Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Will Gary Numan Be Named First Car Czar? Auto Bailout Proceedeth Apace With All the Grandeur of a Pontiac Aztek
As we noted here a few days ago, the great automaker bailout was a question of when, not if. That ultimate day when the fiscal odometer turns 100,000 (in gazillions of taxpayer money, and maybe even kajillions by the time the Bush admin darkens the door at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the last time), is inching closer, like a 1974 Chevy Vega being pushed back into the used car lot you just bought it from:
A federal "car czar" would oversee a government-run restructuring of U.S. auto companies in return for a $15 billion bailout of the beleaguered industry under an emerging deal between the White House and Congress.
Negotiators worked through the night Monday narrowing differences on a bill to rush short-term loans to the struggling carmakers through a plan that requires that the industry reinvent itself to survive—and pay back the government if it doesn't. The package could come to a vote as early as Wednesday.
The measure would put a government overseer named by President George W. Bush in charge of setting guidelines for an industrywide overhaul, with the power to revoke the loans if the automakers fail to do what's necessary to become viable. The White House was seeking tougher consequences, including allowing the overseer—being called a car czar—to force the companies into bankruptcy if they weren't doing enough to cut labor costs, restructure their debt and downsize to stay afloat.
The one ray of hope in this story? "Despite optimism on both sides that Congress and the White House could reach a swift agreement on the measure, it was still a tough sell on Capitol Hill."
Read: As with the grotesque financial sector bailout (doesn't that seem like years ago?), virtually all of those against this are just waiting for the right "sweetener" to make the subsidy go down.
My vote for car czar? Gary Numan (see below).
Second choice: Former South Dakota Rep. Bill Janklow, who displayed just the right mix of phony remorse and righteous anger when convicted of vehicular manslaughter for a 2003 driving death. It seems to me that that's exactly what you want in a "czar"—a nearly complete jackass who tries to bully his way with the people who run him and the people he lords over.
Special note to Congress and politicians in general: Czar is a terrible word to use for any office. The czars (and czarinas!) were terrible rulers who presided over one of the biggest ongoing failures in human history (a.k.a. Czarist Russia). About the best thing you can say about them is that one of them might have had sex with a horse. Check out the history books, for god's sake already.
Enough already, start your engines today with synth-pop New Wave androgyny of Gary Numan:
|12.9.08 @ 7:57AM|#
Wow, it seems as if the federal government is getting in the
business of owning the means of production. What is that
called?
About Janklow......When I read this about Janklow, I was
appalled.
Saying that Janklow "is truly remorseful" and that he will
suffer a "special humiliation not encountered by a private
citizen," Steele issued a suspended imposition of sentence. That
means that if the former lawmaker successfully completes his jail
time and three-year probation, the record of the felony conviction
will be sealed - effectively removing it from his
record.
How many private citizens get a sealed conviction for killing
someone? I bet this judge rarely gives these sorts of sentences to
"private citizens."
Kaiser|12.9.08 @ 7:59AM|#
... a plan that requires that the industry reinvent itself to survive-and pay back the government if it doesn't.
So, they have no money as it is, hence the asking for $30 billion.
The government will loan it to them with some strings attached. If
the auto companies fail to comply with these order though, they
have to pay the government back... with another loan?
I guess as they said at that point they would just force them into
bankruptcy but I say we save ourselves the $30 billion and just
force them into bankruptcy now. As ludicrous as it is, in my
opinion, that congress is all up in arms and holding investigations
over this $30 billion bailout. Seeing as they just doled out over a
trillion to the financial market it is such a small sum to ask for.
As I have stated in other posts, you can't point to one wrong to
justify another, and this has got to stop somewhere.
|12.9.08 @ 8:15AM|#
Not like I'm terribly informed (although what I do know disgusts me), but what if Americans refuse to buy "American"? For my part, they've got my fucking tax money; the Big Three won't sell me another car. Besides, a new Toyota is probably made in TN anyway *shrugs*
|12.9.08 @ 8:16AM|#
I have been on here periodically to apologize for the financial system bailout in what I hope has been a qualified manner. I am the first one to speak up and say that the gov't isn't really spending the 700bn, 8.5tn, or whatever the shreiking heads say. That said, this auto nonsense is probably the best argument against me - that the government will not stop once they get going. It becomes a bottomless trough of self eating pork. I'm disgusted that there is no one in congress willing to say why banks need to be bailed out, but not auto companies. And a little disgusted with myself for having apologized for them.
|12.9.08 @ 8:47AM|#
Fuck it. Bail out everyone. We can have an epic party until the repercussions bring us back to the Dark Ages. I have my guns, ammo, and V8, so I don't care.
|12.9.08 @ 8:50AM|#
Negotiators worked through the night Monday narrowing
differences on a bill
Ah the beauty of bipartisanship: getting fucked over twice as bad.
