December 11, 2008 - WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made this statement on the auto bailout plan that passed by the House of Representatives yesterday.  The plan is scheduled to come before the Senate in the next few days.

Graham said:

“I oppose the current auto bailout plan. 

“Simply put, the model Detroit has created will not sustain itself in the global economy.  They need to make significant, structural changes before they receive federal assistance and those changes should be made in the private sector. 

“No one wants to see these companies fail and workers displaced.  I feel for the car dealers and their employees who are being hurt by years of bad decisions made by the leadership of the Big 3.  But I also realize that unless major, fundamental changes are made in the way the Big 3 operate, they will likely find themselves right back in the same situation. 

“I will continue to be open to proposals which help return the auto companies to profitable enterprises and protect the taxpayer.  The current plan does not meet those standards.”

December 12, 2008 - WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) today released the following statement following the failure to break the Republican filibuster of legislation to provide bridge loans to the auto industry:

“It's unfathomable to me that Senate Republicans would turn their backs on millions of American families.

“During the recent campaign we heard a lot from Republicans about the people that make up the real America and even the Carhartts they wear.  I guess that was then.

“Tonight, Senate Republicans, who sometimes observe that all wisdom does not reside in Washington, DC, decided that they should dictate a labor contract for American autoworkers to replace the one agreed to just last year.  While workers were willing to be part of the solution, they could not and should not shoulder the entire burden.
“Senate Republicans rejected a plan that had been painstakingly negotiated by the White House to rescue the American auto industry.  The auto companies agreed to strict oversight and tough measures to protect taxpayers, and workers made major concessions.  As they head off for the holidays, Senate Republicans rejected our best hope for preventing millions of lost jobs in Ohio and across the nation.” 

December 11, 2008 - WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) gave a speech on the Senate Floor calling on Congress to learn from its own mistakes and reject another major bailout that gives unfettered power to an unelected Washington bureaucrat, in the form of a ‘car czar’ to oversee a $14 billion bailout of the Big Three automakers.  Senator Inhofe has also been an outspoken critic of the $700 billion bailout and its administration by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, and will continue working to represent the majority of Americans who oppose this near-nationalization of industry. Senator Inhofe has introduced legislation, S.3683 and S.3697, to freeze unexpended expenditures of the first $350 billion installment of the $700 billion and require an affirmative vote of Congress to access the remaining $350 billion.  The following are excerpts of Senator Inhofe’s speech:

 “In Congress, we are currently considering an irresponsible $14 billion bailout of the Big Three auto manufacturers,” Senator Inhofe.  “This legislation empowers one unelected bureaucrat, which has come to be known as the ‘car czar,’ to spend money how he sees fit to keep the auto companies afloat and make the U.S. government part owners of the companies.   

“There are no provisions in the language that specifically direct the car czar to take any specific restructuring actions, such as renegotiating union contracts which has led to nearly a doubling of the cost per worker for the Big Three auto makers compared to their foreign competitors here in the U.S.  The ‘car czar’ will also be empowered to dictate how these companies are to structure and run their business.  This is a bureaucratic, command and control approach to industrial policy in lieu of market forces and Chapter 11.  I believe it only delays critical business restructuring decisions. 

“Why do we now believe that government bailouts and government ownership of shares of these companies without a clear idea of what these companies will do to significantly alter their business models, at least until well into next year, is going to be a successful venture?  The history of even the last couple decades clearly shows that the approach we are considering in this legislation has a track record of waste and failure.  We need to ask ourselves:  Are we not simply throwing good money after bad?  More importantly, are we not simply throwing taxpayer dollars down the drain? 

“I cannot and will not support Congress using taxpayer dollars to bailout yet another industry, and I think we were in this same situation not too long ago with the massive $700 billion financial bailout legislation.  This Congress has set an extremely dangerous precedent. 

“This has been and will continue to be a difficult time for all Americans.  The unwinding of past mistakes is never a pleasant process.  These auto companies have very difficult decisions to make, but no one can argue these circumstances and subsequent tough decisions have been a long time in the making.  However, many of us believe additional government attempts to only patch the situation for the moment will not only be futile, but will also move this country further from those first principles that have made us the great nation we are today.” 

Full Remarks as Prepared for Delivery: 

Mr. President, we are now considering a $14 billion bailout of the Big 3 auto manufacturers.  This legislation empowers one unelected bureaucrat, which has come to be known as the “car czar” to spend money how he sees fit to keep the auto companies afloat and make the U.S. government part owners of the companies. 

