More on Bailouts, Autos and Banks

Yesterday, I analyzed the differential treatment of the banking and automobile industry. Liberal websites like Daily Kos, however, have pointed out that CEOs at AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to leave their jobs as a condition of the companies they managed receiving federal assistance. But the government essentially "took over" these companies and has been running them since that time. The situation with the automobile industry is vastly different.

Today, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post has joined others who have criticized the disparate treatment. The fact that Robinson has criticized President Obama is far more important than the substance of his criticism, because Robinson has been one of the most loyal supporters of Obama among journalists at major media outlets. As Robinson observes, the automobile industry certainly requires a tough love approach, but so does the banking industry.

The Editors of the Detroit News have also come out swinging against the disparity. The newspaper argues that the ouster of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner was a political ploy designed to make the President appear tough on bailouts, given the public's anger over Wall Street. According to the Detroit News, the automobile industry is simply the scapegoat in a political game:

Obama has been banged around the last couple of weeks because of the bonus scandal at AIG. His administration, with the help of Congress, botched the aid package to the failed insurance giant, allowing the indefensible bonuses to be paid and triggering public outrage that is increasingly focused on the White House.

Dumping Wagoner lets Obama deflect attention away from Wall Street, where his Treasury Department is still moving through quicksand, and turn it on Detroit.

He can portray himself as being tough on the corporate executives who are ruining America, without having to draw blood from the bankers.

The White House's approach to Detroit, as opposed to the financial industry, applies a clear double-standard. The existence of a double-standard, however, does not mean that automobile manufacturers deserve leniency. Instead, both industries should face restructuring and greater controls.

The banking industry in fact deserves more scrutiny because its reckless behavior was the leading cause of the global financial crisis, and it has received far more federal assistance than any other business sector. Other than the relative political and economic power of Wall Street, it is difficult to understand why the government continues to coddle the banks and pay off their investors, while providing very little direct assistance to consumers and other commercial sectors.

Discriminatory Bailouts? $2 Trillion for Wall Street, Tough Love for Detroit

According to the Associated Press, the White House has demanded that Chrysler and General Motors restructure before the companies can receive additional financial assistance from the government. General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner resigned Sunday at the request of the White House, and federal officials are reportedly pressuring Chrysler to accept a partnership agreement with Fiat SpA. Ford, the third United States car manufacturer, has not received federal assistance and is not subject to White House plans.

Here is a clip from the story:

The White House says neither General Motors nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans to receive more bailout money, setting the stage for a crisis in Detroit that would dramatically reshape the nation's auto industry.

President Barack Obama and his top advisers have determined that neither company is viable and that taxpayers will not spend untold billions more to keep the pair of automakers open forever. In a last-ditch effort, the administration gave each company a brief deadline to try one last time to convince Washington it is worth saving, said senior administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to more bluntly discuss the decision. . . .

Question: Why Does Detroit Receive Tough Love, While Banks Are Waiting for the Next Trillion-Dollar Installment?
The White House approach to domestic automobile manufacturers seems rooted in an understanding that market forces have seriously eroded demand for their products and that management has not adequately responded to this reality. With respect to banks, however, the government has proposed tossing another trillion dollars into the very industry that is largely responsible for the global financial and economic collapse.

Based on the banks' culpability in the economic crisis, the better argument would have the White House make stricter demands on banks than automobile manufacturers. The fact that the banking bailouts dwarf the magnitude of federal assistance for Detroit warrants even greater caution regarding the financial sector.

Experts ranging from Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman to famed Merrill Lynch analyst Richard Bernstein have argued that the government should abandon its heavy subsidization of financial institutions and their investors. They believe that the government should instead offer financial institutions a healthy dose of tough love in the form of either nationalization and restructuring (Krugman) or promotion of greater consolidation within the sector, rather than artificially inflating the price of and purchasing toxic assets (Bernstein). Even former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently promoted the idea that "It may be necessary to temporarily nationalize some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring.”

Final Thoughts
The reality that the United Autoworkers union is a leading supporter of President Obama could potentially make the White House approach politically difficult. With that in mind, perhaps this is Obama's way of indirectly pressuring UAW to accept concessions. A tough public stance towards management could likely conceal the government's desire that UAW relent on issues such as compensation and benefits. On the other hand, a public standoff between the White House and labor would be politically damaging.

The cost-cutting and restructuring that the White House has demanded of the automobile manufacturers, however, would likely necessitate sacrifices by labor. Offering tough love to management could send a message to union leaders that they should approach negotiations with greater flexibility. Banks deserve the same type of treatment.

PS: I wrote a related article on this subject after Senator Dodd called for the resignation of automobile industry management earlier this year. Also, it seems others are making similar observations: CEO Change Begs Question About Banks.

Update: Some auto workers believe they are being punished because the public is upset with the banking bailout.

Dodd's Discriminatory Bailout: "Regime Change" for Main Street, But Not for Wall Street?

