That’s the best possible fist step      

-don’t worry about the pension envy you are developing after a constant brow-beating by L. Littlefield. If the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. takes over the GM pensions no one will “retire early with some of the country’s best pensions”. They will instead retire with the PBGC minimums that are substantially below the best in the country. They will provide a basic retirement pension that may or may not be better than your particular pension or 401K deal depending on what you have got. In fact GM doesn’t have to go entirely bankrupt to push their pension into the PBGC but that is one of the likely scenarios. PBGC is essentially an insurance company run by the government and in a perfect world wouldn’t really bother your tax nut, however, the PBGC was substantially broke before the meltdown, where it is now is anyone’s guess though they are a likely bailout target themselves. In the short term pension fiduciaries have asked the Congress to forgo recent changes in pension regulations that will trigger underfunding requirements because of the economic crisis.

One of the arguments is favor of subsidizing automakers is all the backward and forward linkages carmaking has in the economy.

Against this, consider the money saved by a lifestyle in which families own one car instead of two or three, and others avoid car ownership altogether. What is the money saved used for? And what is the local and U.S. value added of that, compared with autos, gas and oil?

Average people don’t buy cars outright, they finance them. Better financing strategy to encourage this technology to be affordable to everyone that we want to be buying it. Taxes could subsidize the difference. The Suburban car-driving lifestyle is subsidized in so many other ways, why not this one new twist?

On the other hand it might be wiser to subsidize land-use patterns and transportation infrastructure that require less dependence on the use of cars in the first place. Suppose we took all these billions towards a nationalized gov’t effort to build a national web of copenhagen-style bikeways interlinked with high-speed rail connecting rebuilt and revitalized walkable urban centers. Local farming. Put the exurbs to work farming again, as well as urban factories. Extend every family a low-interest loan for an inexpensive new cargo-bike (bakfiets) and Rowhouse or family farm. Free healthcare, social safety nets, etc. Tax the suburban, SUV-driving upper class who can afford that lifestyle. Telecommute.

In other words invest in the means of production rather than the means of consumption, in order to bring the two back into balance.

Washington Post: The Car of the Future — but at What Cost?

If you really care about jobs, you should support more transit, not the car companies. That will create jobs all across the country, and they won’t move overseas.

I think so. I also think the unions are partially responsible for not pushing the automakers to build better fuel-saving and less noxious cars. They worked for them, they (presumably) took pride in their work and products, well then, what happened?

Rachel Maddow had a good point (though not an explanation) that citi has far fewer people’s jobs dependent on it than the big three, so if you’re looking for economic bang for your bailout buck, the stinky old auto makers seem to be a better bet.

I think that there are a number of reasons why public support for a citi bailout is higher than for a Big Three bailout (somewhat pervasive anti-union sentiment, the fact that this isn’t their first bailout, environmental concerns). But the reason why there’s resistance in Washington to an auto-maker bailout is that there’s pretty widespread resistance among the electorate.

It’s hard to say this as an environmentalist, but I think the progressive message we need to repeat is that the big three need to be saved.

BUT, if they want our money they’ll have to make major reforms, including increased focus on fuel efficiency and vehicles for mass transit.

According to today’s NY Times, if a company goes bankrupt, the Federal gov’t becomes responsible for the pensions. Thus (as someone here is in the habit of pointing out) those of us who have no pensions and have to get by on social security, have to pay for the retirement of those who retire early with some of the country’s best pensions.