Lets go over the cliff

I’ve taken the liberty of copying this from a David Harsanyl Opinion column. Respects to Mr. Harsanyl. And we wonder where out tax money goes…

"You may recall that during the presidential election, the Treasury Department refused requests by General Motors to unload the government’s stake in the giant automaker.

Taxpayers had sunk $50 billion into a union bailout in 2009 and were now proud owners of 26.5 percent of the struggling company. Reportedly, GM had growing concerns that the stigma of “Government Motors” was hurting sales in the United States. At the time, any transaction would have come at a steep loss to taxpayers and undermined the President’s questionable campaign assertions that the auto union rescue had been a huge success.

Well, now that the election is over and the Treasury Department is freed of political considerations, it plans to sell its 500 million shares of stock over the next 12 to 15 months and ease its way out of the company. GM will buy around 200 million shares at $27.50 per share by the end of the year. GM’s buy brings taxpayers back to around $5.5 billion of the $27 billion the company still owes. The special inspector general for TARP estimated in October that the Treasury would need to sell the remaining 500 million shares at $53.98 per share just to break even on its investment.

Once GM buys its 200 million shares, the taxpayer stake in the company will drop to 19 percent, but the price to break even on the remaining 300 million shares will be around $70 per - or, in other words, probably never. As of this writing, GM shares are trading at around $27 per share. That, in the Obama era, is considered a successful transaction between the state and private industry. So successful that you’ll also remember that during the campaign, Obama maintained that “what we did with the auto industry, we can do in manufacturing across America.”

Taxpayer funds and unions for everyone.

Even if taxpayers recouped all of their money from the bailout, there are a slew of economic arguments against rescuing failing industries. But the more immediate problem is that we will never get our money back, anyway.

GM’s labor costs, estimated at $56 an hour, still are higher than any of its competitors. Since the Obama administration cajoled the normal bankruptcy hearings and eradicated the pensions of nonunion workers to ensure union success, employees, like the ones at Delphi, the auto parts manufacturer and one-time GM subsidiary, took it on the chin while $26 billion of taxpayer funds were used to keep United Auto Workers in a secure position.

The Treasury Department has just revised its estimate upward to $25 billion in losses, and it will probably be more than that when it’s all said and done. Taxpayers also suffered a $2.9 billion loss in Chrysler (the carmaker had received $12.5 billion through TARP programs) in 2011.

“This announcement is an important step in bringing closure to the successful auto industry rescue, it further removes the perception of government ownership of GM among customers, and it demonstrates confidence in GM’s progress and our future,” claimed GM Chairman and Chief Executive Dan Akerson in a press release. But really, the bailout exemplifies much of what’s wrong with government. The cronyism. Wasted taxpayer money. The government’s propensity to interfere with the marketplace and prop up losing propositions.

With news of the government getting out of the car business, we’ll probably see a spike in the stock price. Maybe once Obama has completely dropped our “investment” it’ll take off. But a success for taxpayers? Hardly."

It doesn’t matter to me if GM paid the loans back or not…Even at a profit.

I still wouldn’t have lent them the money. In order for a free market to work…companies MUST be allowed to fail. By bailing out GM…there is now no incentive for GM to change their extremely poor business practices. These companies that have become too big to fail…are still too big to fail. And if GM wasn’t bailed out…I firmly believe they’d still be around. Someone would have bought them out.

One last thing…that $56/hr is NOT what the workers are making. GM plays a lot with those numbers. A good portion of that $56/hr is what GM plays into pension. I still have two nephews who are in the UAW…have been for over 20 years. And their hourly wage isn’t even close to $56/hr. More like $35/hr. The starting salary is around $20/hr.

The reason that companies have and must be supported is quite simply; national defense. The last time I checked, the govt. made nothing on their own and GM, Ford and other American companies are extremely important in their solvency. It is in the best interest of all, that when the govt. contracts goods and services, it does so with American labor as much as possible. So now, people forget that the workers for these companies are also tax payers and defense contractors ?

