Dow
     -89.23
12801.23
-0.69%
|
     -9.31
1342.64
-0.69%
|
     +0.00
14000.51
+0.00
|
     -23.35
2903.88
-0.80%
|
     -1.03
53.27
-1.90%
|
     +1.09
116.27
+0.95%
|
     +0.01
2.01
+0.42%
July 27, 2009 2:32 PM

Obama's "Tough Love" Sparks Concern

(CBS/AP)  President Barack Obama's auto industry intervention - what Michigan's governor characterized as "tough love" - can be seen as assertive and coldly pragmatic, with a sentimental nod to the automobile's place in the American psyche - and Detroit's importance to the economy as a whole.

But Mr. Obama's curt rejection of General Motors' and Chrysler's restructuring plans, and his abrupt move to muscle out GM's CEO and set timetables for major restructurings under threat of bankruptcy court, have set the stage for a major realignment of the U.S. auto industry.

The president did not upend Detroit in one single swoop; he gave each company a second chance at a federal bailout - 60 days for GM and 30 for Chrysler - though it was evident that from now on little would remain the same.

"We've reached the end of that road," Mr. Obama declared Monday.

The administration's analysis of the viability of the two auto giants was merciless and remarkably specific in its critique of their business practices. It said GM's underperforming dealers were a drag on the company, and its car of the future, the plug-in Chevrolet Volt, held promise but was too expensive. As for Chrysler, the president said it could only survive with an international partner, the Italian carmaker Fiat SpA.

All in all, the administration and its auto task force concluded that the automakers' plans to change their mix of products, fix their balance sheets, reduce production capacity and launch new vehicles were simply too slow.

"There seems to be a major difference of opinion between the auto task force and GM not about what's desirable, but what's realistic over some undefined business cycle," Malcolm Salter, a professor emeritus at Harvard Business School who has advised Ford and GM, said in an e-mail.

Yet Mr. Obama also conceded the intangible nature of the auto industry as a national symbol, and made it clear he would not let it succumb under his watch. He called the industry an emblem of the American spirit and a pillar of the economy.

"We cannot, and must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish," he said.

The forced ouster of GM CEO Rick Wagoner, the detailed review of the companies' business models and the overt threat of bankruptcy represented an increasingly hands-on approach by the government to institutions receiving federal assistance in the midst of the economic crisis.

That move did not sit well with Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, who today called the president's demands of GM and Chrysler "a dangerous precedent."

(CBS)
"I think for all of us who believe in free enterprise, this is the crossing of a major threshold, and it actually should send a chill to people all across the country," Corker (left) said on CBS' The Early Show.

"You know, we have become numb to all the bailouts that are taking place. And yet yesterday this administration decided that they know best as it relates to this industry - they're going to be making decisions about which plants close, which plants stay open."

Autoworkers also expressed skepticism and anger that there was a perceived double-standard in government's approach to ailing industries.

"It's the age-old Wall Street vs. Main Street smackdown again," said Brian Fredline, president of UAW Local 602 at a plant near Lansing. "You have all kinds of funding available to banks that are apparently too big to fail, but they're also too big to be responsible."

"But when it comes to auto manufacturing and middle-class jobs and people that don't matter on Wall Street, there are certainly different standards that we have to meet - higher standards - than the financials. That is a double standard that exists and it's unfair," Fredline said.

Some workers even sympathized with Rick Wagoner, who was forced to step down as chief executive of General Motors Corp. He was by turns called a "sacrificial lamb," "scapegoat" and "fall guy."

"We knew someone was going to have to take the proverbial 'bullet,'" said Jim Graham, president of a union local in Lordstown, Ohio, where GM produces the Cobalt and Pontiac G5 fuel-efficient cars.

But the White House on Monday downplayed the difference between President Obama's treatment of the automakers and the less stringent conditions it has placed on the financial industry in return for financial infusions worth billions of dollars.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said each institution has distinct effects on the economy and, as a result, the government's response to each would be specific to their circumstances.

The president was hardly ambiguous about his desire to use the beleaguered state of the industry to press one of his top policy agendas - an energy policy that emphasizes the manufacture of fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly cars.

"The United States will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars," he said.

