Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Who Gets Helped?

While the parlor game about whether Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State continues, Congress and the Bush Administration play a dangerous game of chicken on two fronts. The emergency bailout for Detroit's Big Three automakers is one, the other is an economic stimulus package. It looks like the latter will have to wait until President-Elect Obama is in office. That's sad, since there is a bill on the table, introduced Monday by Senate Democrats. In the case of help for the auto industry, it's a test of wills between the White House and Congress about where the money will come from. Let's take the cars first, since it will most likely be acted on before the stimulus bill.

Ironically, there appears to be bipartisan support for some sort of action by year's end. GM in particular says it's burning through cash so fast it might be forced into bankruptcy before President-Elect Obama is inaugurated. The difference isn't over whether to help, it's over thew form the help takes. Democrats want the money, $25 billion in all, to be taken from funds not yet spent in Treasury's $700 billion dollar financial rescue package. The White House and some Republicans want an existing Energy Dept. loan program to be the source of funding. That money was originally supposed to be used for long term investments in producing more energy efficient vehicles.

If it sounds complicated, it is. The core question is whether this money will come with enough strings to make Detroit change the way it does business, and the types of cars it produces. That's much more likely under the Democrats' plan. However, there's no guarantee compromise will be reached in this lame duck session of Congress.

a compromise agreement is even less likely in the case of the economic stimulus package. Republicans in Congress and the White House don't like the price tag, and Democrats resent President Bush's attempt to tie help for American jobseekers to a trade pact with Colombia. It seems both sides are adopting a "leave it for Obama" stance, which means lawmakers risk a further decline in the nation's economic fortunes in the interim.

This is precisely the kind of DC gridlock that Obama was elected to end. Can he? You tell me.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Here's what I've learned so far,since new wave of BailOuts a month and some: if it sounds complicated, there's some BS in there someplace. And, it's like the little boy who cried "Wolf!". Haven't we heard this before?:"If it's not done quickly, .....(bad will happen)".

So how come it's OK to leave homeowners dangling and the unemployed facing dire history-proven consequences and the fat cats get bailed out again and again?.