Home / Markets
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Democratic Congressional Leaders Delay Vote on Auto Bailout
Donna Fuscaldo
FOXBusiness
Despite last minute wrangling, the auto industry won’t get much-needed funding from Congress.
In a press conference Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that despite bipartisan efforts to provide $25 billion in funding already allocated by the Energy Department, a viable plan was not reached.
“The sad reality” is that the Senators couldn’t come up with a plan that would pass the House and Senate and be signed by President George Bush, said Reid. He said the main reason is that the auto industry executives didn’t convince Congress and the American people that a bailout would help the companies during its two days of testimony.
“The best way to proceed is for the automobile companies to make their case to Congress and the American people,” said Reid. He said the car companies are welcome to submit a plan to Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, no later than Dec. 2.
The plan will be reviewed and if necessary Congress is willing to come back to hold hearings the week of Dec. 8. He said the car makers have to present a viable plan to Congress and taxpayers.
Senator Reid reiterated that the current administration -- as will the future administration -- has the authority to allocate money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program or the Federal Reserve to give the auto makers the help they need. He said the money can come with any strings deemed necessary.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) added that “until the show us a plan we cannot show them the money.” She said the auto makers have yet to provide a viable plan for the funding.
In a statement Ford (F) said it "welcomes the opportunity to provide our plan to Congress. We have a great plan that will continue Ford's transformation into a lean, profitable company that delivers the safe, fuel-efficient, high-quality new products that our customers want and value."
In a subsequent press conference by the bipartisan group of Senators that came up with a compromise, Michigan Senator Carl Levin expressed disappointment that party leaders did not let their proposal go to the floor for a vote, warning the economy could “slide into a depression,” if the auto makers aren’t bailed out.
“We’re disappointed that we are not going to act today,” said Levin. “We believe there is a reasonable chance that if this was put to a vote today or tomorrow it could get the 60 votes necessary however a decision has been made by the leaders to bring it back December 8 after there has been some hearings on the plans,” Levin said the party leader’s decision to have the auto makers present their viability plans to congress puts the responsibility on Congress to determine if the plans will work.
According to Levin, the bipartisan compromise called for the creation of a new program administrated by the Secretary of Commerce to provide emergency bridge loans to the auto industry from the money appropriated under the Advanced Vehicle Manufacturing Incentive Program, which is designed to be used to retool factories to make more efficient cars. The car makers would be responsible to use any turnaround profits to first restore the Advanced Vehicle Manufacturing Incentive Program and to then reduce the public debt.
Applicants receiving the emergency bridge loans would have to show how the funds will ensure the financial viability of the company and include performance goals and milestones. The auto makers will also have limits placed on executive compensation and bonuses. An oversight board would be created to oversea the use of the emergency loans.
Fox Business Video
-
-
Companies Look to India For Ex...
-
Jul 14, 2009
McDonald's expands presence in India.
-
-
-
McDonald's in India
-
Jul 14, 2009
Shibani Joshi reports from India.
-
-
-
Geithner: Force of Global Rece...
-
Jul 14, 2009
Geithner gives speech in Saudi Arabia.
-
-
-
Final Score: Reverse Discrimination
-
Jul 14, 2009
07/13/09
-
-
-
Power Rankings: Sports Teams i...
-
Jul 14, 2009
07/13/09
-
FOX Translator
No data currently available.
No data currently available.
Everyone would agree they see more "Made in Taiwan/China/Japan/etc..."tags than "Made in the USA" tags for the past several years. Well, that "Made in _____" tag on your clothing has an economic term sewn into it: trade deficit. A trade deficit happens when one country buys more goods than it sells to other countries.
For example, if the entire United States (all 300
million of us) made only 100 shirts this year, and if all of China made 100 shirts, some of those shirts would be traded between
us- we would sell a few to China, and vice versa. But a trade deficit happens when one country sells more shirts than another.
China, in this example, could sell 85 shirts to America. The U.S. could sell 55 shirts to China. So, in this trade, China
sold more shirts to the United States, 30 more in fact.
Most businessmen and economists believe that most trade deficits
aren't a bad thing; it's just part of trade, and at some point trade between two countries should balance out eventually.
The big exception is the U.S., which buys vastly more stuff than it sells, and has done so for decades.
Why does this matter? Well, in order to buy those shirts, you need money. And if you are buying more shirts than you're selling shirts, you're losing money. If you're a business, you won't be in business much longer.
But, countries aren't businesses. They are, well, countries, and can print all the money they want. People who deal with currencies, or each country's version of money, look at trade deficits as one way to find out how much each country's currency is worth. If you have to print more money, each dollar you print can possibly lower the value of the other dollars out there. Like stocks, you can buy and sell currencies on what's called the foreign-exchange market (or, if you want a buzzword for the office, say Forex market).
Well, because the U.S. has been buying a lot of stuff from China for many, many years, China holds a lot of U.S. dollars. If China were to sell those dollars on the market at some point, well, it wouldn't be very good. The U.S. dollar's value would fall -- making imports and traveling abroad much more expensive.
Trade deficits are usually a good thing, because it shows that the global economy is working. It's just when a trade imbalance gets too high where economists and investors start to become concerned.






