Two things:

One, note any similarities here? The Senate Republicans won't approve of any bailout unless they get their pound of flesh from the autoworkers (but no one else in business) within a year because, as usual, it's the union's fault that the businesses are failing, not the fault of blinkered executives. Meanwhile the AP says of the new Senate report on torture: "the physical and mental abuse of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was the direct result of Bush administration policies and should not be blamed on guards and interrogators.
...The report says administration officials publicly blamed the abuses on low-level soldiers but called that "'both unconscionable and false.'"

Two, has anyone actually checked the auto companies books? They Big 3 claim they're about to fail, but is this true? Can it be independently verified? Has it been? Where? I'd like to see the numbers.

putting aside the specifics of the auto bailout, may i just point out that tester, lincoln, and baucus demonstrate the insignificance of "60 democratic senators." the odds of all 60 lining up on any controversial bill are quite slim, and despite the fact that there will be many comments here blaming harry reid (such is his lot in life), it's tough to see what it is he's supposed to do to make every democratic senator vote the right way each time.

Worth noting is that enough Republicans voted for cloture for cloture to have passed, if the Democrats could have kept their caucus together and gotten everyone there.

Exactly ten Republicans voted in favor of cloture - Bond, Brownback, Collins, Dole, Domenici, Lugar, Snowe, Specter, Voinovich, and Warner.

There are 49 Democrats in the Senate plus Joe Lieberman (who also voted for Cloture). In addition to the three (minus Reid) who voted against it, 4 Democratic senators didn't show up (Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, and Wyden) - if those four had come and voted in favor, there would have been 57 votes for cloture (56 if we assume it's impossible for Kennedy to make it).

Was it really impossible to persuade any of those Democrats, or a single additional Republican - a bunch of Republicans didn't show up, either, including Gordon Smith (lame duck, quasi-moderate), Ted Stevens (lame duck, pro-labor), Chuck Hagel (lame duck, not a total hack), and John Sununu (lame duck) - it seems like it should have been possible to round up 60 votes.

despite the fact that there will be many comments here blaming harry reid (such is his lot in life), it's tough to see what it is he's supposed to do to make every democratic senator vote the right way each time.

I think a lot of folks get mad at Reid because they've seen how united the Republicans could be for the last decade or so and they think that Reid is inept because he can't do what even Bill Frist and Mitch McConnell seem to be able to relatively easily manage with their caucus. Folks forget that Democrats are a much looser coalition than Republicans are, and it's a lot easier to whip Republicans into line than Democrats because of that. (There are conservatives among the Democratic coalitions in both the House and the Senate - there are no liberals among the Republicans. At least not anymore.)

Not to say that Reid doesn't deserve quite a bit of criticism - he's not a tough negotiator and he tends to consider pre-emptive capitulation a good negotiating tactic instead of going in to ask for more than he really wants and then "compromising" for "less". He tends to act in good faith with people who are acting in bad faith, and the fact that he does it time. after. time. after. time. is the mark of a man who isn't learning his lessons. (And there's also the fact that Reid isn't particularly liberal, so he already tends to start bargaining from a position pretty close to the center before he begins his pre-emptive capitulation tactics.)

When will Reid actually MAKE them filibuster rather than simply talk about it?

John - Since Obama resigned, I believe the magic number is 59 for now. That would make 57 yeses (52 plus Reid and the four dem no-shows) even without Tester, Baucus and Lincoln. They would have only needed two more votes.

Look---this should be a simple equation. We've got three manufacturing behemoths --- dinosaurs, in fact --- that are on the verge of a financial extinction event of their own making, and even in the best of times, there just aren't enough people buying cars to keep all three of them financially healthy. Demanding that all three of them restructure and downsize to a massive degree will give and end result that (a) wipes out a lot of jobs, thus impeding the economic engine of the Republic, and (b) still leaves us with more domestic automobile variety than we really need.

America does not need three behemoths on a starvation diet; it needs one or two healthy manufacturing institutions.

Something has got to give here; the last thing America needs is for its Government to be playing "Dr. Frankenstein" by throwing billions of dollars at the unlikely prospects of reanimating corpse-like corporate tissue....

When will Reid actually MAKE them filibuster?