_________________________________________________________________
What the media are not saying about the Chicago workers' sit-in:

* MADE IN IOWA: Did Company in Chicago Sit-In Illegally Discard Its Workers and Quietly Relocate While Liberals Forced BOA to Pay for the Shady Scheme?

* Republic Windows and Doors Received a Bailout from Chicago Before It Bailed Out of Chicago

* Laid-Off Republic Windows and Doors Workers: Pawns in Political Football]
_________________________________________________________________


Regime Change in Detroit?

Senator Christopher Dodd, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, has argued that Richard Wagoner, the CEO of General Motors, should resign before the troubled automobile manufacturer receives federal financial assistance. And this morning, he has broadened those comments to implicate all automakers: "'[I]t's not my job to hire and fire, but what I suggest is, you need to have new teams in place here . . . if you're going to convince the American public' that the financial relief plan is necessary and justified" (italics added). Dodd also believes that Chrysler and GM will probably have to merge so that both companies can survive. My question for Dodd: Why did you fail to demand "regime change" among Wall Street recipients of federal aid?

President-Elect Barack Obama was less direct when he addressed the issue. During an appearance on Meet the Press, Obama said that the issue of mandatory changes in leadership "may not be the same for all companies." At press conference following the show, however, Obama offered an additional perspective on the issue:

If the management team "that’s currently in place doesn’t understand the urgency
of the situation and is not willing to make the tough choices and adapt to these
new circumstances, then they should go. . .If, on the other hand, they are
willing, able and show themselves committed to making those important changes,
then that raises a different situation . . . .”

Although Obama refused to define what "changes" he envisions or to take a position regarding a specific company or executive, his statements together with Dodd's comments show a new toughness among Democrats towards potential recipients of federal "bailout" assistance. During the general election campaign, members of Congress engaged in bipartisan rhetorical grandstanding and promised to place numerous conditions in the bailout package. The final statute, however, gives very broad discretion to the Secretary of the Treasury (see my analysis here). Now, Democrats have indicated that they might require company executives to step aside as a condition of receiving federal money. That's very tough talk.

Why No Regime Change on Wall Street?

But I am trying to understand why replacing corporate management has only recently become a possible prerequisite to the receipt of federal assistance. The various financial institutions that have received federal assistance face poor economic conditions because they recklessly decided to engage in risky -- but lucrative -- mortgage lending, bundle those mortgages and sell them as securities, or invest in securitized mortgage assets. Citigroup, the recent recipient of the largest financial bailout to date, engaged in all of these practices through its various divisions. Flawed managerial decisions led to these bad investments and to the present erosion of available credit. If Congress wants "heads to roll" before assisting companies, this same logic should apply evenly to all economic sectors.

In many ways, however, the auto industry could be less culpable for its financial woes than the banks were for their own problems. Auto companies lend money to purchasers and probably made poor choices during the recent "easy credit" run. They can also invest in risky mortgage-backed securities. But most of their trouble today results from not having sufficient money to conduct prospective business, rather than from the unraveling of prior investments. They do not have access to credit precisely because the bank crisis has caused credit to tighten. Prospective car purchasers also face difficulty securing loans, which exacerbates the situation (see this article in Forbes on the subject and on a potential remedy). Irrational exuberance in the housing market caused most of this problem. The greatest blame lies with financial institutions, mortgage brokers, realtors, home builders, state and federal regulators, and home buyers. The auto industry does not deserve tougher restrictions than Wall Street.

Then Why Treat Wall Street and Main Street Differently?

The Election is Over
Perhaps the Democrats feel safe taking a tougher position with companies seeking federal assistance now that the election has taken place. Even though most voters disagreed with the banking bailout, they also felt that not supporting the legislation could harm the economy. The House Republicans received a fair amount of criticism for blocking the initial plan. Democrats probably wanted to avoid similar complaints.

Financial Institutions Give Much More Money to Political Candidates Than Automakers
Another, more ominous explanation for the disparate treatment of automakers relative to banks could involve campaign financing. According to research completed by the Center for Responsive Politics, Dodd, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, tops the donor recipient list of several banking institutions. Furthermore, members of Congress who supported the bailout received far more money in campaign donations from financial institutions than legislators who voted against the bill. In the House, legislators who supported the bailout received 51% more in campaign contributions from banks, and in the Senate they received twice as much (see here and here).

Automakers also contribute to candidates, but they do not donate nearly the same amount as banks. According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, automakers split their donations among the two major parties during the recent election cycle, but they contributed only a fraction of the money that financial institutions gave (The Center for Responsive Politics website has a tool that permits readers to research campaign donations by industry.). Keep in mind that donations come from individual employees and their political action committees. Auto workers will have less money to donate on average than Wall Street bankers. Car dealers donated more money than automakers, but most of it to Republicans. Furthermore, their donations do not compete with those of financial institutions. Given the role of money in politics, it is difficult to deny some degree of industry capture with respect to regulated entities and regulators.

Update: I have not found any major media coverage of this particular dimension of Dodd's comments, but I did find this entry by Deb Cupples on the Buck Naked Politics blog. Blogs can provide a wonderful alternative to popular news sources.