If only the Constitution proscribed this act. Oh wait, I've
searched through Article 1 of the Constitution and this is not
among the enumerated powers given to the Legislature by the people.
If only our "honorable" Representatives and Senators took their
oaths of office seriously.
|12.9.08 @ 8:50AM|#
How do you revoke a loan? Does the government have a guy who will rearrange your face if you don't have the money by midnight?
|12.9.08 @ 8:54AM|#
Is The Stig
American? If so, I nominate him.
At least the press conference would be short - guy never talks!
Robert Anton Wilson |12.9.08 @ 9:02AM|#
We don't need a czar. Who the hell needs a fucking czar? Why
should 21st century America be like 19th century Russia? [....] The
whole idea of the TSOG - the Tsarist Occupation Government - is
that the Tsar is in communication with God just like in 19th
Century Russia.
--The Ostrich Czar
|12.9.08 @ 9:04AM|#
It seems we need a government czar to watch over and guide the government from doing stupid things like bailing out failing businesses. The republic is lost. But at least I have a Gary Numan song in my head.
stuartl|12.9.08 @ 9:05AM|#
I heard Nancy Pelosi and others saying "car czar" in very serious voices this morning. It reminded me of 5 year olds pretending to be a grownup. Doing stuff that they see grownups do, but with no clue why.
|12.9.08 @ 9:06AM|#
Does the government have a guy who will rearrange your face
if you don't have the money by midnight?
Uh...yes.
|12.9.08 @ 9:08AM|#
Look at th bright side - this will probably be such an unmitigated disaster, that 15 years down the line, everyone will "know" that govt should never bailout anyone...
ed|12.9.08 @ 9:17AM|#
How about Auto-crat?
Win.
I can't wait for the 2009 Pelosi to start rolling off the
line.
I've acquired a sneak peek.
Warty|12.9.08 @ 9:19AM|#
Look at th bright side - this will probably be such an
unmitigated disaster, that 15 years down the line, everyone will
"know" that govt should never bailout anyone...
Oh, you funny, funny man.
|12.9.08 @ 9:25AM|#
The czars (and czarinas!) were terrible rulers who presided
over one of the biggest ongoing failures in human history (a.k.a.
Czarist Russia).
Bullshit. Complete, utter bullshit. The Czars took the backwards,
landlocked, resource poor Slavo-Turkic Mongol province of Muscovy
and leveraged it into the largest land empire the world has ever
seen - stretching from the Baltic to the Pacific. That's failure?
Nor were they as despotic as the West likes to depict them. Tsar
Peter introduced Western values to Russia. Tsar Alexander II freed
the serfs. Nikolai II allowed a Parliament and was taking halting
steps toward a constitutional monarchy before WWI came along. The
Russian Empire produced some of European civilization's most
enduring artistic achievements in literature, music and art, as
well as scientists such as Mendeleev and Pavlov. Under the Tsars
Russia introduced the beginnings of a market economy - from
1870-1914 the Russian Empire was one of the fastest growing
economies in the world. There's plenty to criticize about Tsarist
Russia but it takes no effort at all to find far greater failures,
and more despotic regimes, in human history.
|12.9.08 @ 9:25AM|#
Unconvincing quote of the week:
"While we take no satisfaction in loaning taxpayer money to
these companies, we know it must be done," Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid, D-Nev., said. "This is no blank check or blind
hope."
Reformed Republican|12.9.08 @ 9:26AM|#
Czar is a terrible word to use for any office. The czars
(and czarinas!) were terrible rulers who presided over one of the
biggest ongoing failures in human history
Seems like a fairly accurate description of whoever gets put in
charge of this. I like the word BECAUSE of those distasteful
notions. It is one of the most honest terms used in government.
|12.9.08 @ 9:29AM|#
Ha! I actually had a 1974 Vega. Yellow (!) with two black racing
stripes. Bad tranny, a case of oil a week to feed its failure of an
aluminum engine.
But I was 17, and it was a place to hide my beer and get laid. I
had to push it many times, until it threw a rod, never woke up
again, and I let some dude haul it away for free. Kind of what
Detroit wants.
|12.9.08 @ 9:30AM|#
Where is the breaking point? If we have an economist in the room - at what point will the U.S Government collapse on the debt it has created in the past and now in the present?
dhex|12.9.08 @ 9:33AM|#
so when did the practice of calling a gov't official a "czar" start in america?
ed|12.9.08 @ 9:33AM|#
Well, at least now when ignorant fools call our government "fascist" they'll finally be right.
|12.9.08 @ 9:38AM|#
Where is the breaking point? If we have an economist in the
room - at what point will the U.S Government collapse on the debt
it has created in the past and now in the present?
The government will not collapse unless people remove it using
force. If you are asking what is sustainable, you have to look at
the growth rate. Any debt growth rate > GDP growth is
unsustainable. Since we have neg GDP - that might seem pretty tough
nuts, but we are talking about long term trend rates, not local
rates. There is not absolute level, but much past 150% of GDP, and
we are going to see some pretty persistent inflating to repudiate
it. We are ages away from that, but clearly, these days, anything
can happen in a hurry.
And no, the feds ballooning balance sheet does not count as
debt.
|12.9.08 @ 9:43AM|#
I assume they call him the Car "Czar" because if things don't go
well, he and his extended family will be taken to a secluded
location in Alaska (redundant?) and shot in a basement.
Then we'll put up statues of Henry Reid everywhere.
Extra ! Extra!|12.9.08 @ 9:45AM|#
FEDS ARREST ILLINOIS GOVERNOR
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/source-feds-take-gov-blagojevich-into-custody.html
Chuck|12.9.08 @ 9:47AM|#
"Despite optimism on both sides that Congress and the White
House could reach a swift agreement on the measure, it was still a
tough sell on Capitol Hill."
It won't be. They'll add on another $50B in earmarks, everyone in
Congress will rejoice, and it will sweep through both houses like a
California wildfire, only (sadly) without the annihilation.
Bipartisanship in action.
|12.9.08 @ 10:03AM|#
"I assume they call him the Car "Czar" because if things don't
go well, he and his extended family will be taken to a secluded
location in Alaska (redundant?) and shot in a basement."
Thanks, I needed that.
|12.9.08 @ 10:13AM|#
"Ha! I actually had a 1974 Vega. Yellow (!) with two black
racing stripes. Bad tranny, a case of oil a week to feed its
failure of an aluminum engine.
But I was 17, and it was a place to hide my beer and get laid. I
had to push it many times, until it threw a rod, never woke up
again,"
Are we still talking about your car?
|12.9.08 @ 10:21AM|#
"A federal "car czar" would oversee a government-run
restructuring of U.S. auto companies in return for a $15 billion
bailout of the beleaguered industry under an emerging deal between
the White House and Congress."
Have the White House and Congress announced what concessions the
UAW will be making in this "restructuring" to ensure that the
bailout works?
Maybe I shouldn't think of the bailout "working" like it's going to
save the Big Three and keep them operating as independent
entities.
Maybe to Congress a bailout that's approved and spent is a bailout
that "works".
|12.9.08 @ 10:22AM|#
There is a reason to bail out banks. There is no fucking reason
to bail out the auto industry, or any other company that fails for
that matter. What are we fearing that will happen? There will
suddenly be millions of out of work people, banging on working
people's windows for food like a horde of zombies? If there is a
market for cars, other people will make them, and the people who
got laid off can go work for those people. If there isn't, then no
amount of government money could help. These companies must *fail*.
I have no problem with giving them loans or leniency in the
meantime for a soft landing into bankruptcy, but if that's what
happens they cant come out on the other end still in tact.
Banks are another story, and the reason to bail them out is more a
problem of saving the system than saving the banks. If we could led
banks fail entirely without disrupting the entire way things work,
I'd say go for it, but I'm not sure how we could do that.
highnumber|12.9.08 @ 10:26AM|#
Extra! Extra!,
Hip hip hooray!!!
I feel like this is too good to be true. Not that he's that
corrupt, but that they are finally gonna nail him.
Yay!
|12.9.08 @ 10:27AM|#
I wish they would start calling it for what it is a HANDOUT.
Lets get it right!
jess
http://www.online-privacy.se.tc
|12.9.08 @ 10:27AM|#
"Banks are another story, and the reason to bail them out is
more a problem of saving the system than saving the
banks."
Plenty of banks have already failed, not much of a problem to
anyone but stockholders and other people who willingly took on
investment risk.
I understand keeping FDIC funded, since it's in place and people
depend on it, but apart from that, so long as depositors are
getting their money back, I don't see why it's so much different
from any number of burger chains going out of business.
If McDonald's went out of business tomorrow, I'd just buy my
burgers someplace else.
|12.9.08 @ 10:29AM|#
Conservatives are in quite a pickle. They can buy a car from the damn foreigners, or they can buy a car from the damn socialists.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.9.08 @ 10:31AM|#
like a 1974 Chevy Vega being pushed back into the used car
lot you just bought it from
The Aztek grandeur was a great line too.
