Rep. Frank - Bailout By Ending War In Iraq And Nationalizing Health Care
|
|
On NPR’s Morning Edition this morning Steve Innskeep interviewed Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, about his auto industry bailout plan. When talking about what will be expected of car companies, Frank says they will pay “No dividends can be paid, no bonuses for people over $200,000 and some other things” and will have to make cars more energy efficient by March 1st or they’d have to pay back the loan. Nothing about what happens if they go bankrupt before then, or what quality measures might be placed on the industry to improve the overall product beyond MPG.
How will this be paid for? Frank says that there will be plenty of money for bailing out industries once we end the War In Iraq and that the auto companies won’t have to worry about renegotiating their labor contracts because once the government takes on health care it’ll be less of a burden for all American industries. Neither solution is going to happen right away, and that the health care “solution” may be a tax burden on individuals and working families was something Rep. Frank did not bring up.
You can read a transcript of the interview or listen to it here.
It is true that the $12,000,000,000 we are spending on Iraq alone each month (for what?) has seriously damaged our economy - and our government’s ability to respond to crises like the current economic disaster. It’s like a final parting gift from W…
I heard the interview this morning and two things struck me:
1. the $25B is just what Barney Frank thinks is the beginning and they will likely require more money in the future
2. to turn a big company like GM around its going to take some seriously talented people but by restricting the bonuses and salaries, I’m not sure how GM expects to recruit and hire the engineering and marketing talent needed to build fuel efficient cars and market the new brand properly.
His discussion borders on an premise that has consistantly bothered me with some of the Democrats proposals, including Obama. We are currently waging two wars, and engaging in massive deficit spending to fund them, as no supplimental funding mechanism for either war (to my knowledge) was ever even sought. Under such a model, any reduction in spending on Iraq is not a dollar saved to be spent elsewhere, its a dollar saved to not be spent.
Increasing government spending is one thing, and unlike many here, not neccesarily a bad thing in my opinion. Doing so through deficit spending is another, something i’m not particularly keen on. But to try and claim that getting out of Iraq frees up funding to commit to other uses is ludicrous, and builds on the assumption that deficit spending its the norm. You want to institute deficit spending to increase government? Fine. But call it that, don’t pretend there’s a magical pot of excess money that can be tapped once it’s not going to fight the war in Iraq.
Jeremy, good points. I have long been troubled by the “cost free” (at least to this generation) manner by which the Bush Administration waged the war in Iraq.