By Don Kuehn

When the CEOs of the Big Three automakers faced congressional interrogators in November, their quest was to secure a $25 billion loan to stay afloat through a tough credit market. You'd have thought the end of our economy as we've known it was at hand.
Congressional leaders couldn't come down on them hard enough, setting conditions to be met before they would consider what some insisted on calling a bailout of the U.S. auto industry. It was an opportunity for a lot of spineless people to look like vertebrates in front of TV cameras. To talk tough about things they thought would play well on the evening news back home.

"Bring us a plan," they said. "Show us how you'd improve your cars. Come back when you have a plan to restructure your business," they insisted. "Show us the plan, and we'll show you the money".

In any other context, $25 billion would sound like a huge deal. But in the context of other recent moves by Congress, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, it's small potatoes.

Consider: $30 billion to Bear Stearns in March; $200 billion to shore up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September; $152.5 billion to bail out insurance giant AIG; $700 billion to banks and investment firms in what is called the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) in October; and $800 billion the week of Thanksgiving to shore up consumer credit and mortgage lenders.

And, to get enough Republican votes to get the TARP passed, members of Congress had to lard the deal with $135 billion worth of pork for pet projects earmarked for their congressional districts.

Bloomberg estimates that the total cost of all these bailout plans is something like $8.5 trillion! That's about 60 percent of the entire U.S. economy.

By mid-December, Chrysler and G.M. had lowered their requests to $14 billion in bridge loans, which would keep about 3 million people employed—and paying taxes.

Where were the calls for corporations and banks to cancel year-end bonuses to multimillionaires? Show us that plan. Where were the demands that the bailout money actually trickle down to us commoners in the form of mortgage relief and thawed credit markets? How about a little caterwauling aimed at the perks of fat-cat bankers and brokers?

The "talking heads" on television and conservative voices on talk radio dug in their heels and demanded auto industry relief through the bankruptcy courts rather than through taxpayers' largess.

Let's be clear on this point: A call for the Big Three to seek relief through bankruptcy is nothing more, nothing less, than code for "Let's screw the autoworkers"... an attack on the UAW and their collective bargaining agreement.

In Chapter 11, the companies would be able to continue operating, but would restructure their finances under the watchful eye of the courts. In such a process, it is not unusual for creditors to be forced to accept pennies on every dollar owed to them. The union, its health plan and its pension benefits would be on the table as well. And that is the motive for these anti-labor forces: to get the union.

As Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, said, if you take a shower before going to work you get bailed out. If you have to shower after work you're out of luck.

The autoworkers, in fact, have been very responsive to recent demands to look closely at their contract and have come to terms with management on a new agreement that takes effect soon.

So do you throw in with those who don't want their tax dollars going to bail out the auto industry? You don't want to support the "fat cat" CEOs who were so arrogant they flew to Washington in private jets? You aren't in line for any bailout, why should they get help?

Well, you know the old parlor game "six degrees of separation"? If the U.S. car industry goes under it isn't just the UAW members and retirees who get hurt, it's the parts suppliers and the paint companies, it's the tire makers and the steel industry, it's trucking and railroads, mechanics and salespeople.

You may not be the one who loses a job-not right away. But as more and more related businesses feel the pinch of lost revenue, they will lay off workers, downsize and eventually close. Those workers get in line for unemployment benefits—and you pay. The government's Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation covers their pensions—and you pay. It doesn't take long before they stop paying real estate and personal property taxes. They miss house payments. And we all pay.

As tax revenues dry up, states, cities and school districts are faced with budget shortfalls and, with that, the need to cut spending. And what's the biggest line in the budget? Personnel. Payroll. Your job.

This isn't just a Detroit problem. It affects Kansas City and Toledo, St. Louis and Kokomo, Pontiac and Grand Rapids, Shreveport, Arlington (Texas) and Oklahoma City. It affects America.

Sure $25 billion seems like a lot of money. But remember when the government loaned Chrysler $3.9 billion? Not only was the money repaid, it came back with interest—and ahead of schedule. You can't convince me that America would have been better off today if Chrysler had gone out of business in 1980.

There are plenty of wagging tongues blabbering about the high costs of U.S. cars, and that's true. The cost per unit to build an American car is higher than that of foreign competitors. Some of that is due to "legacy" costs, i.e., the pension and health benefits earned by retired autoworkers. A lot of it is the comprehensive healthcare package the union negotiated in lieu of wages over the decades. If we had universal health coverage in America, like they have in the countries with which we compete, the cost per unit would be much lower. But the myth that autoworkers make upward of $70 per hour is bogus.

Then there is the perceived "quality" issue. Detractors berated the CEOs claiming they are making cars people don't want to buy and that they haven't adjusted to some new reality about fuel economy and size.

Hogwash. I'm no shill for the auto industry, but I do know that until last summer when gas prices spiked north of $4 a gallon, there was a robust market for SUVs and big luxury cars. Heck, there still is a market for that kind of vehicle.

At the same time, U.S. carmakers have retooled and adjusted to the call for hybrids and small economical cars, too. While Japan and Korea are subsidizing their automakers in the development of electric, battery and hydrogen technology, we expect our carmakers to spend millions on their own research. Free enterprise isn't free—or cheap.

No doubt we'll end up with a Betamax vs. VHS battle (DVD vs. Blu-ray to some of you) in which half of all that R&D money, time and expertise is wasted when "the market" picks a winner in that fight.

There are no easy solutions to this problem. Should Congress extend a hand to the automakers until confidence returns to the American economy and their customers can once again get loans to buy their cars? Absolutely.

Should those tongue-lashed CEOs be forced to take a hard look at their business practices? Sure.

Is Congress in a position to know what a well-restructured auto industry might look like? I doubt it.

I usually end these columns with some pithy admonition to be careful with your spending and financial decisions because it's your money. But in this case, it isn't your money. Don't get too emotional about how much the government is spending to help these troubled companies and financial institutions. In the long run, there may only be a few degrees of separation between those decisions and your job.

Don Kuehn is a retired AFT senior national representative. For specific advice relative to your personal situation, consult competent legal, tax or financial counsel. Comments and questions can be sent to dkuehn60@yahoo.com.