A Fine Point

Authors

The editors who craft the Post-Gazette’s daily stands on the issues affecting the region, the state and the nation hold an on-line conversation with readers about key topics in the news. The PG editorial writers are: Tom Waseleski, Reg Henry, Susan Mannella, Tony Norman and Dan Simpson.  

 Register to comment
Guide to commenting

Syndication

Save Detroit?

Tom Waseleski

If you were in Pittsburgh in the 1980s, you had a front-row seat to the collapse of the steel industry. You saw the plant closings, the personal misery, the fast decline of river towns.

It took decades for the Pittsburgh economy to claw its way back -- and even now some communities have not recovered. There was no bailout for the steel industry then, no lifeline thrown to Pittsburgh by Washington.

Given all that, how do you feel about the Big Three automakers seeking billions of dollars in aid from federal taxpayers? Particularly with the rest of the economy on the skids, should the government rescue the auto industry or let nature take its course, as it did with Big Steel 25 years ago?

Tell us what you think about the lead editorial on the topic from today's Post-Gazette:

Save Detroit
Pick your federal rescue, but make it fast

On the same day that Democrats on Capitol Hill were trying to rev up an aid plan to keep the auto industry running, the Bush administration's Treasury secretary urged Congress not to use part of the $700 billion financial bailout for that purpose.

The two sides embody the debate among taxpayers on whether America's Big Three automakers, which are on the brink of disaster, deserve a lifeline from the public. As everyone knows, the industry has been slow to change and in need of modernization. By the same token, the entire U.S. economy is teetering, and the collapse of a major manufacturing sector would only compound the misery.

The argument for a rescue of the car companies, whose top executives went before the Senate Banking Committee yesterday, is that the industry is central to the overall economy. Products like steel, glass, rubber and plastic all go into automaking, an enterprise that, according to one estimate, is responsible for 10 percent of the nation's jobs. The manufacturers claim the industry is on its way to market viability and that it needs only a little time and money to get there. If the federal government is willing to bail out banks and investment houses -- Wall Street high-rollers -- why shouldn't it help the auto industry and its legions of workers on Main Street?

The opposing view is that the sad state of the domestic auto producers is their own fault. Not only did they fail to build fuel-efficient cars that people would want, but they also set up consumers for the gasoline price crisis by encouraging drivers' worst instincts to buy gas guzzlers -- luxury cars, SUVs and off-road vehicles. At the same time, the corporations indulged in mega-salaries for their executives and bloated contracts for the United Auto Workers, a culture that failed to see the train wreck that was coming.

Is it necessary now to help the industry? Is American automaking, like the financial houses, too big to let fail? It probably is.

Even Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary who doesn't want the automakers to get money from the big financial bailout, told a House panel yesterday "There are other ways" to help them. He, too, expressed concern about the industry's fate: "I think it would be not a good thing, it would be something to be avoided, having one of the auto companies fail, particularly during this period of time."

The loss of countless American jobs would send shock waves around the country and untold communities into financial purgatory. And, just as the world car market prepares to take off with greater demand in China and India, it would be a great pity for U.S. manufacturers to go belly-up.

A tough restructuring and bold modernization under Chapter 11 bankruptcy might be the ticket for the auto companies, but the industry's sinking boat is probably too close to the dam for that. A rapid rescue is necessary from the federal government, with strings attached to ensure fuel-efficient products, reasonable union contracts and a ban on outrageous bonuses.

It doesn't matter if the aid comes from the $700 billion financial bailout or another source. What matters is that Detroit -- and the employers it supports around the country -- stay open for business.

First published on November 19, 2008 at 12:00 am


Posted Nov 19 2008, 12:22 AM by Tom Waseleski

Comments

Toadsly wrote re: Save Detroit?
on Wed, Nov 19 2008 10:59 AM

The domestic auto industry won't disappear if the feds refuse to help the "Big Three," at least not immediately.  

The Chinese are sitting on $2 trillion in cash and are about to invade America with cheap automobiles. The Chinese have made no bones about their intentions and it has been rumored they plan to start big by buying an American car manufacturer and using its dealership network to saturate America with Chinese imports.

Many critics say even though Chinese cars will be significantly cheaper than other cars sold in the United States, their poor quality and reliability will limit sales and pose a minimal threat to other manufacturers. Deja Vu! That's what the car pundits said when the first Hondas and Toyotas arrived.

The federal government needs to help the Big Three and blunt the Chinese invasion. Unlike Japanese carmakers, that build many of their vehicles in the U.S., the Chinese will have no reason to ever build vehicles in this country because their domestic labor costs are so low.

It's a tragedy that the domestic steel industry was allowed to wither, but two wrongs won't make that right, and mean-spirited opposite to providing a lifeline to American automobile manufacturers is...well...un-American!

In return for financial aid, the Big Three must be required to use the funding for R&D, and modernization of facilities.

What ever happened to America's can do attitude!

Detroit's quality-control problems have ameliorated, and with an infusion of fuel-efficient, interesting models, Detroit can survive and even thrive.

Mermaid wrote re: Save Detroit?
on Thu, Nov 20 2008 10:12 AM

AIG's executives made as many poor business decisions as GM's did, so I'm not sure why GM is being singled out for criticism here.  Helping GM would do more to cushion the economy's fall, too, since it employs far more people.

I'm starting to think that the Republicans want GM, Ford and Chrysler to fail.  Partly it's to make life difficult for the Obama administration, partly it's to crush the unions once and for all, and partly it's payback for Michigan and Ohio going Democratic in the presidential race.  Disaster capitalism is being practiced here in the United States yet again.  We saw it first with the steel industry in the 1980s, and now with the auto industry.  

It also strikes me as hypocritical that the very party which fought tooth and nail against fuel economy standards is now slamming the Big Three for not following them.  Not to mention that the Japanese and Korean automakers in the South get plenty of government help in the form of tax breaks and other sweetheart deals.