Car Company Bailouts Aren't Enough
Now we're supposed to bail out whole cities. Simone Landon writes on the HuffPo:
The federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler is often called the "Detroit bailout." But while the Big Three automakers have become profitable again, the city of Detroit continues to face a dire financial crisis and looming state takeover. So Rep. Hansen Clarke, a Democrat who represents the city in Congress, is pushing for a second bailout -- this time for the city.Clarke said he plans to seek emergency federal aid in Congress and from the Obama administration and may introduce legislation as early as next week. His plan is modeled after the federal bailout of New York City in 1975. "It's the same situation that's just as grave," Clarke told HuffPost. "We need to provide relief for the city of Detroit in order to create jobs in this country and rescue this symbol of our manufacturing power."
New York City got $2.3 billion in federal loans after President Gerald Ford signed the New York City Seasonal Financing Act in 1975.
Clarke said he hasn't determined how much money he'll request. He said he's looking into "a combination of grants or loans."
Detroit faces a cash shortfall that could leave it unable to pay bills and meet payroll in April. The city's budget deficit is near $200 million for this fiscal year, and its long-term obligations are $13.2 billion -- or $18,500 per resident.
In a city where a good many residences look like this one.
First it'll be cities, then states. I'm not sure who'll go first, Illinios or California.
But we're going to be asked to foot the bill, particularly on behalf of the public employee pensions...
I'm inclined to say no to the lot of them. Ye have unwisely spent your money, ye shall now pay the price.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 15, 2012 8:13 AM
What consevative cities or states are they going to bail out? None. Because they don't have policies that will lead to needing to be bailed out.
D. Maas at March 15, 2012 8:49 AM
Does this make any sense?
"What I'm trying to avoid is a takeover by the state that will result in massive cuts, massive layoffs and the sale of assets," Clarke said. "That would actually cripple our ability to bring in new jobs."
Surely the State has the most incentive to do it right, seeing as Detroit is one of their major population centers?
Or is that exactly the problem? Is the right solution "massive cuts, massive layoffs" of non-productive city employees - and he has some vested interest in preventing that?
a_random_guy at March 15, 2012 9:22 AM
Horde to Detroit, drop dead.
MarkD at March 15, 2012 12:13 PM
Why haven't liberals congregated together in at least a few places, implemented their ideas, and then advertised the happiness and prosperity that came from this good policy?
They could impose high taxes on wealth and gasoline, restrictions on autos, infrastructure for electric cars, generous welfare and medical benefits, anti price-gouging laws, price limits on necessities, and implement city administered taxes and pensions (a mini social security).
They could be free of the grifters and thieves known as businessmen, or at least free of the too-successful ones. The city could be run as a zero-carbon emissions zone, as desired. City employees could run the critical businesses which so often gouge the consumer or deliver shoddy goods.
They could do most of the good things which they can't do nationally because of ignorant dissenters. It is time to demonstrate the value of good progressive government.
This would be possible at as small a level as a city. They could bundle all of the desired rules into a streamlined package for equitable administration. A few rules would not be possible at the level of a city, but there would be almost universal participation by the happy residents who would be drawn to this dynamic proof of good policy.
The entire construct might not be initially possible, but the happiness of the populace should begin to improve immediately upon adoption of the correct rules, with more of the construct being implemented in time. Even if there was less wealth in these cities, it wouldn't matter compared to the better quality of life there. People would flock to these "progressive" areas administered according to true, human values rather thant the devil of capitalism.
Oh wait. Los Angeles and Detroit come to mind. I think that these are the de facto implementations, although they weren't announced that way. Are people flocking to live in these worker's paradises? Why not?
Andrew_M_Garland at March 15, 2012 3:22 PM
"Surely the State has the most incentive to do it right, seeing as Detroit is one of their major population centers?"
Think about who the current governor of Michigan is...
Cousin Dave at March 15, 2012 6:59 PM
In what reality is this person living? The Volt at $48,000 retail has about a 1% public sales rate. Of the ones that have been sold most are going to government fleets and/or being bought buy Fortune 100 fleets. (Such as GE who's CEO commonly flies on Air Force One.)
How many of the GM/Chrysler loans have been truly been paid off?
Jim P. at March 15, 2012 11:41 PM
Paul Kersey is doing the best work on the "Detroit issue" (not limited to Detroit)
http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/
Paul at March 17, 2012 2:59 AM
Paul Kersey? Death Wish Paul Kersey?
Radwaste at March 18, 2012 5:43 PM
Leave a comment