Please Don't Throw Us In The Briar Patch!

I am having a little bit of difficulty following the Auto Bailout rationale. Why do we want to give the poorly managed, obscenely paid, wasteful, and arrogant companies billions of taxpayer money without any clue as to how it will help them in any meaningful way? Why is it that we shouldn't let them go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, a program which was designed to help struggling companies relieve their burdens, reorganize, and restructure their business? This is hard to understand.

Yes, I do understand that if even one of these companies went out of business, it would have a very disruptive effect on our already weakened economy. Such an event would surely morph this recession into a depression. I understand that quite well. But what the Big Three, the UAW, and the other wolf-criers either don't understand or don't want to admit, is that bankruptcy does not equal going out of business. Not by a long shot!

The proponents of a bailout are very cynically painting a worst-case scenario when they know full-well that bankruptcy would not even be close to the worst case. Bankruptcy, far from being a dire prospect, holds the promise of viability and a rosy future for any of the three companies that decide they can't stay afloat without some sort of relief. Bankruptcy offers the perfect relief.

Under Chapter 11, the companies would get a reprieve from their creditors. Their overall debt could be reduced dramatically. In addition they could get out from under onerous union contracts, do away with the absurdly profligate union job bank, and renegotiate wages and benefits that are in line with the rest of the industry.

Another ancillary benefit of bankruptcy would be the renegotiation of their dealership contracts. The dealership networks of the US car makers is full of redundancy and waste. Bankruptcy could be the remedy.

The executives of the auto companies also say that bankruptcy would scare off car buyers. This mental sleight-of-hand claims that no one is going to want to buy a car from a bankrupt manufacturer because they wouldn't have any confidence that the company or its dealers would be around to honor the warranty. This argument almost holds water, but then dissolves when you realize that the government could guarantee the warranties, and this much public involvement would be magnitudes cheaper than just throwing billions of dollars at failed business plans and poor management via a bailout.

So if bankruptcy offers so many benefits and protects the taxpayer from unwillingly and unwittingly becoming a partner with the auto companies -- a partner with no voice and no equity or compensation -- why wouldn't the auto executives embrace it rather than decry it as the worst possible medicine?

That's a very good question! Could it have something to do with not wanting to lose power over such a leviathan company and run the risk of having their pay reduced dramatically or terminated altogether? A US car manufacturer emerging from bankruptcy would be a much leaner entity and would undoubtedly have its pay structure totally redesigned. Executive salaries and perks would be greatly reduced. Bonuses might actually have to be earned. Corporate jets and country club memberships might become endangered species.

Yes, a CEO 's job post-bankruptcy would not be nearly as lucrative or pleasant. It is easy to understand why a bailout which allows them to continue on with business-as-usual (at least for a few months, perhaps a year) would be preferable to the reduction in size, salary,and prestige which would probably accompany a bankruptcy. And yet, the chance to start from scratch with much less debt, reasonable wages, and sensible dealer contracts offers a very real promise of profitability and self-sufficiency. Wouldn't that assuage the short-term distress?

I know that bankruptcy would be the best course for the Big Three, and I have to believe the their executives know this, too. If that is the case, then there are two reasons that I can think of that they are dragging their feet on this issue.

Either they are too greedy to want to make the concomitant sacrifices that Chapter 11 would require, or they are clever like a rabbit -- Br'er Rabbit, that is.

Could it be possible that all this kicking a screaming about bankruptcy is just a ruse? Could it be that, knowing that they will still have to live with the UAW and their dealers after bankruptcy, they are pretending not to want it? This tact would surely allow them to maintain a good business relationship with union members, suppliers, and dealers even though they threw them under the wheels of the bankruptcy judgement.

I can hear them now. "Gosh darn it! We didn't want this any more than you did, but the danged congress insisted that we go through Chapter 11. Golly, I'm sorry! What a shame that the congress and the taxpayers are just too selfish to loan us enough to get by! I guess we just have to make the best of it."

Do'th they now protest too much to congress and the public? Are they really saying, "Please! Oh, please! Don't throw us in the bankruptcy patch!"?

I consider this possibility and then I realize that this posture would require a good deal of wisdom and subtlety. Such a clever tactic would entail a fair amount of civic-mindedness, a modicum of humanitarianism, and a dollop of philanthropy.

Could these executives concoct such a brilliant subterfuge? I want to think that they can. But then I wake up.

Brer Bear, he's thinking about what to do, and while he's thinking, Brer Rabbit's already out-thunk him. Brer Rabbit says, "Do anything you want! You can do anything! You can throw me in the water. You can throw me off the cliff. But please don't throw me in the briar patch!"

Brer Bear's thinking, "He sure don't want to get thrown in that briar patch. Maybe that's what I should do."

So Brer Bear takes him, holds on careful not to hold onto that tar. He holds onto that rabbit, and he slings him in the briar patch! -- From Tales of Uncle Remus, "Br'er Rabbit and the Tarbaby"