Incidentally, Mike is one of the few (if not the only) accountant in the Senate.

The Big 3 auto makers – GM, Chrysler, and Ford — first came to Washington, DC on separate jets. They made a case to me and my other colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee as to why they thought their failing businesses should be bailed out by taxpayers. At this first hearing, they had NO plan. They had a figure grabbed out of the air of $25 billion. I said, “If this package were taken to a local banker by a small business with a request for $25,000 the banker would send the applicant back to actually do a business plan.” Small business owners jump through more hoops for a few thousand dollars than the auto industry’s $25 billion. The auto industry with their experts and analysts should know better and do better. Both houses of Congress sent them back to do just that.

This month they came back, by car, and had refined the amount to an increased $34 billion that would only hold them to January. This time they actually showed the amount by company. They did not show how the taxpayers would be repaid. A financial analyst from Moody’s economic forecasting consulting division who testified, said their analysis would require at least twice that much (could go to $125 billion) to prevent bankruptcy reorganization.

The most positive suggestion I heard came from Senator Bennett of Utah. Money from the $700 billion bailout that I voted against because it didn’t include a plan of action with goals and payback, was to go to banks to buy “toxic housing loans”. Instead it went to bailout financial institutions who used the money to buy other banks and to pay dividends to stockholders. Sen. Bennett suggested the Department of Treasury should make those banks loan the auto makers the money, with a partial government guarantee. To give anyone confidence in the future of the Big 3, the auto makers will have to find ways to restructure their business model. They have to build a long-term plan for success before seeking billions of dollars in a taxpayer-funded loan. After studying their testimony as well as other briefing material, before, after and during the Senate Banking Committee hearings, I remain convinced that a multi-billion dollar bailout alone is not the answer.

During their November appearance before Congress, the Big 3 auto executives blamed the economy. Their self-fulfilling “sky is falling” approach is good timing but does not add up. Other car companies making cars in America are staying afloat. Responsibility needs to be first taken for years of unsustainable business practices. Instead, they are looking to the taxpayer to bailout their bad decisions. I cannot support such irresponsible behavior.

We should be encouraged that the auto makers are working on a long-term strategy. They presented some ideas for a sustainable domestic auto market this week. I have been examining the new information closely. However, this plan continues to lack the details and clear plan with measurable goals and oversight. There wasn’t even enough information for anyone to craft a bill to vote on, so there may not even be a vote.

This week the Administration and members of Congress are attempting to finalize a smaller auto aid package for the short-term while also going forward with a long-term solvency strategy. The short-term plan seeks funding from the 2007 energy bill loan program. If there is a vote, unless whatever final plan presented to us is drastically more feasible, measurably accountable and financially sound than I expect it to be, I will likely vote on it the same as I have on previous bailouts – no.

Times are tough right now and they’re getting tougher. A failure of the auto industry would have a negative effect on America and even Wyoming. I worry that putting taxpayers further in debt with a series of big-ticket bailouts will actually do more damage to our overall economy in the long run. There are things Congress can do to help, but it is very important that what we do has a reasonable chance of success and targets the heart of the problem. I do not want to throw federal IOUs at every problem just to say we did something. I will consider new proposals and details as they come up. Thank you for contacting me. I know there is a lot at stake.

Sincerely,

Michael B. Enzi

United States Senator

Where are the penalties in this bill / amendment? Howzabout a little time in the pokey if the execs can’t meet their objectives? Think they (the Big 3) would agree to it then?

Didn’t think so…

#1 chap – that was funny I laughed. Here’s one for you..

“Wait, didn’t ACORN get public financing, too?”

To be fair, they were more successful than McCain.

“Wait, didn’t ACORN get public financing, too?”

More reaching across the aisle. I’m sorry but I don’t have any faith that Republicans will “stick to their guns.”

BOHICA.

Otherwise, this is just a scam to get taxpayers to pay for bailouts, of which a portion is kicked back as political contributions in support of more and bigger handouts.

On December 11th, 2008 at 2:08 pm, chapoutier said:

Don’t people voluntarily check the box on their tax form?

I believe the box is a placebo, doesn’t really affect whether or how much a candidate gets.

Chap, the fact that you believe that (not disagreeing with you) underscores the fact that the government does not manage taxpayer money the way we might expect of them.

If we can’t trust how they manage public financing of campaigns, how can we trust them to make the right decisions on these bailouts.

Also, by your very example, they funded a process in which there would be at least one winning candidate. It’s not as though the funding was only for McCain.

Can the government guarantee one winning industry with these bailouts?

…didn’t think so.