Can the auto industry borrow AIG's lobbyist? http://www.freep.com/article/20081111/COL10/81112001/1164/COL10
BY ROCHELLE RILEY ● FREE PRESS COLUMNIST ● November 11, 2008 Read Comments(27)Recommend(2)Print this page E-mail this article Share this article: Del.icio.us Facebook WASHINGTON -- No governor could have gotten a tougher crisis to handle than Gov. Jennifer Granholm has. The governors of Louisiana and Florida, where hurricanes have devastated the economy and lives, would disagree. But if the American auto industry fails -- and many people amazingly still don’t believe it’s possible -- IT WOULD BE AN UNNATURAL DISASTER OF DEVASTATING AND INSURMOUNTABLE NATIONAL PROPORTIONS. (Yes, I’m screaming that part.) And the governor can’t seem to convince people of the urgency. So this emergency couldn’t have happened to a nicer governor. And right now, Michigan doesn’t need nice: We need tough. President-elect Barack Obama gets the urgency. He urged President George W. Bush Monday to support immediate emergency aid for the auto industry. Ironically, his request came on the same day that the government announced it would purchase American International Group (AIG) stock to relieve strain on AIG, which has received about $143 billion in aid since September -- without strings attached, without constant begging, without promises. But before it will help the auto industry, the administration wants to demand that failing companies do something they were unable to do when they were healthier. Oh, and the president wants to tie auto aid to a free-trade agreement with Colombia. It isn’t fair. And Michigan needs to borrow AIG's lobbyist, the one who convinced the administration to write near blank checks to the insurance company. Granholm is positioned to help; she’s the only governor on Obama’s economic panel of advisers. And she’s there, a close adviser to Obama affirmed Sunday, because Obama wants her to counsel him on the unique woes of the state with the nation’s highest unemployment rate. “It was really important to him to have the governor from the state that is the hardest hit by the economy sitting at the table,” Valerie Jarrett, a cochair of his transition team said during an interview. Granholm “is taking a beating, as is her state, and so it’s so important that he have her counsel and advice.” But a day later, when the governor got her first postelection chance to make a national case for auto aid, it, uh, didn’t go too well. The difference between what she told the “Today” show’s Matt Lauer and what she should have told Lauer was vast: When Lauer asked why Americans should give money to the auto industry, she reminded him that it was a loan. She should have reminded him that it was a loan, then query why it was easier to throw money at financial and mortgage crises caused by greed. When Lauer asked why America should help an industry that has nearly bankrupted itself because of too-high union costs and unpopular car designs, she said the industry had negotiated a new contract with the United Auto Workers that is full of sacrifice -- and that people just aren’t buying cars. She should have said that there was little public support for the $700-billion congressional bailout bill, but Congress bailed first and made plans to deal later with the greed that led to the sub-prime mortgage disaster. When Lauer asked why Americans should believe the auto industry wouldn’t be back to ask for more money, she said no one wants that. What she should have said was that if the auto industry fails and at least 3 million people lose their jobs, the mortgage and insurance industries will be back again as foreclosures shoot through the roof. Obama is right to ensure that Michigan is a part of every discussion about the nation’s economic crisis. Michigan has not diversified its economy enough to replace the jobs that would be lost by an industry meltdown. And he’s right that the auto industry needs to do what it hasn’t: improve fuel efficiency. But making the auto companies write 100 times on the board “I will do better” while the classroom is burning down makes no sense. So either the governor needs to ramp up her anger and lobbying skills, or she can counsel Obama while the state's new lobbyist makes America understand that the auto crisis is as real as those in the banking and insurance industries. In your voice Read reactions to this story Newest first Oldest first painfultime wrote: If we had to bailout banks, why did we have to give Paulson a blank 80 bil check? We were doomed from that point. This guy's career was launched in the Nixon admin. But this lead could tell the story. I heard that Bush threatened martial law when he summoned the congress to the white house if they didn't sign off on the bailout. That would have meant that no election could take place. I will check out that lead and get the source. 