However, this bill simply makes the U.S. government and U.S. taxpayers part owners of these companies.  There are no provisions in the language that specifically direct the car czar to take any specific restructuring actions, such as renegotiating union contracts which has led to nearly a doubling of the cost per worker for the Big 3 auto makers compared to their foreign competitors here in the U.S.

The car czar will also be empowered to dictate how these companies are to structure and run their business.  This is a bureaucratic, command and control approach to industrial policy in lieu of market forces and Chapter 11.  I believe it only delays critical business restructuring decisions.

I read an article from the New York Times from mid-November.  It was titled “A British Lesson on Auto Bailouts.”  It briefly discussed the British treatment of the Leyland automobile in the 1970’s and 1980’s.  The article reported that the British government ultimately spent $16.5 billion (in U.S. currency equivalent) to bailout the British Leyland.  The article quoted a top official of the Thatcher government which reluctantly but ultimately backed the bailout.  He said, “I’m not telling the U.S. what to do, but the lessons of the British experience is don’t throw good money after bad.  British Leyland carried on for a few more years, but they’re not there now, are they?”  No, Mr. President, they are not.  They are bankrupt after burning through all their taxpayer bailout dollars.

Why do we now believe that government bailouts and government ownership of shares of these companies without a clear idea of what these companies will do to significantly alter their business models, at least until well into next year, is going to be a successful venture?  The history of even the last couple decades clearly shows that the approach we are considering in this legislation has a track record of waste and failure.  We need to ask ourselves:  Are we not simply throwing good money after bad?  More importantly, are we not simply throwing taxpayer dollars down the drain?

In the New York Times, just a few days ago, Jeffrey Garten, who served as undersecretary of commerce during the Clinton Administration and now is a professor at the Yale School of Management was quoted saying, “We’re at this moment in history, in which the Chinese are touting that their system is better than ours with their mix of capitalism and state control and our response, it looks like, is to begin replicating what they’ve been doing.”  That is something that should concern us all, and I know concerns the American people.

Mr. President, I cannot and will not support Congress using taxpayer dollars to bailout yet another industry, and I think we were in this same situation not too long ago.

One unelected bureaucrat administering a massive new government program with taxpayer dollars buying ownership into an industry.  I think we have all heard this one before, and I know the American people have heard this one before and have spoken loud and clear against it.

Of course, I’m talking about the massive $700 billion financial bailout legislation.  Treasury Secretary Paulson came before Congress and said that if he wasn't immediately empowered with his plan to buy $700 billion worth of troubled assets we would all be held responsible for the cataclysmic consequences of not "doing something."

But then the plan changed.  The plan not longer focused on troubled assets anymore. The new plan was taking positions in major banks.

Then we learned that the plan to buy troubled assets had been entirely abandoned and that we should stay tuned for the new plan involving consumer credit markets.

Then we learned that the new plan is no plan for the remaining $350 billion of the original $700 billion. 

We now know that Secretary Paulson is debating whether to ask Congress for the second $350 billion, but the Government Accountability Office released a report pointing to a number of problems in the administration of the program.  

Congress gave Secretary Paulson the $700 billion in two installments of $350 billion. The first has largely been used (perhaps $15 billion remains now) and the second has not. If the financial markets, though still troubled in many ways, are much more stable as the U.S. Treasury and specifically Secretary Paulson claims, Congress needs to remove the authority for the second $350 billion dollar installment or at least vote again given the massive changes in the program and debate about even the need for the second $350 billion.  At the very least, we need to ensure that any plans for accessing the remaining $350 billion needs to be fully debated in Congress and subject to an affirmative vote in both houses. 

I have authored two bills, S.3683 sponsored by Senators Sanders, Barrasso, Wicker, DeMint, Roberts, and Vitter to freeze unexpended expenditures of the original $350 billion and require an affirmative vote of Congress to access the remaining $350 billion.  I have also authored S. 3697, sponsored by Senators Barrasso and Coburn which does the same thing on the remaining $350 billion – requiring an affirmative vote of Congress to access those funds.  Currently, the financial bailout legislation states that unless Congress disapproves within 15 days, the Secretary may use the additional $350 billion.  We need to shift that burden.  Congress must reconsider whether granting an additional $350 billion is appropriate given the changes in the program and how the funding is to be used.