Mr. Obama's restructuring conditions include concessions from bondholders (the investors who hold GM and Chrysler debt), as well as from the United Auto Workers, which represents the industry work force. "It will require unions and workers who have already made extraordinarily painful concessions to do more," Mr. Obama said.

A committee of GM bondholders issued a statement Monday saying bondholders were willing to exchange "a substantial part" of their debt for stock in the company. But the statement said the committee was "very disappointed that the government and company have had virtually no real dialogue with bondholders while designing the proposed restructuring plan."

Though administration officials insisted Monday that bankruptcy was not a preferred option, the president went out of his way to explain what a court-overseen restructuring would entail. He stressed that bankruptcy would help Chrysler and GM clear old debts and place them on a sustainable path. "What I'm not talking about is a process where a company is simply broken up, sold off and no longer exists," he said.



© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 101 Comments
by sjc_1 April 1, 2009 4:08 PM EDT
"And yet yesterday this administration decided that they know best..."

If they had not taken action, the opposition would be saying that they should do something, that doing nothing was just what the unions want. This one caught them off guard, so they could only play the "fascist/socialist" lie, so that they would have time to think something else up.
Reply to this comment
by tx_doughboy April 1, 2009 12:34 PM EDT
Motar29 ? I appreciate your effort to express your very strong feelings but I feel like you fail to get three things.

1) Not everything that everyone does is written into the constitution as explicitly allowed. Yes, I agree that I too am not aware of any written power in the constitution for the Executive Branch to step in and take over a private company. BUT, If the private company travels into Washington DC and begs for money to stay afloat, then the government has a right to set stipulations. There is nothing in the Constitution that states that I am allowed to own a car. It wouldn?t be lawful of the government to take my car away and justify it because that is not written into the Constitution. If the government was to follow your suggestions and just let the companies fail, what would you suggest for all the countless jobs lost? If they lose their jobs, you can just add all those countless workers to all the current unemployed workers receiving government assistance. One way or the other the government will spend money. I don?t see where the American people or the auto industry workers benefit by your suggestions.
2) Your light bulb analogy is not really a fair comparison to the workings of the auto industry. You say that government is forcing the auto industry to build cars that Americans don?t want? That is not true and is complete BS. The American people have spoken to what they want when they stopped buying gas guzzling trucks and SUVS. The fact is that American auto makers neglected to invest in R&D for the times that are now upon us. Why is it that Toyota and Honda have not been hit as hard as GM and Chrysler? What are we going to do if and when gas prices go back up? I think it is perfectly fair for the federal government require the companies to provide plans that account for these expectations looking towards the future.
3) The federal government has a great deal of vested interest in keeping the manufacturing capacity that auto industry provides in the event of another war that requires tanks, planes, jeeps, and ships. Do you foresee Microsoft retooling in the event that we need to go to war? Mexico is a mess, we have Chavez talking smack south of the equator, North Korea testing long range missiles, Pakistan is close to civil war, Iran?need I say more, and finally we have China building up it?s military. Our government officials and the men and women of our United States military swear to defend the Constitution of the United States, but how are they supposed to do that one day if we are unable to produce the hardware required to do the job?
Reply to this comment
by kansas1946 March 31, 2009 11:03 PM EDT
That move did not sit well with Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, who today called the president's demands of GM and Chrysler "a dangerous precedent."


(CBS)"I think for all of us who believe in free enterprise, this is the crossing of a major threshold, and it actually should send a chill to people all across the country," Corker (left) said on CBS' The Early Show.

"You know, we have become numb to all the bailouts that are taking place. And yet yesterday this administration decided that they know best as it relates to this industry - they're going to be making decisions about which plants close, which plants stay open."
*****************************************************

