CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
– ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
March 30, 2009 – 10:51 a.m.
GM Must Change Plan to Get Further Aid, White House Says
By Joseph J. Schatz, CQ Staff
Hours after forcing embattled General Motors Corp. chief executive G. Richard Wagoner to resign, the Obama administration said it would condition further aid for GM on significant changes to its business plan, and said it would only consider further support for Chrysler LLC if it successfully merges with Italian automaker Fiat.
Calling the restructuring plans submitted last month by the two U.S. automakers inadequate, the tough new White House auto plan raised the prospect of a “structured bankruptcy” — an option pushed by many congressional conservatives, and once touted by Senate Banking Chairman Christopher J. Dodd , D-Conn. — as a viable option for both firms.
“Their best chance at success may well require utilizing the bankruptcy code in a quick and surgical way,” a report from the White House auto task force said Monday morning, adding that a structured bankruptcy could help both firms “clear away old liabilities so they can get on a path to success while they keep making cars and providing jobs in our economy.”
The government will guarantee warranties on vehicles purchases from either automaker in an effort to maintain consumer confidence. Obama said the administration would also work with lawmakers to “provide a generous credit to consumers” who trade in older cars for more fuel-efficient models.
“I want to work with Congress to identify parts of the Recovery Act that could be trimmed to fund such a program, and make it retroactive starting today,” he said, referring to the economic stimulus law (PL 111-5) enacted in February.
The White House announcement was sure to be controversial in some quarters on Capitol Hill, especially with lawmakers from states with a heavy automaker presence — particularly given the recent furor over bailed-out American International Group Inc.’s decision to hand out millions in bonuses.
The move to oust Wagoner drew early criticism from a Michigan Republican, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter , who said that GM was being treated different than banks bailed out by the government. “Mr. Wagoner has been asked to resign as a political offering despite his having led GM’s painful restructuring to date. Mr. Wagoner has honorably resigned for the sake of his company’s working families,” McCotter said in a statement. “When will the Wall Street CEO’s receiving TARP funds summon the honor to resign? Will this White House ever bother to raise the issue? I doubt it.”
Following the Bush administration’s decision to provide the two companies $17 billion to stay afloat in December, GM and Chrysler have asked the Obama administration for an additional $21.6 billion in aid. Most of that first installment of aid has been exhausted.
But the White House made it clear that any additional aid will come at a steep cost. It said it would only extend GM working capital for an additional 60 days as it comes up with a “more aggressive” plan to overhaul its operations, and officially announced the departure of Wagoner, who was blasted by lawmakers in his appearances on Capitol Hill late last week.
Saying that Chrysler “is not viable as a stand-alone company,” the administration said it would extend the company working capital for 30 days as it works to conclude a deal with Fiat. Only if that deal is successful would the White House consider the additional $6 billion requested by Chrysler. Moreover, Chrysler would have to force additional cost-saving concessions from the United Auto Workers.
The companies are supposed to contribute to United Auto Workers trust fund to cover the cost of retirees’ health care, and under terms of the government’s first round of assistance to GM and Chrysler, the companies want the union to accept stock in exchange for half of those payments.
Ford Motor Co., which secured lines of credit before the financial crisis, has not requested bailout money.
GM and Chrysler employ some 140,000 workers in the United States. The companies have until Tuesday to submit restructuring plans to the government but are not expected to meet that deadline.




Comments
Foreign Auto Industry has unfair advantage. When the auto industry has huge overheads for health insurance for the thousands of personnel , and even more for retirees that are receiving health benefits. It is no wonder their businesses can't make a decent profit. Their saddled with billions of dollars from a health industry, that have questionable practices. Isn't that why we voted for President Obama , to bring in a single payer health care system? Not with what we are going to get--auditors, not doctors in wealthy insurance companies dishing out limited services. Being a moderate voter I think one of the most important issues to get Americans back to work is Health care? Large and small businesses in this America have to negotiate with the middle man--Insurance companies! They are the inter-mediator, we can well do without? If car manufacturing companies didn't have to pay extra for health care for it's hundreds of thousands of workers. Then we would be on a level-playing-field, with our foreign competitors who are subsidized by their governments? Why is it European countries like France, United Kingdom have a single payer system through the government that--WORKS! The usual critics have everything to gain, and so much more to lose--they will put every obstacle in the way of Universal health care. Before Britain was invaded by immigrants under the European Common Market, my family had excellent Social health care. Every employer and every worker paid into the system and the outcome insured you of hospitalization, doctor visits, specialists, eye and teeth care. Then of course the majority of upper class Americans don't like the idea, because they can well afford the co-pays, premiums that the insurance companies add to their exorbitant fees. But then they get the best service, including home visits. The mechanics of health care in the US is no different to England's, including sitting in the waiting room and seeing the physician. If you needed to see a specialist you was referred by letter. The Democrats will state they are working for the American people, but for some that's an outright fallacy? It's unlikely we will never get rid of the greedy insurance companies--until we have taxpayer Campaign contributions for many corrupt politicians. Same with E-Verify for US Workers, because big business didn't like being cut off from cheap illegal labor. Of course the special interest lobbyists, will distort the truth to get voters to deny the 47 uninsured Americans (NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS) peace of mind--for--OUR--families and children.
We keep forgetting that Mr. Waggoner and his predecessors made those deals with the unions. No union has the power to demand these benefits, they were all the result of collective bargaining. If these agreements are so reprehensible, then perhaps it's a good thing that he has resigned, should have happened sooner. But for the companies to place all of the blame on the unions when they were 50% of the contract strikes me as hypocritical.
Those who hate unions would love to turn this thing into a stick-it to the union policy by putting the burden of cuts on the UAW. The ultimate test to see whether or not this is simply a stick-it to the ordinary person policy versus fairness, is whether or not President Obama issues a similar ultimatum to AIG in the near future.
I would still like to have an accounting of what the car companies have been doing with the money; if it's for TV or magazine ads, give it back. They sure haven't been using it to produce better cars!
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: