Friday, December 12, 2008

GOP Delivers Knockout Blow to the Bailout

Last night the Senate Republicans (save for a few weak-willed members) and some Democrats voted against the auto bailout, which is perfect. Job well done.

But.....it looks like President Bush is thinking like a liberal again and plans to side-step the issue by giving TARP funds to the auto industry?! I'm not sure what he's thinking but this is just pitiful. Senate Republicans sent a clear message last night and here's the so-called Republican President considering giving funds that aren't even designated for that purpose to the auto industry. Looks like he's trying to head out office with even his own party disgusted with him.

As for the "Big Three," here is something to consider before feeling too sorry for them. One of the main reasons the bailout failed is because the UAW (discussed previously) refused to take a deeper cut in wages. Well, would it be preferable to get most of the wage you currently earn, or none of it? That answer's easy. With the UAW it must be none, because that's the way they opted. Also, if the auto companies were smart, they would have been planning for Chapter 11 bankruptcy at the same time Congress was considering the bailout; a contingency plan if you will. But guess what? They didn't. Now they're panicking, and looking desperate at the same time. And guess who the media, the unions, and Democrats are blaming? You guessed it.....Republicans. The same party that was left out of negotiations on crafting the bailout and the same ones mocked by Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank. So much for bi-partisanship.

UPDATE
Rush Limbaugh's analysis is right on, and Senator Bob Corker from Tennessee is now a hero for the Republicans and vilified by the Democrats and the UAW for simply asking the right questions.

4 comments:

WeeklyHero said...

It really surprises me that Reid was quoted as lamenting the fail of the bailout, even though he was one of the few Dems opposing it.

Jonathan said...

Reid only voted against the bailout because he is now able to revive the bill at a later date (i.e. January when the Democratic power shift takes place), so don't misplace his motives.

WeeklyHero said...

Yeah, I did see something in there about trying again after the new members come in next year, but why does Reid have to vote against it for it to have a second chance?

Jonathan said...

It's just the way voting is structured. It's an option that he has available and while I am not sure of the legalese behind it, I know that by voting no, he retained the option of re-opening the bill later.