In order for the free market to work, companies must be allowed to fail ? In order for good governance to work, I suppose workers must go on unemployment and their families go into poverty too.
We have had business loans by the govt. that have prevented bankrupcies for years. The so called bail out is nothing new. It is railed against by some just because they weren’t in office at the time.

“One last thing…that $56/hr is NOT what the workers are making. GM plays a lot with those numbers. A good portion of that $56/hr is what GM plays into pension.”

I prefer to see total compensation as opposed to salary only. All benefits are part of the total package, and should be accounted for. I have a great salary, but I have to take out my 401K and personal medical contribution before we get to the taxable salary.

Since the Obama administration cajoled the normal bankruptcy hearings and eradicated the pensions of nonunion workers to ensure union success, employees, like the ones at Delphi, the auto parts manufacturer and one-time GM subsidiary, took it on the chin while $26 billion of taxpayer funds were used to keep United Auto Workers in a secure position.

How about we just get rid of the unions?

I read a few weeks ago that the people Chrysler fired back in 2010 for being caught on national TV drinking alcohol and smoking pot got their jobs back, after 2 years in arbitration. Even Chrysler wasn’t happy with the decision, but they had to abide by the union’s choices.

I prefer to see total compensation as opposed to salary only. All benefits are part of the total package, and should be accounted for.

No other industry I know of lumps the compensation paid to past retirees into what the current worker is making to artificially boost what the current worker is making. If there is could you please show me. Every company I ever worked for…or heard of keeps retirement benefits and current wages separate.

The reason that companies have and must be supported is quite simply; national defense. The last time I checked, the govt. made nothing on their own and GM, Ford and other American companies are extremely important in their solvency.

If we have to support them that way then they can’t be a in a free market. We either regulate them completely or we have a free market. GM management SCREWED up…and we the tax payers are paying dearly for it. How is that benefiting anyone. We’re sending a message to all industries…screw up all you want…as long as you’re a big company we’ll bail you out no questions asked.

“No other industry I know of lumps the compensation paid to past retirees into what the current worker is making to artificially boost what the current worker is making.”

I was thinking about my total compensation vs. someone else’s without the benefits of currently retired people included.

“How about we just get rid of the unions?”

Only 12% of the US population belongs to a union. Many states, including Michigan, are right to work states. The UAW cannot compel anyone in Michigan to join the union or pay union dues anymore. Unions really are on the endangered list.

@MikeInNH

Let’s be clear…GM management not the unions nor workers skrewed up. And yes, we have been supporting the industries we depend upon in war time to survive during peacetime for many, many years. In our state, ship yards ( including Bath Ironworks) were given financial help to make commercial vessels when a cut back in military hardware was instituted during the Clinton administration. This forestalled their closing, saving many jobs and helping the eonomy of an entire area.They were then ready to bid for contracts for military ship building when it came time later.

This goes on all over the country. When a business applies for a federally supported low interest start up loan and can show a strategic advantage, they get preferential treatment. Nothing new ! We DONOT, either regulate them or allow a free market. The govt. works with the free maket but must regularly regulate industries that have a statiegic link to our national defense. The oil companies are a perfect example. One of the reasons the subsidies are kept and supplies kept secure for commerce throughout the shipping lanes by our own Navy through out the world, is because of our stategic oil supplies, necessary for our national defense.

Raytheon for another example, which supplies electronics for key military hardware is also regulated as to how they operate in their civilian sector. They WILL NOT be allowed to go under, regardless of poor civilian sector decisions. What they sell and who they sell it to can conpromise our security…do I go on ? Boeing, Lockheed…are no different then GM. They just weren’t the political football at the time.

I was thinking about my total compensation vs. someone else's without the benefits of currently retired people included.