This Congress has set an extremely dangerous precedent, but as I have said before it also has a chance for redemption.  Doing so just might help the American people have a little more confidence in the integrity of our institutions and the common sense of our leaders.  I believe that by far the greatest threat to economic growth and prosperity in the years to come is the extent to which the government has recently entangled itself in the marketplace.  The government must immediately begin the process of extricating itself from the financial sector of our economy.

This has been and will continue to be a difficult time for all Americans.  The unwinding of past mistakes is never a pleasant process.  These auto companies have very difficult decisions to make, but no one can argue these circumstances and subsequent tough decisions have been a long time in the making.  However, many of us believe additional government attempts to only patch the situation for the moment will not only be futile, but will also move this country further from those first principles that have made us the great nation we are today.

Congress is debating the future of the American automobile industry. With our economy in crisis, this is not a time for ideology; it's a time for pragmatism and common sense. Amid daunting job losses and unprecedented fiscal challenges, the economy cannot sustain a body blow to one of America's most significant industries without giving it a chance to restructure.

The Big Three automakers directly employ nearly 250,000 Americans. Overall, the industry accounts for roughly 5 million jobs. The failure of the U.S. auto industry would have ramifications far beyond Michigan; the impact would be widespread. Every state has a stake in the industry—suppliers in Ohio, dealerships in Texas and port workers in New Jersey.

The effects of a shutdown would multiply beyond the auto industry and would significantly postpone our nation's economic recovery. If Congress fails to act now, U.S. real gross domestic product could decline by more than 1 percent and the country would be likely to lose more than a million jobs.

We all agree that the auto industry is important—but we also agree that real changes and tough decisions must be made to ensure that the firms become financially viable. Any funding must come with significant strings attached. In fact, either a company has workable, viable plans—or it files for bankruptcy. No one is proposing a giveaway.

Congressional leaders have shown a willingness to help the industry build a path to viability. By unlocking funds that had already been allocated for the auto industry, Congress prevents the rescue package for the financial industry from becoming a grab bag of funding for any industry in trouble. If that rescue package were opened to other industries, it would be impossible to stop—and our financial system simply can't afford to forgo this aid.

Congress has proposed a bridge loan program in a way that demands accountability and responsibility from the industry. If the legislation passes, it will be up to the automakers to deliver on the promises they have made to the American people, and there are strong taxpayer protections in place.

The reality of the business world is that a company that isn't profitable and self-sustaining won't survive. The American people cannot afford to pump out cash to help get the industry from one failed business model to the next. The companies' fundamentals have to change.

Automakers must address challenges from top to bottom. And the actions they take must be decisive and meaningful. Reducing CEO salaries to $1 a year and grounding corporate jets are important and symbolic moves, but they are not enough. The challenges are significant and will require difficult choices from all parties.

A satisfactory plan for viability must address all the factors that drive overall competitiveness, such as labor, management and legacy costs; debt structure; dealer network costs; capacity utilization; fuel efficiency standards; and plans for new and existing products. The road to restructuring will be filled with tough decisions.

This is not just a Detroit problem. This is an American problem. Congress has the opportunity to help the auto industry build a bridge to the future. In turn, the auto industry must show that it is worthy of the American people's trust and investment. It must become leaner, more efficient and capable of competing in our 21st-century economy.

The auto industry is just one of today's challenges, but it is crucial to America's economy. By addressing its problems head-on, we will strengthen our economy, help an important industry rebuild for the future and keep America running.

December 8, 2008 - Newswise — Cyber Monday and the Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays of online shopping that follow can be frustrating — and expensive — for some employers. But Claire Simmers, Ph.D., co-author of "The Internet and Workplace Transformation," says she has seen a recent shift in corporate attitudes concerning employees who shop online at work.

"When you spend over 40 hours a week at work, it's no surprise that employees turn to their office computers to get some holiday shopping done," says Simmers, a professor of management at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia.

She believes instead of focusing on workers shopping on the company’s dime, employers should turn their attention to performance outcomes.

"We've got to get away from basing performance on those eight hours," said Simmers. “If an employee spends an hour surfing the Net, but an entire weekend working on a report, there should be trust that both are equally benefiting from this relationship.”

She adds that all employers need to accept that their workforce might be doing their holiday shopping online. “If your company doesn’t already have a written policy, one needs to be created and shared with employees,” she advises.

Simmers also stressed the importance of employees using sound judgment when shopping at work, where keystrokes may be monitored by their company.

“It pays to be a conscientious consumer AND employee,” says Simmers.