Posted by
RepublicanEvangelist on Sunday, November 23, 2008 11:15:15 AM
I must say that I am still torn on the issue. I have heard good arguments on both sides and naturally my libertarian tendencies would lead me to take a position solidly against. We still need an industrial base as a nation however. We still need someone to make tanks and humvees for our military. The problem is that the American auto industry is not competitive with the Japanese. The Japanese are now operating manufacturing plants in our country without the UAW and with much lower labor costs. The labor costs include the wages, medical benefits, and of course retirement of workers. Because of contracts negotiated during the salad days, the American car companies are forced to pay out ridiculously generous medical benefits and pensions to past workers. This is by definition are a drain on productivity. This is not a 401k where money is set aside for the worker to do as he/she wishes after retirement. This is set income benefit that is paid regardless of amount paid into any fund and regardless of the financial situation of the company itself. The only other place you see such unsustainable benefits is in government which brings me to Iowahawk and his take on the bailout.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/11/lemon.html
Now if the bailout included a renegotiation of union contracts to substantially lower the health care costs and pension benefits to make the industry more profitable, I would come down solidly on the bailout side. The problem is the Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Does anyone think they would make the slightest move that is seen as anti labor? So in the end the money will likely be more and more thrown in the wormhole and we'll be back here in a year or less with more money being needed by the taxpayer. Even worse, the government takes over the running of the auto industry and does so with the same efficiency as Amtrak and Medicare.