The Vega, what a piece of crap. And GM stiffed everybody that
bought one new, including my folks.
Self destruction at 40k miles. Who designs an aluminum block engine
without sleeving the cylinders? Why GM, of course. That was the
beginning of the end we now see.
Jerry|12.9.08 @ 10:52AM|#
And this will be the future lineup of the American car industry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-3-pnehUqU
Egosumabbas|12.9.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Reason's not picking up yet on a certain notoriously corrupt state governor being hauled off to jail?
|12.9.08 @ 11:10AM|#
What really sucks is that there is unquestionably a group of
people working at GM right now who could, if they were put in
charge, do an excellent job of turning things around, and make GM a
smaller, leaner, profitable company. The company
would have to be put into bankruptcy, and the top three or four
levels of the hierarchical pyramid would have to be completely
scalped off.
But we won't seek them out and let them take over. The CarCzar will
keep the board, that imbecile Wagoner, and all his cronies in place
(with a few meaningless "controls" and compensation* restrictions),
and the thing will just make a bigger crater somewhere down the
road.
*If my "salary" is one dollar per year, but the company pays all my
expenses, and awards me stock options guaranteed to never be
underwater, what is my compensation?
|12.9.08 @ 11:13AM|#
Illinois voters can really pick them. There are no excuses electing Blagojevich, one look at the guy and you know he's a crook.
|12.9.08 @ 11:13AM|#
I, too, courtesy of my father, had a 1974 Chevy Vega. It was a
green wagaon. ALthough many good times were had in it, I would not
recommend if one's objective is to impress a date. Does anybody
remember the fact that one could hear a Vega starting half a mile
away?
Vanya-Good post. It is always important to remind the Lincoln
cultists and apologists that Alexander emancipated the serfs
without plunging Russia into a bloodbath resulting in the deaths of
upwards of a million people.
Alan Vanneman|12.9.08 @ 11:18AM|#
In Washingtonese, appointment of a "czar" means "this problem is totally unsolvable, but if we make a big fuss and hand a guy $10-$20 billion to spend aimlessly over a three-year period, we can get through tne next election. Once that's done, we can fire him and hope that people are worrying about something else."
|12.9.08 @ 11:27AM|#
Dollars to donuts the "Car Czar" knows less about the automotive
industry and the big 2.5's troubles than I do. The execs will lead
the "Car Czar" around by the nose, tailor data to string hin/her
along and attemt to right the sinking ship even with that extra
ballast aboard.
Henry Paulson is looking for a new gig.
cunnivore|12.9.08 @ 11:33AM|#
I still can't wrap my head around socialists wanting to have a czar. It would be like the Congressional Black Caucus calling their leader the Grand Dragon.
Weimar Republic|12.9.08 @ 12:06PM|#
domoarrigato | December 9, 2008, 9:38am | #
Where is the breaking point? If we have an economist in the room -
at what point will the U.S Government collapse on the debt it has
created in the past and now in the present?
The government will not collapse unless people remove it using
force. If you are asking what is sustainable, you have to look at
the growth rate. Any debt growth rate > GDP growth is
unsustainable. Since we have neg GDP - that might seem pretty tough
nuts, but we are talking about long term trend rates, not local
rates. There is not absolute level, but much past 150% of GDP, and
we are going to see some pretty persistent inflating to repudiate
it. We are ages away from that, but clearly, these days, anything
can happen in a hurry.
And no, the feds ballooning balance sheet does not count as
debt.
Domoarrigato, we are looking for a minister to run our economy,
could you be that man? You sound like everything we have ever
searched for!
|12.9.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Domoarrigato, we are looking for a minister to run our
economy, could you be that man? You sound like everything we have
ever searched for!
If that's true, you haven't looked very hard.
40% of GDP gets thrown around a lot as being dangerous. But that is
based on empirical evidence of small emerging markets that have
defaulted - most of whom failed by trying to prop up their currency
and running out of reserves. Not similar in the least. Even Dr.
(Doom) Roubini (my old NYU prof and nemesis) thinks 100% is
possible, and that default is impossible, however currency
collapse/inflation/rate spikes could result. His analyses at the
time did not include the idea that everyone else would be
collapsing at the same time - so I guess we'll see.
thoreau|12.9.08 @ 1:01PM|#
The czars (and czarinas!) were terrible rulers who presided
over one of the biggest ongoing failures in human history (a.k.a.
Czarist Russia).
