fbachman Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The White House and congressional Democrats on Tuesday night reached an agreement in principle on a $15 billion proposal for bailing out U.S. automakers and forcing them to restructure or fail, officials said. A Bush administration official and a Democratic leadership aide said the outline covered key points but final issues needed to be resolved and put in writing. Democrats have arranged to have the House of Representatives vote on a bill as early as Wednesday and send it to the Senate for consideration. President George W. Bush and President-elect Barack Obama were both urged by a key lawmaker to help rally support by Democrats and Republicans for the pending measure. "Bipartisan hard work has paid off," said Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan whose home state headquarters General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC. "I understand an agreement has been reached," Levin said in a statement. The bailout is designed to allow GM and Chrysler to avert threatened bankruptcy through March with short-term loans. Ford Motor Co. is not requesting immediate help but would like a $9 billion line of credit in case its finances worsen. The parties that negotiated the tentative deal agreed last week that the money would come from an Energy Department fund established in September to help Detroit make more fuel-efficient cars. Proof of viability The administration official said the negotiators satisfied the key White House concern in the talks that companies receiving aid obtain the necessary concessions and make other changes to prove they can survive and compete. In addition to providing loans, the proposal would force automakers to answer to a presidentially appointed trustee -- or "car czar" -- and make the government their biggest shareholder. The overseer will have powers to shape a restructuring of the companies, withholding further loans if progress toward a turnaround stalled. A major provision would permit the czar to recommend a bankruptcy restructuring if companies borrowing money fail to obtain the necessary concessions. Some Republicans wanted some sort of bankruptcy option included as an incentive for labor and other stakeholders to agree on givebacks. The administration still opposes a Democratic bid to force automakers to drop lawsuits against California and other states seeking to cut auto emissions and other greenhouse gases. The administration official said it was his expectation the bill will not succeed unless that provision is struck. Another issue raised by Republicans was the use of taxpayer money in the case of Chrysler, which is owned by private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP. During the talks, Democratic aides said the administration resisted a bid to hold Cerberus liable for repayment if Chrysler defaulted on any loan. It remains unclear if that matter still needs to be clarified. Filibuster scenario Democrats control Congress and were expected to be able to muscle a bill through the House. But it was unclear if Republicans could stop a measure in the Senate with a procedural roadblock that requires 60 votes to clear. "Ball is in the Senate Republicans' court," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat. "There is no word yet whether they will give us consent." A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said he would decline comment until he saw the bill. An auto bailout has evoked competing emotions in Congress. Lawmakers fear if automakers collapse, it would deepen the U.S. recession. But many say market forces, not a government saddled with a record deficit, should determine their fate. There also is reluctance to provide another federal rescue in the wake of the voter backlash against Congress for its passage of a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street in October. At the same time, many argue that if Congress provided relief for millionaires in the U.S. financial industry, it should also help blue-collar autoworkers facing unemployment. A poll by CBS News conducted last week found Americans split on whether taxpayer funds should help automakers. But more than 65 percent said in exchange for any aid, the government should have a say in the automakers' management and require more fuel-efficient cars.
ChrisNJ Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 Just another giveaway which results in more government/liberal control. It never works. I am mad at these groveling weasels who call themselves CEO's selling out their once great companies. Instead they should have asked the politicians to demand free trade in the world, and to stop the tax and realestate giveaways to the foreign car makers for short term gain. They should go bankrupt and let the UAW fall. IMO, the only solution.
asilverblazer Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 I don't like the "Car Czar" or forcing them to drop their lawsuits against California. Maybe I'll sue Texas for all the methane their cows produce, which the livestock industry produces far more of than our cars do.
Darkanion Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 Maybe I'll sue Texas for all the methane their cows produce, which the livestock industry produces far more of than our cars do. Says the guy with a pickup truck AND a horse trailer in his sig pic... The part that bugs me most about what Frank posted was this : "and make the government their biggest shareholder." So, the guvahment has a major stake in the big banks now... and they'll soon have a big stake in the Big Three... What do they want to own next??
merlin5577 Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 Maybe I'll sue Texas for all the methane their cows produce, which the livestock industry produces far more of than our cars do. Says the guy with a pickup truck AND a horse trailer in his sig pic... The part that bugs me most about what Frank posted was this : "and make the government their biggest shareholder." So, the guvahment has a major stake in the big banks now... and they'll soon have a big stake in the Big Three... What do they want to own next?? +1 Socialism comes to mind.
Draenor Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 The part that bugs me most about what Frank posted was this : "and make the government their biggest shareholder." So, the guvahment has a major stake in the big banks now... and they'll soon have a big stake in the Big Three... What do they want to own next?? +1 Socialism comes to mind. Wrong.....See Communism If it was socialistic, the people would have a little say in what happens. Since Congress(da guvahment) is ignoring, who they are representing, and doing what they want to do, pushes society toward communism. *edit* If they get ahold of the media(really get ahold of the media) then the propaganda can begin.
shocktrp Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 Fox News is reporting that they don't have the votes to make it pass (yet). If it doesn't pass now, it will pass next month when Barry is in office. This is just another waste of money - the .gov is going to force them to make cars that the consumer doesn't want. Sales will continue to decline and a bigger problem will have to be dealt with later.
merlin5577 Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 The part that bugs me most about what Frank posted was this : "and make the government their biggest shareholder." So, the guvahment has a major stake in the big banks now... and they'll soon have a big stake in the Big Three... What do they want to own next?? +1 Socialism comes to mind. Wrong.....See Communism If it was socialistic, the people would have a little say in what happens. Since Congress(da guvahment) is ignoring, who they are representing, and doing what they want to do, pushes society toward communism. *edit* If they get ahold of the media(really get ahold of the media) then the propaganda can begin. We do. We get to pick which Socialist we want. Wrong..........see Socialism; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Nick The Great Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 The part that bugs me most about what Frank posted was this : "and make the government their biggest shareholder." So, the guvahment has a major stake in the big banks now... and they'll soon have a big stake in the Big Three... What do they want to own next?? +1 Socialism comes to mind. Wrong.....See Communism If it was socialistic, the people would have a little say in what happens. Since Congress(da guvahment) is ignoring, who they are representing, and doing what they want to do, pushes society toward communism. *edit* If they get ahold of the media(really get ahold of the media) then the propaganda can begin. IF? What do you mean "if" ?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.