While the automakers submitted separate business plans, they got a jump start from the Engine of Democracy coalition, which is mobilizing grassroots support for the, er, "federal bridge loans." The coalition says it is “self-funded and receives no funds from Chrysler, Ford or General Motors.”
My friend William Reed isn't reticent about touting the support African Americans receive from the Big Three. Bill recently wrote:
Among African Americans the Big Three’s multiplier effect among is critical. Black workers, contractors and consumers have a stake in how Congress reacts to Detroit’s plight. “Just do it” is what Randi Payton, publisher of African Americans on Wheels, suggests. He says they are “some of the most socially responsible corporations in the world” and because of how they impact African Americans emphasizes their “big stake” in how Congress acts on the issue. Payton says, “Social responsibility has long been a hallmark of the industry. The Big Three have consistently supported social and community initiatives, as well as small businesses. Next to the Federal government America’s automotive industry leads in embracing diversity and employment of minorities.”
As of September 2008, the motor vehicle and parts industries directly employed 732,800 workers and were one of the largest economic generators for African Americans. The argument Payton puts forth is that the Big Three and their reciprocity toward African Americans should be measured by blacks as to how these companies help in our communities compared to where the $750 billion Wall Street operatives got from the government goes.
Under their spanking new restructuring plans, the Big Three want taxpayers to make as much as a $38 billion down payment. In return, the CEOs promise to cut tens of thousands of jobs, shut factories and close dealerships.
With a CNN-Opinion Research poll showing 61 percent of Americans oppose a federal bailout, lawmakers remain skeptical about taking a ride on Detroit's “freeway of love.”
But some want to run them off the road. Rep. Gary Ackerman castigated them for their profligacy:
There’s a delicious irony of seeing private luxury jets flying into DC, and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hands, saying that they’re going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses. It’s almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. Kind makes you a little bit suspicious as to whether or not…we’ve seen the future. There’s a message there. Couldn’t you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled to get here? It would have at least sent the message that you do get it.
Michael Moore, writer, producer and director of “Roger and Me,” skewered the less than dynamic trio on CNN’s "Larry King Live."
Moore continued:
They don’t believe in free enterprise or free market. They want socialism for themselves. They want a handout and a net for themselves. To hell with everybody else, but give it to them.
ABC News’ Brian Ross broke the story of the corporate excess. He told King:
This is the way all three of the CEOs live. They talked about sacrifices. They talked about the sacrifice of laying off tens of thousands of their workers. They’re not talking about their own sacrifices…For a company that says it’s running out of cash, it seems incongruous.
It’s indeed incongruous to ask taxpayers, who have to pay for a bottle of water on a cramped commercial plane, to bail out auto execs who are cut from the same fine cloth as AIG executives.
Consider: a new Rasmussen poll found that Americans have flipped the script. Forty-eight percent think the failure of General Motors would be good for the country.
Six weeks ago, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson claimed he knew how to avert a meltdown in the financial markets. Within days of presenting his rescue package, Congress approved a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.
Paulson has since thumbed his nose at Congress and pursued a secret plan to end the financial crisis.
As distressed homeowners and middle-class taxpayers juggle their credit card bills, the Treasury Department reportedly will bail out credit card companies, including American Express. The bailout would come courtesy of their cardholders.
It's all right there in black and white in the text of the bailout bill
passed last month, yet the public may feel like victims of a bait and
switch.
The original idea: Spend $700 billion in tax dollars to buy troubled mortgage-related assets from struggling banks.
But the actual bailout calls for nothing of the sort. Instead, your
tax dollars are buying massive shares in some of the nation's biggest
and most successful banks - with virtually no strings attached. And
that's all allowed under Congress' plan.
On Nov. 4, Americans voted for Democratic hegemony in DC. They
voted to end business as usual.
President-elect Barack Obama does not take office until Jan. 20. But Congress is expected to convene a lame-duck session next week.
Like the Senate’s ill-fated amnesty for illegal immigrants, the House’s proposed bailout of Wall Street went down to ignominious defeat.
Then as now, the bill was negotiated behind closed doors. Then as now, congressional leaders did an end-run around the committees of jurisdiction.
Then as now, the negotiators congratulated themselves for making "great progress."
Then as now, outraged citizens told Congress to stick it. Voters overwhelmed the Capitol switchboard. The millions of emails that were sent caused the House.gov website to crash.
The American people sent a clear message: We will remember in November.
This was predictable, I suppose, but it's remarkable to see how strong a relationship there is between today's failed vote on the bailout and the competitive nature of different House races.
Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.
By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.
Folks should call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, and vulnerable senators, including Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Ted Stevens of Alaska and John Sununu of New Hampshire.
Call your senators at (202) 224-3121 and tell them they work for you.
I was slack-jawed as I watched House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the debate over the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008." Pelosi’s hyper-partisanship and finger were in House Republicans’ faces.
I am deeply concerned that there is no requirement that Wall Street take
responsibility for the mess it helped to create. There is no meaningful
limitation on golden parachutes for executives—who are still making millions of
dollars a month even as average Americans continue to struggle to stay afloat. I
am concerned that the board created to oversee this bailout is not offered the
power to stop any irresponsible or questionable action. I am concerned that
there are no safeguards against taxpayers being overcharged to buy these
assets—or any guarantees that they will profit from these investments in the
future
Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said:
Today’s House vote was a reminder that ultimately it’s the Americans who elect members of Congress who have the most influence over them -- when they speak up with a loud voice. In this case, money from the finance sector -- the biggest campaign contributor of all time -- seems to have played a part in lawmakers’ votes, but it didn’t win the day. Risking a seat in Congress for campaign cash isn’t worth it for politicians when the public is paying attention. And the public is certainly paying attention now.
With the defeat of the bill, congressional leaders must go back to the drawing board. The notion of a Wall Street bailout is a "grimace-inducing phrase," but something must be done.
That said, Congress' next move must be to read the bill first. The House voted on the 110-page bill less than 24 hours after it was posted online.
The new bill must not give Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson unfettered discretion to decide which toxic assets to purchase from his former cronies.
The implementation of any rescue plan must not be outsourced to the same financial institutions and Wall Street vultures that got us into this mess. Call me old school, but I don’t think you can be part of the problem and the solution.
There must be restructuring of subprime mortgages and regulatory reform. Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., a longtime voice for distressed homeowners, noted:
A "bail out" plan that does not rescue homeowners will not stop the crisis. The foreclosure epidemic gripping communities across the nation will continue. The existing proposal includes vague language that calls for the government to buy mortgages and securities and then try to modify them, but fails short of making this a mandate required to end the recession.
There must be citizen oversight and transparency. Sure, the proposed oversight panels are better than Paulson's no-strings-attached handout. But it’s our money. Congress and the Bush administration have shown they cannot be trusted with our money.
On the campaign trail yesterday, Barack Obama said:
It is time we had some adult supervision. That’s why I’m running for president.
With congressional leaders in disarray and Pelosi throwing spitballs before the votes are counted, it looks like Congress needs "some adult supervision."
Obama says he is ready to lead. That he alone can bring Americans together. With the nation facing "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression," when will Obama "step up to the plate?"
The 110-page bill would establish two oversight panels, provide assistance to distressed homeowners, limit executive compensation, give taxpayers an equity stake in any financial institution that participates in TARP, and regular audits by the Government Accountability Office.
By contrast, the three-page proposal that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson sent Congress would have bailed out his Wall Street cronies with no strings attached. Paulson is the former chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, which stands to benefit from any rescue plan.
Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, said:
The administration's original proposal was a non-starter. They wanted a blank check and we couldn't give it to them.
House will vote on the bill today. The Senate is scheduled to vote by Wednesday. It’s not too late to tell Congress: Protect taxpayers. A workout, not a bailout.
We are all watching and waiting. It's time for us, that's right, us to take action. If you don't believe Congress is truly looking out for you, the taxpayer, say something. Right now. Pick up that phone. Call. E-mail, write. Even go to Washington, D.C. And get in the face of your U.S. senator or House member.
Folks, we the people have the power to effect change. We must know, cannot wait to be told what is going on. This is your money. This is our money. We are potentially mortgaging the future of our children. You must say something, or do something, because your future, and that of your kids, is a stake.
In this improbable election year, a law professor left "The Farm," went to Washington and told Congress: Change or die a political death.
Stanford Law Prof. Lawrence Lessig has launched a bipartisan, web-based movement to get money out of politics, Change Congress. In a speech at the National Press Club, Lessig said:
The most exciting idea in this political season is changing how Washington works, which means changing the influence of money in Washington. Change Congress will help build support to solve this first problem in Washington, which is the distorting influence of money. Other problems may be more important. But no problem will be solved until we solve this problem first.
Change Congress will seek pledges from incumbents and congressional candidates to:
Though "change" is the dominant rhetoric of this presidential campaign, everyone realizes that fundamental reform can't come from a president alone. If there are problems in the way Congress now works, for example, no president can fix those problems alone. Any fix would require the cooperation of the very institution that needs changing -- Congress.
Not surprisingly, however, not everyone in Congress is eager for change. Whatever they say, and however strongly they may deny it, there are many who have grown used to a system they understand well. And many of those are not about to support radically reforming that system, at least until pushed.
But the 111th Congress will be the freshest that Washington has seen in more than a decade. There are more than 67 "open seats" in this year’s election; the last time we were anywhere close to that number was 1996 (62). This fact has led some to think about strategies for getting Congress to take seriously the idea of remaking itself.
To get involved in this citizen-driven movement to bring about real change in Washington, click here.