Moynihan is contractually obligated to remind you that the Commies
were worse.
|12.9.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Look at th bright side - this will probably be such an
unmitigated disaster, that 15 years down the line, everyone will
"know" that govt should never bailout anyone...
That's how I'm taking it.
This isn't socialism. It's socialism on crack.
Reformed Republican|12.9.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Bipartisanship in action.
I always hate when people talk about how wonderful bipartisanship
is. It is never good. It just means one side makes concessions to
the other. Those concessions usually involve getting rid of any
bits of a bill that might be beneficial and replacing them with
things that make it even worse and probably counterproductive. Fuck
bipartisanship.
|12.9.08 @ 1:34PM|#
FWIW - the treasury borrowed 30 Billion Paulsen Bucks today (for
4 weeks) paying no interest whatesoever - and could have borrowed
about 8 bn more if they wanted.
This is the first time in history that has happened.
Paul|12.9.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Nancy Pelosi catches the Chairman of GM leaving the House
floor.
Pelosi: Listen, that didn't go so well, and I'm trying to help you
out here, you need to rethink your approach.
Chairman: What? I thought that went pretty well.
Pelosi: Look, I'm trying to help you out here, so you might do well
to accept a little... [pelosi looks around to check for
eavesdroppers]...coaching. But I'm only going to tell you this
once, because it doesn't look good for me or my party to be
shoveling out the corporate welfare. You know, Change We Can
Believe in and all that?
Chairman: *sighs* Ok, so what could we have done "better"
[makes little quotation signs with fingers]
Pelosi: [annnoyed] First of all, dumbass, drop the
corporate jet.
Chairman: [looks puzzled] Why?
Pelosi: How do you think it looks?
Chairman: [stares blankly, then looks at his entourage] Oh
riiiiiight. What with global warming and all. [turns to
assistant] Make a note: "buy carbon credits to offset plane
trip". [turns back to Pelosi] Good thinking. Can't forget
the "environment" [makes quote signs with fingers]
Pelosi: [grimmacing] Well, yes, the
"environment"..[mimicks quote signs] as you put it is
important to the Democratic party, but that's not really where I'm
going with this.
Chairman: [looking puzzled] I'm sorry? What could be more
important then our precious resources?
Pelosi: It's about money.
Chairman: Money?
Pelosi: Yes, money.
Chairman: I don't follow.
Pelosi: You're here asking for $25 billion dollars.
Chairman: And?
Pelosi: Those are... as much as we Democrats can't stand to
admit... taxpayer dollars.
Chairman: Right...and?
Pelosi: When you come to a meet-and-greet begging for billions of
dollars from people who make $12 an hour and you show up in a
corporate jet, it looks bad.
Chairman: [Stares into Pelosi's eyes, thinking then snaps
fingers] I've got it. [turns to assistant] Memo...
we'll show our "real" concern for our precious resources by driving
to the next meeting in a Hybrid... and Chad, I don't want to be
seen in a Prius this time, you know what happened last year in Palm
Beach.
Pelosi: [long sigh] It's not about hybrid cars or carbon
emissions, it makes it look like you don't need the money. Buying
carbon credits AND taking the jet makes it look like you need the
money even less.
Chairman: [after long pause] Ooooooohhhh riiiighht.
[assistants start furiously taking notes, nodding and giving
looks of affirmation to eachother]
Chairman: This is great. When we show how much money we saved on
the Jets, we can probably ask for more...take a memo, "ask for $36
billion on our next scheduled meeting". [winks at Pelosi]
Good idea, Madam Speaker, with the transportation cost-savings, we
can up the ante...so to speak.
Pelosi: I'm only here to help.
NoStar|12.9.08 @ 1:45PM|#
so when did the practice of calling a gov't official a
"czar" start in america?
dhex,
That would be when Nixon appointed William Simon as his go-to
cabinet energy guy in 1973.
As I remember it, the press coined "energy czar" as an ironic joke
that has long since become prophetic.
It was a telling event event in the string of contrived emergencies
our leaders use to get the "we the people" to abdicate our freedom
and rights.
Merry Christmas.
|12.9.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Its like they are looking around for every idea that has been
tried and failed in the last 100 years, to give them another
shot.
I'm just hoping the gov't-run abomination of a car company that
comes out the other end of this is called "American Leyland", and
dies as quickly as its Limey namesake died.
|12.9.08 @ 2:47PM|#
I'm just hoping the gov't-run abomination of a car company
that comes out the other end of this is called "American Leyland",
and dies as quickly as its Limey namesake died.
I'm going to start referring to every GM car as a "Trabant".
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245