11/14/2008 5:47:29 p.m. EDTIf we had to bailout banks, why did we have to give Paulson a blank 80 bil check? We were doomed from that point. This guy's career was launched in the Nixon admin. But this lead could tell the story. I heard that Bush threatened martial law when he summoned the congress to the white house if they didn't sign off on the bailout. That would have meant that no election could take place. I will check out that lead and get the source.<br /> painfultime Recommend New post Reply to this Post Report Abuse OctopiAlley wrote: Rochelle we've already dealt with Granholm who's been promising with the tax strings attached and despite all the warnings and begging... so far its been a complete failure, but at least she stuck to her ideals... so far Blown Away, 2 million jobs! Don't yell so much, you sound like MC 11/13/2008 3:27:21 p.m. EDTRochelle we've already dealt with Granholm who's been promising with the tax strings attached and despite all the warnings and begging... so far its been a complete failure, but at least she stuck to her ideals... so far Blown Away, 2 million jobs!<br /><br />Don't yell so much, you sound like MC OctopiAlley Recommend(1) New post Reply to this Post Report Abuse OctopiAlley wrote: Replying to browndog2: Replying to oakland: right on and what has always been wrong with our Governor. When it comes to a fight with Bishop, the media, or anybody else, she's a useless milquetoast. compromise and capitualte then stand and die on principle.Governor and a spokesman who can and will fight, and Granholm isn't it. see Bonoir out there then her. Of coarse you would.Any liberal union buttkisser tax raising over regualtion red taped bureaucrat is so much better than a conservative, business friendly republican could ever hope to be. Read Freidman New York Times today. Even liberal partisans can see the writing on the wall. Not Michiganders. Keep doing it the way you've always done it.Stay on the same path you've always been on.Keep electing the same old same old Not as "changey" as advertized, huh? The Idea is for you to Change, Liberals resolve to "die on principle" no matter what the results. 11/13/2008 3:07:33 p.m. EDT<p class="replyingto">Replying to <span class="author">browndog2</span>:</p><blockquote><p class="replyingto">Replying to <span class="author">oakland</span>:</p><blockquote>right on and what has always been wrong with our Governor. When it comes to a fight with Bishop, the media, or anybody else, she's a useless milquetoast. compromise and capitualte then stand and die on principle.Governor and a spokesman who can and will fight, and Granholm isn't it. see Bonoir out there then her.</blockquote>Of coarse you would.Any liberal union buttkisser tax raising over regualtion red taped bureaucrat is so much better than a conservative, business friendly republican could ever hope to be.<br />Read Freidman New York Times today. Even liberal partisans can see the writing on the wall. Not Michiganders. Keep doing it the way you've always done it.Stay on the same path you've always been on.Keep electing the same old same old<br />Not as "changey" as advertized, huh?</blockquote><br /><br />The Idea is for you to Change, Liberals resolve to "die on principle" no matter what the results.<br /> OctopiAlley Recommend(1) New post Reply to this Post Report Abuse freep.com Staff rriley99 wrote: CDBpic: Your question is: Why should the automakers improve fuel efficiency? The answer is: Because if they did, more people would buy American cars, and selling more cars will increase their bottom line.You can't make a profit, if you don't sell. That's the basic tenet of retail. You may think that the problem is gas; the problem is having to buy so much gas, and more and more Americans are choosing their cars based on budget and environment instead of look and luxury. R 11/13/2008 10:31:34 a.m. EDTCDBpic: Your question is: Why should the automakers improve fuel efficiency? The answer is: Because if they did, more people would buy American cars, and selling more cars will increase their bottom line.You can't make a profit, if you don't sell. That's the basic tenet of retail. You may think that the problem is gas; the problem is having to buy so much gas, and more and more Americans are choosing their cars based on budget and environment instead of look and luxury. R rriley99 Recommend New post Reply to this Post Report Abuse buyamerican55 wrote: Paulson is a corrupt crook - something needs to be done to take this guy out of office. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
