Obama and the Auto "Industry" Bailout

On at least one issue in the mess that has become the American auto industry, I agree wholeheartedly with a Democrat.

That's right a Democrat. And not only a Democrat. A Democrat I don't like very much.

Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, is calling for GM CEO Rick Wagoner "to move on," and I couldn't agree more. In fact, I think the heads of all three Big Three companies should be fired or forced to resign for the way they've managed -- or MISmanaged, in this case -- their respective companies.

As I've noted, I'm no fan of Chris Dodd, and it has nothing to do with his party affiliation. Barely a month before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac completely melted down, Dodd told CNN he believed they were "sound." Still, when someone's right, I'll tell you so, and Dodd is right on this particular part of the issue. On the major parts, I vehemently disagree. Dodd believes a bailout is necessary. I don't.

It appears that Congress is gearing up to pass $15 billion in short-term loans to the automakers -- money it will probably never see again. If Congress goes through with it, then Congress should have a say in who runs the companies. If Congressional lawmakers do not extend money to the Big Three, then it's none of their business who's at the top.

I won't belabor my own ideas for how this proposed government bailout should be handled, other than to say government should be looking into how best to help the industry without having to cough up money.

I will say, however, that if Congress spends $15 billion to bail out the auto industry, they might as well spend $50 billion -- or, better yet, nothing at all.

Spending $15 billion on an industry that needs $134 billion is like a man who knowingly pees into the wind. Eventually, he's going to wind up angry, dirty and soaked. Fifteen billion dollars isn't going to change the fate of the Big Three, and Congress knows it. The auto execs say it won't even stop the bleeding. United Auto Workers union President Ron Gettelfinger, who's got a huge stake in the bailout outcome, told Senators last week, "I believe we could lose General Motors by the end of this month."

As optimistic as I am about Barack Obama's incoming administration -- and despite my vote on Nov. 4, I am hopeful -- I'm not happy about his comments on "Meet the Press" this weekend.

"I think the big three auto makers have made repeated strategic mistakes," he said, stating the obvious. But when it comes to floating the industry some cash, Obama made clear he is in favor of a bailout: "I don't think it's an option to simply allow [the auto industry] to collapse."

And that's one more problem I'm having with this whole thing. So many people are claiming that the "auto industry" will collapse. It won't. The Big Three will collapse. Maybe. The rest of the industry will be survive and, perhaps, even prosper.

Congress should really think carefully before tossing money at these money-hungry CEOs, who seem unwilling to change their ways. Rather than spend thousands of dollars trying to fix their problem with accountants and management consultants, these guys are spending that money begging the government for dough.

The Big Three support more than 6.1 million jobs in the US. While some argue that's reason enough to extend them a bailout, I would argue that's precisely the reason not to. Government needs to find ways legislatively to save these companies for the long-term, not just fix them for the short-term. If Congress spends $15 billion today, these automakers will be back in less than a year ... and by then, their problems might be too expensive for even the government to fix.