I don't understand the obsession with the speechifying. The last time they did it, the only news created was Hillary showing cleavage.

By the way, some new dictionaries define "filibuster" as a procedural move to block legislation. Though it was originally done through these overnight speeches, Senators agreed not to insist on them in the '80's, except in rare cases. Using the looser, more modern definition, I would say they did filibuster, though I think I now realize I create confusion when I do that.

Somebody should set up a website that ranks the Democratic senators and house members by how many times they break with the caucus. We than make a point of planning to primary those at the top. The grass roots are going to have to start holding these guys accountable.

I would be curious to here Tester's explanation. I fail to see how he is a populist, since his vote could hurt working people more than anybody else.

I also hope Tester is also able to say that he has never, ever taken a farming subsidy. If he has, he is now a hypocrite.

Steve W is largely correct. The problem we have today got critically suddenly, but is in fact a long term problem -- the real issue is that Bush has done nothing but make things worse for 8 years and our hands are now tied by his incompetence. No viable solution for Detroit exists that doesn't result in tens of thousands of lost jobs, but alas that is the last thing the economy can take right this moment. So you have a Catch-22 between doing the logical thing with the auto industry and preventing a worse recession - you cant do both at the same time. (This would be easier if we had more money to throw at things like unemployment and dislocation benefits, but Bushie broke the bank and we already have record defecits).

This needs to be a carefully planned restructure, a hybrid between a bailout and bankruptcy. The reality, as Steve W hints at, is that Chrysler simply has to go. Detroit cannot support three full-size manufacturers; because Chrysler is the smallest letting it go does the least harm (and I have no sympathy for Cerberus, a private takeover firm, who bought very recently and had every opportunity to know what they were buying).

The government should essentially buy a majority share in Chrysler at market rates - currently quite low - and then break it up. Ford has never had decent SUVs, so give them Jeep (but go back to making only 3 base models - Wrangler, Liberty and Grand Cherokee), the only Chrysler marque with any brand equity of value. GM has always lagged behind in minivans; give then the Chrysler minivan platofrms which are considerably better. Take the intellectual property and remaining stock of Vipers, Prowlers, PT Cruisers, and Charger/Challengers (and the rights to the hemi and the Road Runner and Super Bee names and logos) and package them for sale as "Viper Performance Vehicles." The rest of Chrysler? Auction off what anyone will buy, simply kill the rest.

This would strenghthen both Ford and GM while eliminating one competitor. Both Ford and GM would also need to reorganize, of course, cutting makes and models and management layers. UAW has been utterly tone-deaf on things like the job bank over the years - that has to go (UAW has offered to "suspend" it temporarily. Um, folks: you need to negotiate a clue. I dont have a "job bank," so neither will you.)

The biggest thing that needs to happen, however, is a substantial increase in the gas tax; for now another $1.00/gallon, to provide proper market incentives and some portion of it should be expressly earmarked to fund any remaining needed bailout. That makes drivers of cars "own" the bailout of automakers - they can feel first hand the cost of buying those Hummers, for example (which reminds me - in addition to a gas tax hike, we need a weight surcharge on vehicles not used directly for revenue producing activities and which weigh more than the average 5-passenger family sedan).

Awesome.

I'm not even going to bother to read the post above. I went to google-blog to look for a blog post on the bailout so that I could register my joy.

FUCK THE RICH!!!!!

All of the people telling us about this terrible "disaster" and how "everyone" will suffer are people with lots to lose in the stockmarket when (god willing) it tanks (oh, please god, let it tank, let it tank like ten titanic tanks - huuza!).

Yeah, the less money that the artificially wealthy have to outbid on commodities with, the cheaper widgets and services will continue to become and the more level a playing ground there will be between these rich motherfuckers and the majority of Americans.

What's the you say? That when the wealthy have no money not only will they not be spending it on luxury items (thus causin' a hurtin' on the minimum wage guy standing at the desk at Yachts R' Us) but also they'll have no money to "create jobs" - you know, those jobs that poor people love so much. The one's that let them ALMOST be able to afford dinner from the McDonalds dollar menu.