That may be what you think it is…but that’s NOT how GM is calculating it. The average salary is of the GM factory worker is $28/hr. Add personal benefits and it’s about $40…GM tacks on another $16+/hr for retirement entitlements that are currently being paid.

Definition of “bailout” and been going on for a long time
"As such, it is the policy of the US government to protect the biggest American companies responsible for transportation (airliners, petrol companies, etc.) from failure through subsidies and low-interest loans. These companies, among others, are deemed “too big to fail” because their goods and services are considered by the government to be constant universal necessities in maintaining the nation’s welfare and often, indirectly, its security.[4][5]"
That doesn’t limit it to the automobile company.

So basically the goal of a company is to be in such an industry and grow to the point that they’re too big go fail…then screw up the company by giving HUGE bonuses to executives and off-shoring jobs. Doesn’t matter what you do because you’ll be bailed out by tax payers.

I personally don’t see just giving them money for their screwups as a viable solution. Either we limit how big the company can be so they can NEVER be too big to fail…or the US takes over the company (which I’m NOT for).

And the alternative is to talk tough when you are not in power but do exactly the same thing when in. That’s the history of both parties. It’s called political posturing. Be proud, but be In a great depression…that’s where we were headed. Talking tough got us there. Being compassionate and investing in people gets us out, always has. The auto company has survived thanks to compassion and realism.

So many of the working class basic benefits were because people fought and died to create unions. 60 hour work weeks are gone, child labor laws recently eliminated in WI were formed, grievance for working in unsafe conditions was now a negotiable issue, It was not the benevolence of the rich but demands of the workers, that made the middle class. Now you suggest the unions are evil, while a CEO gets multimillion dollar bonuses for screwing the working guy, and you want to blame the working guy for wanting a living wage while supporting the insanely wealthy to get more wealthy? NUTSO!

Parity,parity-how in the world can I afford to buy what the UAW produces when I dont make but $12 an hour?No benefits no retirement,not even health insurance? I guess my work helps the higher ups buy all this land and go on a hunting trip to Montana1-2 wks a year,better then nothing I suppose(please dont mention right to work,to me) and the sad thing is I’m probaly still better off then 90% of the world,so my question to you is-when the revolution?-Kevin

Guess the screw the unions is working.

The auto company has survived thanks to compassion and realism.

I agree it survived…but I’m NOT in agreement that’s the best thing. What’s to stop GM from screwing up again…and again we bail them out??

It seems to me we just keep bailing them out over and over again.

According to union officials, the contract “provided no raises, eliminated the defined benefits pension program, weakened seniority rights and required machinists to pay higher contributions for health care.” All of this, at a time when the company is making record profits. In fact, Fortune Magazine recently said the company is “crushing it” when it comes to profitability.

At the same time that it is refusing to give its workers a fair raise, the company saw fit to increase its CEOs pay by 60 percent:
http://www.nationofchange.org/mega-manufacturer-caterpillar-demands-concessions-workers-after-boosting-ceo-pay-60-percent-13386441

“So many of the working class basic benefits were because people fought and died to create unions. 60 hour work weeks are gone, child labor laws recently eliminated in WI were formed, grievance for working in unsafe conditions was now a negotiable issue, It was not the benevolence of the rich but demands of the workers, that made the middle class. Now you suggest the unions are evil, while a CEO gets multimillion dollar bonuses for screwing the working guy, and you want to blame the working guy for wanting a living wage while supporting the insanely wealthy to get more wealthy? NUTSO!”

Like anything else, there are good and bad features of labor unions and management. They are naturally at odds with each other, and this is supposed to create a balance of a decent living standard for hourly workers while a company makes a profit. Unfortunately, we live in a global economy, and low wages around the world are depressing wages here. There is hope, though. Many companies have found that trying to build complex systems half-way around the world has led to big delivery delays when products are not produced properly. This is leading to increasing US manufacturing of assemblies that at one time were made overseas. And look at how many “foreign” auto manufacturers there are here now.