The Senate Banking Committee set its hearing for a proposed auto-industry bailout for Dec. 4.
The Senate hearing is parallel to a similar hearing on Dec.5 before the House Financial Services Committee. The House committee scheduled its hearing previously.
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate committee, simply called the hearing,
“The State of the Domestic Automobile Industry: Part II.”
Ford, GM, Chrysler and the UAW better hope it goes better than Part I, which publicly, at least, is best-remembered for the fact that industry executives flew to Washington in private jets to ask for a government bailout. The industry will be a long time living down that symbolism.
In my opinion, they will not live it down by Dec. 4 or Dec. 5, even though this time around plans call for a more humble arrival in Washington, and the industry is scrambling to assemble grass-roots support, including what I would call, “playing the Little League card.”
That is, car dealers are huge supporters in their hometowns of local charities, public-service organizations and sports teams, like Little League. That’s all true, and it’s a more sympathetic image than corporate fat-cats in private jets. However, fairly or unfairly, car dealers themselves are not the most sympathetic figures, despite their best local-booster efforts.
At least, the House committee renamed its hearing, “Review of Industry Plans to Stabilize the Financial Condition of the American Automobile Industry,” which seems to narrow the scope to grounds that potentially could be more hospitable to the industry.
“Stabilizing the industry’s financial condition” in the House sounds a lot less threatening from the industry’s point of view than, “the state of the domestic automobile industry” in the Senate. The Detroit Big Three automakers argue that they were doing OK in terms of restructuring the industry, until the current credit crisis came along, in September and October. Their position is that getting credit back on its feet would allow them to get back to business.
Industry critics, including old foes like Ralph Nader, are quick to blame “the state of the domestic automobile industry” on the domestic automobile companies themselves. Opponents of a bailout cite longer-term problems, like losing market share to import brands since the 1970s. It would be easier to defend showing up in private jets, than to defend the 30-year history of the industry. If that’s how the discussion is framed, the auto-industry bailout is still in deep trouble.
