FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Of Arrogance, Bailouts and the Big Three

by JAMES ABOUREZK

Just as I was about to give up on Congress, BAM, POW, a California Congressman decked the auto executives with a one-two punch.  As these august gentlemen were sitting before a House Committee telling the Congressmen how bad it was, and that they needed money badly, Brad Sherman asked the group of beggars to raise their hand if any of them flew by commercial airline to the hearings in Washington.

“Let the record show,” the Congressman said, “that no one raised their hand,” the Congressman said.

Then came the right hook.  “Raise your hand if any of you plan to sell your private jet.”

No response.  They looked at each other, then at the Committee members, most likely sensing they had lost that round by points.

“Let the record show,” Congressman Sherman said, “that no one raised their hand.”

The lack of response was hardly surprising, but what was surprising is that a member of Congress finally earned his paycheck for that day.  Fear of the 30 second spot television commercial has silenced many a member of Congress.  None of them want to have their words replayed during the next campaign, so they are generally silent when it comes to challenging the corporate world—oil companies and auto executives included.

But even more outrageous is the arrogance of the Big Three executives coming to the taxpayers with their hands outstretched, waiting for a bailout.  And why not? You ask.  Didn’t this same bunch hand over $700 billion to Henry Paulson so his banking and Wall Street friends could continue their plush lifestyle?  And didn’t Henry Paulson suddenly discover that the bankers and Wall Street money men didn’t need it all, causing him to shift gears and aim the bailout at mortgage foreclosures?

As Senator Everett Dirksen used to say, “A few hundred million here and a few hundred million there—pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”  Nowadays the word billion has replaced million, but, you get the idea.  For the well-connected it’s Monopoly money anyway.  It’s not real unless your company can’t pay a $25 or $50 million dollar bonus.

The arrogance of these fellows is being rewarded by the fearmongering of George W. Bush and others who predicted dark consequences if the money wasn’t handed over.  So most everyone fell into line and voted it in.

When I was a member of the Senate Energy Committee in the 1970s I attached an amendment onto a piece of legislation that would have required the automobile manufacturers to make new cars that delivered a minimum of 26 miles to the gallon.  That was in the 1970s when we all thought that mileage level would be a great victory.  Nowadays, Toyota doesn’t make a car, I don’t believe, that delivers less than that.  But back then, 26 miles to the gallon was revolutionary, even radical.  So the Big Three came in and lobbied against it and defeated it.  And they steadily moved into making and selling real he-man cars and trucks, such as the Hummers, the big pickups and the SUVs that more resemble a battleship than a car.  At the same time, in Europe, taxes levied on gasoline made it so high that if one bought an American gas-guzzler, he would be thought of as crazy.  So the Europeans made smaller cars that ate much less gas, and the Japanese began to move into the American market, selling high gas mileage cars to those of us who felt guilt at driving a four-wheeled monster.

The Europeans and Japanese also built high speed rail transportation that moved people so efficiently that cars became sort of redundant for longer trips. Meanwhile we Americans have  spent ourselves into bankruptcy fighting wars, consuming more gasoline than we should, and telling ourselves that single payer health care and a national rail transportation system was socialistic.  We listened to the lobbyists for the pharmaceutical companies and the airline and automobile industries, and said to ourselves:  “We don’t need no stinking socialism.”

What this all means is that socialism is good for the Big Three automobile manufacturers and for Wall Street and for the big banks, but bad for the rest of us.

Back when I was working my way through Engineering School, I tended bar to make a living for my family of a wife and three kids.  I had a customer–we’ll call him Chet—who was constantly broke, and who was always in need of a drink.  Despite his bad circumstances, Chet dressed in a white shirt, his black hair greased and pulled straight back, and wore a thin, black mustache.  For a drunk, he was well dressed.  Chet would sit up to the bar with his head down, not feeling very good about himself, order a drink, pour it down, order another, and drink it down just as quickly.  As I wondered if he had enough money on him to pay, his third drink served to bring his drooping head and body upright, and he would demand that I bring out the dice cup, demanding to roll double or nothing for the drinks.

I tell that story because the Big Three remind me of Chet.  The difference between them is several hundred million dollars in each of their pockets, but their story is very similar.  Instead of a shot or two of cheap rotgut, they are drinking the fine wine of telling the Congress, as they are accustomed to doing, that they need help.