Yeah, maybe,,, but you don't know and I don't know. Maybe - hear me out here - maybe if we extolled SOMETHING above the profit motive we'd have happier people, living longer and healthier and living MORE because they'd be working less - and working for reasons other than to be able to afford a bigger car that Mr. Jones.

Maybe.

And if not?

Then welcome the revolution baby. Welcome the motherfuckin revolution.

HUUAAAH!!

mnuez

Mitch Mcconnell- the shame of the senate.

he has millions of dollars in campaign debt, wonder who will bail him out?

John - Since Obama resigned, I believe the magic number is 59 for now.

No, the magic number is always 60. It's not defined as 3/5 of the Senate, but as 60 votes.

Even if it were designed as 3/5, I'm not sure what the magic number would be - 59/99 = 59.5959595959, which is technically less than 3/5, although you could round up.

I don't understand the obsession with the speechifying. The last time they did it, the only news created was Hillary showing cleavage.

As I recall, that wasn't a real filibuster, but a backwards filibuster of some sort that I could never fully understand.

"Somebody should set up a website that ranks the Democratic senators and house members by how many times they break with the caucus. We than make a point of planning to primary those at the top. The grass roots are going to have to start holding these guys accountable."
Posted by: gttim

Maybe we should be just a little more nuanced than that. The democratic caucus voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, and other crap legislation. Should Feingold, for example, have been "primaried"?

>"America does not need three behemoths on a starvation diet; it needs one or two healthy manufacturing institutions."

The big problem is that now is not the time to dump another millon or two US workers out in the street. If we are going to undertake a transformation of the auto industry it needs to be done with a certain level of intelligence.

The auto industry is only the tip of the iceberg. Over the long run, the US will have to abandon 'structural overconsumption'. Neither the economic system or the environment can survive it forever.

This force a radical change in the US lifestyle.

Just exactly how the remaining wealth will be distributed among the population remains in question.

We will either go to a relatively flat society as in Scandanavia (highest standard of living) or a feudal-like oligarchy with most of the wealth clustered at the top. (the Bush plan).

May we live in interesting times.

Wheels within wheels?

The article you reference notes that Congress would probably have to release the second $350 billion of the TARP money in order for it to be used for an auto bailout.

Dems have been resisting Paulson's calls to release that money because he hasn't properly accounted for his use of the first half of the money.

Hmmm.

No, the magic number is always 60

Nate Silver would disagree with you. Read the paragraph after Harry Reid's letter.

Danp - hmm, yes, you seem to be right. The distinction I was confused about was that they changed it from 2/3 present and voting to 3/5 duly chosen and sworn.

However, with 99 Senators, the cloture number is still 60 - it only goes down to 59 if there's another vacancy.

By the way, if it had been "present and voting" the thing would have passed - 53/87 is slightly over 3/5.

I never understood why Bush was so against using TARP funds in the first place.

After all, they can use just a "small" portion (around $15 billion) to get them to the new administration and new Congress. It's not like Bush is interested in actually working these last few weeks anyway, so why not pass another problem on to Obama's team?

Oh, and for the wingnuts we'll all come across screaming about wages and their impact, bring up the following:

-- The difference in salaries between American Honda and Toyota workers and the Big 3 is $800 a car.

-- The average American car sells for about $2,500 less than the average Honda or Toyota.

Thus, if the Big 3 were really on the verge of going under due to labor costs and, as some GOP Senators requested, they'd be fine if they paid the same wages as Honda and Toyota, why the holy hell don't the Big 3 just raise their prices by $800 (or even $1,000 so they have a cushion)? After all, their cars would still be $1,000+ less on average.

Answer: Wages aren't the freaking problem!!

Just something to share with others. And all stats come from this article at the NYT.

Mark D--and, of course, the Big 3 can't raise prices much without losing buyers. People are apparently willing to pay a premium for Hondas and Toyotas.

Another factor: when I lived in Buffalo, I joked that the most frequently purchased car was a Chevy Cobalt using an uncle's employee discount. A metro area of just a bit over a million people has close to 10,000 employees of the Big 3 (about 60% GM, 30% Delphi, 10% Ford), and all of them have relatives. That's a lot of local loyalty, but also an even bigger price difference.

In the end, it means that the Big 3 will either look very different in five years, or won't exist. Oregon announced today that the set of plug-in charging stations being set up for government and commercial fleets in 2009 will be available for public users, and Nissan plans to bring in plug-in hybrids in late 2010 assuming the infrastructure is in place, with a planned range of 100 miles. And the cost of a "fill-up"?

On average, based on state electricity costs, about 75 cents.

Your move, Detroit.

By the way, if it had been "present and voting" the thing would have passed - 53/87 is slightly over 3/5.

No, they would still need the 59 or 60. Here is the rule. Skip down to page two, second paragraph.

Mark D--and, of course, the Big 3 can't raise prices much without losing buyers. People are apparently willing to pay a premium for Hondas and Toyotas.

They're losing buyers already, so I fail to see how adding another $800 to the price is going to suddenly drive away people who are interested in buying an American car -- they'll either buy one or they won't.

My point was that labor costs are nowhere near the reason the Big 3 are in trouble.

The top five reasons (IMHO):

1. Repeating history -- They once again became dependent on big, gas-guzzling vehicles, only to be caught flat-footed when oil prices went up.

2. Poor quality -- Again, it's improving, but still behind where it should be.

3. Uninspired designs. -- American cars just aren't that appealing to those who want a car that runs well and looks good. (Note: Cadillac is the exception.)

4. Too many models -- This is a big issue with GM, which builds one car and then tries to stretch it across several brands by putting a new grille and name on it, and then charging different prices for the exact same freaking car. They need to make fewer models of better quality.

5. Too many dealers -- They have way too much overhead, but it'll be difficult to reduce them. (Hilzoy had a great post a few weeks ago about this.)

Anyway, my whole point was simply that the whole "Wages are the problem!" argument really doesn't hold any water.

As an electrician who has helped build conveyors, retool assembly lines, bring power into the autoplants, I have seen the small changes made to our automobiles and wonder where in the world are our electric cars. Yeah I could care less that there are more cup holders or new taillights but gutting an autoplant and building on a new platform of electric power does NOT happen quickly(prototypes, crash testing, and new presses and robots for all new parts. The big three are not dinosaurs. The UAW package is commensurate with the Japanese automakers and they are hurting as well. The lack of loans from the banks is what caused this or it would be a non-issue. I have great credit and can't get a loan to save my life. By the way, I ALWAYS BUY AMERICAN CARS.

People really don't have the slightest clue what kind of impact this nation would feel if you took away several hundred thousand blue collar jobs. You think people aren't spending money now, what until they are not buying ANYTHING. I can live without trinkets and chinese made, lead filled junk. Food, mortgage, utilities and transportation are necessary, we make our own free fun at our parks and forests. Entertainment and ALL the rest is fringe.

I love this country to my core but seriously congress, get your act together you bunch of ill-informed self-important spineless wafflers!!!

Corker did not want a solution. He wanted to embarrass the UAW and force failure. Look at his demands. Each one ended with the term bankruptcy. Gm-if you dont reduce your debt, UAW-if you don't reduce your wages, etc. Who can say YES,YES to those terms. Ask yourself, Who gains if GM fails? Those people are paying Corker and his cronies. The shame is the true repbublicants are been misled.

It's not the fault of the workers - they do what they are told to do. The management should have recognized long ago that they needed to compete in the global auto market and they did not do what they needed to do to compete long term.

The fact is they are not going to "save" anything with this money - delay? yes, Save? no.

These companies are a long way from being where they need to be to be competitive in the global auto market and making cars is a very tough business to make money in the first place.

The bailout is throwing good money after bad. They will never get our money back - ever.

We are in "bailout a go go" and if it doesn't stop we are all screwed. The government can't afford to do what they're doing. We were in debt up the Wazoo when this started, what do you think it looks like when it's done?

The rally in the market is either really dumb or an anticipation of the hyper-inflation that is sure to come.

America does not need three behemoths on a starvation diet; it needs one or two healthy manufacturing institutions. ... Posted by: Steve W. on December 12, 2008

Everything I've read on this suggests that killing one kills parts makers which will in turn kill the other car makers.

So, pick one, any one, and watch all 3 die.

It's also been written that some U.S. parts makers feed into BMW and that would hurt them in S.C.

It's a disaster all around.