These Republicans are so nuts that it is beyond belief. This senators comments have reached the pinnacle of partisan ignorance. I am GLAD Obama kicked the bum out, and is taking over. We have given these idiots that got the industry in the mess it is in billions of dollars, but they are going to tell us that they are the ones that know how to run the company????? Good God. The government does not want to own the auto industry but until it gets straightened out, then too bad. Between the unions and the greedy guys at the top, there is not way that they could reverse it. If you are going to take government money and beg tax-payers for hand outs, then you lost your right to autonomy. Get over it. The same right wingers that are screaming about this would think it is great that the goverment forces random drug tests on welfare recipients. I have heard the statement, "Well if they want to take the money, then too bad, they lose their right to privacy." I have a tendency to agree with that, but those folks are no different that the money addicts at the top of these corporations.
Reply to this comment
by sjc_1 March 31, 2009 6:15 PM EDT
I do not believe that Obama thought this one through very well. I think that he just took the word of his team and that was it. This is not the action of a leader. A leader would listen to the team and then ask questions that they did not. What will be the effect on the suppliers? Have the bond holders negotiated in good faith? Can we expect a better outcome in only 60 days?
Reply to this comment
by tx_doughboy March 31, 2009 4:09 PM EDT
"You Obamites who want socialism should move to a country that already has the system in place. Ask Cuba, they may take you!
Posted by leeanna59 at 12:17 PM : Mar 31, 2009 "

Yes, that is a great idea!! Everyone that voted for Obama, a majority of this country should move! Man...how did you ever come up with such a beautiful strategy to appease the minority?
Reply to this comment
by tx_doughboy March 31, 2009 2:56 PM EDT
"Well doughboy, some spend their time criticizing the administration, while you spend your time criticizing the posters. What's the difference?

You simply call people names. That is constructive?
Posted by drputt45 at 9:45 AM : Mar 31, 2009 "

drputt45 - Yes I have criticized the posters but yet I have suggested that rather than just complaining and blaming that they try and contribuite a reasonable alternative suggestion to the problems that we face. It is quite possible that within the group of people that post on this message board; we might be able to come up with better ideas than the elected officals that everyone is so eager to bag on.

Just to clairfy I have not called anyone any names. However; I have found fault with the way that some people will find fault with anything and at the same time never offer any other solutions. Reasonable or not... Saying you guys bl0w is not nice but its not calling people names...sorry.
Reply to this comment
by sndkzyaa March 31, 2009 2:35 PM EDT
Posted by hschwarz2 at 8:28 AM : Mar 31, 2009

Well said.
Posted by frankly6 at 8:36 AM : Mar 31, 2009

Posting under multiple screen names again???

BUSTED!!!!
Reply to this comment
by sndkzyaa March 31, 2009 2:32 PM EDT
I have a good idea, why don't all you people who love all the cars from other countries move there. That way the money you spend on them will go to where you live. That makes a lot of sense to me.
Posted by lilly1232 at 10:00 AM : Mar 31, 2009

Excellent post!

I've said it, too. Everyone who still wants free trade should get a free one-way ticket to China or India and live there. Get all the slave labor living you want there, and save the trouble of bringing it here.
Reply to this comment
by sndkzyaa March 31, 2009 2:29 PM EDT
Wow, there is a lot of paranoia out here, you anti Obama?s need to move to a real socialist country, ask Cuba they may take you?

Do any of the haters realize that this mess was inherited not created by Obama?
Posted by marybethinct at 8:41 AM : Mar 31, 2009

This country is going to look like Cuba by the time Obama is finished.

And what did Bush inherit?

The Clinton legacy!

Madoff - was caught in 2000, but nothing happened to him

Enron - nobody noticed

rampant and widespread accounting fraud - nobody knew (yah right)

8 years of being told Saddam had WMD - Clinton originated the WMD lie, even though no WMD were ever found in Iraq after 1991; Bush and the majority of congress adopted Clinton's WMD lie. Thousands died from Clinton's WMD lie; HILLARY CLINTON WAS FOOLED BY BILL CLINTON, NOT BUSH

banking deregulation - the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both houses of congress; only 8 Senators voted against the final version

9/11 attack in planning and preparations - Clintonites say Clinton had detailed information that an attack was imminent, and he gave this information to Bush; then why on 12/7/2000 did Clinton issue an executive order that effectively stopped the FAA from preventing hijackings???

THIS IS THE MESS BUSH INHERITED FROM CLINTON
Reply to this comment
by sjc_1 March 31, 2009 1:30 PM EDT
This is more about the dealers and bond holders doing their part. They refused to work with GM on this. The dealers know that there are state laws that apply. The bond holders think that they will actually come out better in court, we will see.
Reply to this comment
See all 101 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook