News that of the first $350 billion installment of the TARP money, $335 billion has either been spent or earmarked and $15 billion remains.
And remember that in order to get the second $350 billion from the $700 billion, the administration must notify Congress. At that point, Congress could simply do nothing and the administration would get their money. The only way to hold it up would be to proactively vote to DENY them the money.
So, if the White House comes in and uses TARP funding for the automakers, it might result in one final, $350 billion spending extravaganza for Paulson and the Bush administration. However, the remaining the $15 billion in the TARP fund would cover the $14 billion legislation voted down last night, and Congress will be able to pass auto legislation as early as January 6th, even despite Republican opposition.
Lots of factors at play here, including announcements that GM will temporarily close 21 factories, most of them through the end of January. I still find it incredibly frustrating that so much is going wrong during this lame-duck session. Republicans seem hell bent on causing whatever final damage they can.
An eleventh-hour effort to salvage a proposed $14 billion rescue plan for the auto industry collapsed tonight as Republicans and Democrats failed to agree on the timing of deep wage cuts for union workers, killing the legislative plan and threatening America's carmakers with bankruptcy.
"We're not going to get to the finish. That's just the way it is. There too much difference between the two sides," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) announced after 10 p.m., concluding a marathon negotiating session that ended in gridlock. Reid warned that markets could plummet when trading begins this morning.
"I dread looking at Wall Street tomorrow. It's not going to be a pleasant sight," he said.
Reid said the Senate would adjourn after a procedural vote on the bill later tonight that he said he expected would fail.
Now, the final vote was 52-35. On January 6th, Democrats gain a minimum of seven votes in the Senate, which would likely move us to 59 votes in this bill, only one short of passage. The roll call is not yet available, but if any Democrats did not vote, if Franken wins the recount, or if Reid voted with Republicans (as Majority Leaders sometimes do on these bills for procedural purposes), then it will pass in early January anyway. If none of these three are the case, then we need to find one more vote between now and January 6th. That is, of course, assuming that there are still any auto manufacturers in America to bailout by that date. (Update: Four Democrats did not vote, and Reid voted with Republicans. With nine ten Republicans defecting, six seven of whom will be around in 2009, new legislation will easily pass in January upon the arrival of at least seven new Democratic votes.)
In the meantime, as lord_mike notes in Quick Hits, Bush may well instruct Paulson to provide the auto industry with a bridge through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP. It would be a surprising move, and I will believe it when I see it, but perhaps the Gringch's heart is growing a size toward the end of his term. He also just might find the collapse of the American auto industry during his final month in office too hard to swallow.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says negotiators are discussing a new plan to save General Motors and Chrysler LLC. Reid, D-Nev., wouldn't give details but said it would be different than the plan passed by the House on Wednesday night or the alternative put forward today by Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker - which would place stricter demands on automakers and the UAW.
Right now, it is not believed that Reid and Senate Democrats have the 60 votes needed to end debate and approve the legislation as written. Reid said another senator had offered the new proposal but didn't say who.
But, he said, if negotiators are able to work out the proposal "the bill would overwhelmingly pass the Senate," perhaps as early as Thursday night, and then be sent to the House for consideration.
Obviously, the devil is in the details, which are currently not available. However, we have already given a lot away, so I am wary of what further concessions have been made.
NASA administrator Mike Griffin is not cooperating with President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, is obstructing its efforts to get information and has told its leader that she is "not qualified" to judge his rocket program, the Orlando Sentinel has learned.
In a heated 40-minute conversation last week with Lori Garver, a former NASA associate administrator who heads the space transition team, a red-faced Griffin demanded to speak directly to Obama, according to witnesses.
In addition, Griffin is scripting NASA employees and civilian contractors on what they can tell the transition team and has warned aerospace executives not to criticize the agency's moon program, sources said.
Warning people not to criticize certain governmental programs, restricting the flow of information, and calling the new administration "not qualified." Delightful. Time to fire Griffin. Obviously, this is a prime and particularly gratuitous example of why personnel matter: some personnel simply don't follow executive policy. Also, last year at Netroots Nation I made the case for why the netroots should care about space policy. You can read it here.
Also, the most recent poll in for the Democratic primary shows Attorney General Lisa Madigan at 32%, Illinois Veteran's Affairs head Tammy Duckworth at 18%, Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. at 11%, and Schakowsky at 10%. Jackson has fallen from a large lead two weeks ago, after he was identified as "Senate Candidate #5" in the Blagojevich investigation. He has not, however, been accused of any wrongdoing and is not under investigation.
In the increasingly heated battle for Secretary of the Interior, Raul Grialva (excellent choice, endorsed by over 100 environmental orgs) and Mike Thompson (bad choice, corporate Blue Dog) both appear to be out:
Last week, California Rep. Mike Thompson, D, and Arizona Rep. Raul M. Grijalva were considered top contenders, but sources close the transition say that "problems and concerns" have arisen with both candidates. New names emerging this week to fill the Interior slot include two former assistant secretaries of the Interior in the Clinton administration: Kevin Gover, now director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian, and John Berry, now director of the National Zoo.
Looks like a compromise choice will be made. At least such an appointment will have loads of experience, and not suck.
However, can I just say that I do not enjoy having to cheer for my conference in addition to cheering for my team? I already expend enough emotional energy supporting Syracuse, that having to support the other 15 teams in the Big East when they play non-conference games is simply exhausting. Further, the other teams in the Big East are Syracuse's main rivals, so why should I even cheer for them at all when they are playing non-conference opponents? I don't get this aspect of sports fandom. Why do the teams you cheer against for most of the year suddenly become teams you support just because they represent your conference or division in the playoffs? Doesn't make any sense to me.
This is an open thread, too. Let those thoughts in your head seep out into the Internet in comment form.
The prospects of a $14 billion government rescue of the American auto industry seemed to vaporize Thursday as the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, spoke out forcefully against the bill, effectively ending its chances despite the urgings of the White House.
Looks like we are going have to have to wait until at least January 6th, when the new Congress is sworn in, to have a shot at passing any sort of auto industry bailout. Hopefully, at that time Democrats will decide to drop all of the concessions they made to Bush on the bailout, and just present a new bill for Obama to sign on January 20th.
Even if an auto bailout bill is passed either sometime this month or next month, it still won't be very popular. While different question wording on the auto bailout has produced some wildly different results from poll to poll, not a single poll has shown the auto industry bailout reaching even 50% support. Further, the recent Pew poll shows that the opposition is non-partisan in nature. Only 45% of Democrats, 38% of Independents, and 31% of Republicans think that it is the "right thing for government to spend billions of dollars to make loans to automakers to help keep them in business."
The bottom line is this: a highly popular Obama is nice, but it is ultimately meaningless from a governing perspective if that popularity fails increase support for his planned legislation or break Republican opposition to it. In this instance, Democrats made a large number of concessions to Republicans, thus ending opposition from the White House, but public opinion remains mixed and Republican Senate opposition remains strong enough to prevent passage anyway. If Obama's popularity is to have any substantive meaning for Democrats and progressives, it needs to be translated into increased support for imperiled Democratic and progressive legislation among both the public and members of Congress. While I am fully aware that he is not yet in office, and thus his role is somewhat limited, hopefully President-elect, and President Obama will have more success in these areas in the coming weeks and months.
The Republican House membership might try a vicious strategy to stop the auto bailout bill. Typically, bills go through the rules committee in the House, which controls floor time and which amendments are allowed to be proposed and voted on. However, Republicans use a tactic called a 'Motion to Recommit', which is a motion allowing the minority to add an amendment or kill the bill outright by sending it back to the committee out of which it was reported. During the Delay era, Republicans were ruthless about MTRs, and they were routine matters that went down by party line pretty much every single time. During the Pelosi era, Republicans propose MTRs and Blue Dogs often threaten to vote with the Republicans, so they are used to overwhelm Pelosi's control of the chamber.
Tonight, Republicans in the House might use the MTR to add all sorts of nasty stuff to the bailout. Below is an email circulating in the House about what they might do. Right now, the only amendment the Rules Committee authorized for a vote is one that adds oversight to the TARP program, but as you'll see, there's ample opportunity for Republicans to get very nasty if they can rustle up the votes from wayward Democrats (probably Blue Dogs).
The Rules Committee reported out a structured rule for the auto bailout bill. There is one hour of general debate on the bill, and the rule provides for an MTR (more on that below).
One amdt from Mr. LaTourette was made in order that was fully supported by the Rules Committee. The amdt text is attached. The amdt adds oversight to TARP. It stipulates that a company getting TARP money must report how much new lending it did. It is specifically aimed at the problem where lenders are taking TARP money and not using it for the intended purpose of lending, but instead are using the TARP funds to buy other banks, claim their assets, and say they are lending more money now (and in some cases laying off employees from the acquired bank in the process).
LaTourette amdt - the amdt requires that any lending assistance provided under TARP or EISA to an insured depository institution shall report the amount of any increase or decrease in new lending attributed to the TARP or EISA assistance. If the institution cannot provide an accurate report, the institution shall report the total amount of increase or decrease in overall new lending in its quarterly reports (10 minutes debate).
Please be advised that the MTR could be especially nasty - it is going to depend on how much trouble the Rs who oppose this wish to cause. The scope of this bill is very, very wide. And the Rs are really upset about a number of things right now. If the Rs wish to stir up an immense amount of trouble, the MTR could be things such as emissions standards, CAFÉ, the Columbia FTA (it is germane to the bill), anything transportation-related (due to the guarantee provision for mass transit entities), something immigration-related (the bill includes a COLA for judges, which opens the scope of Judiciary Cmte), and more. It is assumed the President will work to keep their Rs in line on this so they do not torpedo the bill, but there are no guarantees and no assurances. Wanted to be sure you are aware of this in the event things start spinning out of control.
Finally, the Senate will not be taking this up today, so we will be playing the waiting game. It is hoped the Senate will simply pass our bill tomorrow, pass it, and send to the President. But if recent history is any indicator, what is more likely to happen is we will pass the bill tonight; the Senate will take up the bill tomorrow, make changes to it, and stuff it down our throat; and we will then pass whatever the Senate passed. Stay tuned.
Tonight's Schedule (subj to change of course):
Debate on same day rule - 1 hour. We are now debating the same day rule
Vote on same day rule
Debate on the auto rule - 1 hour
Vote on the rule
General debate on the bill - 1 hour
Debate on the LaTourette amdt - 10 minutes
Vote on amdt (possibly voiced)
MTR debate - 10 minutes
Vote on MTR
Final Passage
We are going to be here for a while. Guessing 7:30pm-8pm; could be earlier or later depending on if time is yielded back or something is voiced.
STATE BLOGS