The worst part of this saga is that the people in the industry—the workers—those who did not make the decisions about the kinds of cars to market, will be severely hurt, as will the communities that rely on the industry for their living.  When GM decided to market Hummers, there was nothing the working people could do about the decision.  They had to do the manufacturing or lose their jobs.  And the arrogant executives, the ones who made the decisions, will walk away from the bankrupt companies with millions in their bank accounts, caring not one whit about those they are leaving out in the street.

Perhaps Congressmen should keep a grip on their newly found courage, and go beyond embarrassing these fellows about their private jets.  They should consider handing over the bailout money only if the top decision makers in the industry resign, leaving their golden parachutes and their private jets with the company, the proceeds to be distributed to the working people who are being made to live with the results of their arrogance.

James G. Abourezk is a lawyer practicing in South Dakota. He is a former United States senator and the author of two books, Advise and Dissent, and a co-author of Through Different Eyes. Abourezk  can be reached at georgepatton45@gmail.com.

 

 

 

 

James Abourezk is a former US senator from South Dakota. He is the author of: Advise and Dissent: Memoirs of an ex-Senator.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
April 28, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Slandering Populism: a Chilling Media Habit
Andrew Levine
Why I Fear and Loathe Trump Even More Now Than On Election Day
Jeffrey St. Clair
Mountain of Tears: the Vanishing Glaciers of the Pacific Northwest
Philippe Marlière
The Neoliberal or the Fascist? What Should French Progressives Do?
Conn Hallinan
America’s New Nuclear Missile Endangers the World
Peter Linebaugh
Omnia Sunt Communia: May Day 2017
Vijay Prashad
Reckless in the White House
Brian Cloughley
Who Benefits From Prolonged Warfare?
Kathy Kelly
The Shame of Killing Innocent People
Ron Jacobs
Hate Speech as Free Speech: How Does That Work, Exactly?
Andre Vltchek
Middle Eastern Surgeon Speaks About “Ecology of War”
Matt Rubenstein
Which Witch Hunt? Liberal Disanalogies
Sami Awad - Yoav Litvin - Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb
Never Give Up: Nonviolent Civilian Resistance, Healing and Active Hope in the Holyland
Pete Dolack
Tribunal Finds Monsanto an Abuser of Human Rights and Environment
Christopher Ketcham
The Coyote Hunt
Mike Whitney
Putin’s New World Order
Ramzy Baroud
Palestinian, Jewish Voices Must Jointly Challenge Israel’s Past
Ralph Nader
Trump’s 100 Days of Rage and Rapacity
Harvey Wasserman
Marine Le Pen Is a Fascist—Not a ‘Right-Wing Populist,’ Which Is a Contradiction in Terms
William Hawes
World War Whatever
John Stanton
War With North Korea: No Joke
Jim Goodman
NAFTA Needs to be Replaced, Not Renegotiated
Murray Dobbin
What is the Antidote to Trumpism?
Louis Proyect
Left Power in an Age of Capitalist Decay
Medea Benjamin
Women Beware: Saudi Arabia Charged with Shaping Global Standards for Women’s Equality
Rev. William Alberts
Selling Spiritual Care
Peter Lee
Invasion of the Pretty People, Kamala Harris Edition
Cal Winslow
A Special Obscenity: “Guernica” Today
Binoy Kampmark
Turkey’s Kurdish Agenda
Guillermo R. Gil
The Senator Visits Río Piedras
Jeff Mackler
Mumia Abu-Jamal Fights for a New Trial and Freedom 
Cesar Chelala
The Responsibility of Rich Countries in Yemen’s Crisis
Leslie Watson Malachi
Women’s Health is on the Chopping Block, Again
Basav Sen
The Coal Industry is a Job Killer
Judith Bello
Rojava, a Popular Imperial Project
Robert Koehler
A Public Plan for Peace
Sam Pizzigati
The Insider Who Blew the Whistle on Corporate Greed
Nyla Ali Khan
There Has to be a Way Out of the Labyrinth
Michael J. Sainato
Trump Scales Back Antiquities Act, Which Helped to Create National Parks
Stu Harrison
Under Duterte, Filipino Youth Struggle for Real Change
Martin Billheimer
Balm for Goat’s Milk
Stephen Martin
Spooky Cookies and Algorithmic Steps Dystopian
Michael Doliner
Thank You Note
Charles R. Larson
Review: Gregor Hens’ “Nicotine”
David Yearsley
Handel’s Executioner
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail