I was most gratified when the MSM adopted my nickname for then-GM Car Czar Bob Lutz, recognizing the crock of shit guy as Maximum Bob. (While they missed the irony, that only made it more delicious.) I’m now pleased to report (for my own selfish, ego-maniacal reasons) that the term “zombie”—as applied to Uncle Sam’s nationalized automaker and other bailout queens—may about to leave the TTAC orphanage for the big, wide world. Its champion: Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee. You may remember Corker as the only politician who pissed into Motown’s begging bowl, publicly grilling the Big Three’s CEOs when they jetted in to D.C. for a taste. (Thank you George Bush.) Here’s Corker’s press release on the Obama administration’s unspecified “request” for the next round of bailout bucks for GMAC. “Continuing life support to an institution like GMAC is a major mistake,” said Corker. “It creates enormous risk to taxpayers, is an inappropriate use of government subsidies to support jobs in a specific sector of the economy, and continually breathes new life into a zombie institution that should be seized and resolved. At what point are we going to stop propping up zombie institutions to support industrial policy through our banking system?” And here comes the right hook. . .
TARP, which was put in place during a period of crisis, has turned into an economic stimulus slush fund for the administration at the expense of Americans and should expire at the end of the year when Congress intended.
The implications of codifying TARP, as the Obama administration has proposed, are extraordinary. Their draft language regarding resolution authority clearly enshrines the ‘Too Big to Fail’ mentality, essentially allowing the government to use unchecked taxpayer monies to prop up failed institutions at the expense of successful companies and hard working Americans . . . GMAC gives us a glimpse into the future under the Obama administration’s plans for resolution authority. We need to end this ‘Too Big to Fail’ mentality now.”
So “zombie” is it. eh? [Hat tip to Frank Williams on that one.]
As we wait to see if that meme has legs, it’s clear that the pol who called for the government to place GM and Chrysler into a blind trust is going to be the republican point man on this bailout business. Any ideas for a nickname for Senator Corker? “The wise Latina”? No, that’s not it . . .
Senator “Forker” comes to mind; as in, Fork-Tongued Corker.
Oh, it’s closing now Senator Forker, it is closing.
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2009/jun/01/tennessee-senators-pitch-idled-spring-hill-plant-o/?breakingnews
U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said today he has spent the past 24 hours on the phone with GM officials, the White House auto task force and Gov. Phil Bredesen.
“I’m obviously very disappointed in the decision by GM officials and the administration to idle our Spring Hill plant but glad it’s idled for a period and not closed and certainly happy for the 600 Tennesseans that will remain employed,” Sen. Corker said.
http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48753267-senator-corker-hails-proposed-gm-sale-of-saturn-to-penske
“Saturn and its dealerships across the country, including the nine in Tennessee, have tremendous value,” said Corker. “That’s why I wrote to GM last month urging the company to consider any fair offers for Saturn. The sale of the Saturn brand is an opportunity to keep a stable dealer network in place and lessen the impact of the ongoing market restructuring. This helps assembly line workers, auto dealers, and others that rely on Saturn live with a little less uncertainty.”
@pgcooldad:
Ah, so you’re one of those who believes that it’s utter hypocrisy to say that the companies shouldn’t be nationalized because politics will control decisions, but then also participate in political pressure once they are nationalized, for fear your constituents will be screwed?
I suppose you also agree that anyone who opposed the Bush tax cuts should have had to pay taxes at the higher rate, or else be just as much of a hypocrite, right?
TTAC should have been required reading for all those in office who were “saving” GM.
Thanks, Robert, for your continuing contributions to the auto vernacular!
We are all well aware of the hypocrisy, be it governmental or personal, but to see it unfold like Corker’s, is priceless.
When will the MSM recognize the uncorked-bottle-of-hot-air guy as Magnum Bob?
Corker may be right on this issue, but until he applies same argument to the Defense Department, what he is doing here is grandstanding.
We’re talking multi-Billion dollar boondoggles here. I don’t care which politician said what, but what we do need are politicians willing to ask questions. Senator Corker may not be your preferred questioner, but at least someone is asking them, right?
Anyone over the age of 17 is a hypocrite. It makes one an adult. Pointing out hypocracy is about as helpful as pointing out a guy who needs a shave. Big deal.
The worse thing that can happen – and has been happening for far too long – is the silence, the backroom deals, the acquiescence of our US government as it spends our money, our children’s money, and our grandchildren’s money, in order to keep the status quo from doing what it is supposed to do in this case; fail.
Thank you Mr. Corker for taking a stand within a government afraid to take stands.
Corker was nearly the only one asking tough questions of GM/Chrysler and Ford last November. He is one of few Republicans able to string an argument together on financial issues.
Once the decision was made to keep GM/Chrysler going, then I guess he had an obligation to fight for his district. It’s hard to fault him on that.
What do they call it?? Politics I think.
What other Senator has continually opposed the bailout? I’ll take “Mostly Right” Corker as opposed to “Bailout Whore” Stabenow or “Brick to the Head” Granholm.
Even McCain had some backbone until he threw in with the bailout in a last-minute pander for Michigan votes. Can I call him “Reed in the Wind” McCain?
Sometimes the humor on this site is above my head. I’m still trying to figure out the nickname “Maximum Bob.” What does it mean? And whence the delicious irony?
“to keep the status quo from doing what it is supposed to do in this case; fail.”
Well said. We will never know what might have been developed or created with the money throw down this rat hole.
“The worse thing that can happen – and has been happening for far too long – is the silence, the backroom deals, the acquiescence of our US government as it spends our money, our children’s money, and our grandchildren’s money …. “
Good, I was hoping this discussion would get around to what Eisenhower called the Military-Industrial complex ….
Uh – you want to live without a military? We’re talking about freakin’ cars and trucks. Which one do you consider really necessary? Your priorities seem to be slightly disheveled.
I’m not talking all or nothing VanillaDude, but this is probably too far off from cars for me to continue here.
No bailout – GM and Chrysler, then Ford and most major US parts suppliers declare bankruptcy at the height of the recession in Dec. 08, 25% unemployment and economic refugee camps throughout the Midwest… so much for our ability to defend ourselves.
A strong economy is always the best defense, and despite wingnut fantasies about rampant socialism, keeping the US from a total meltdown was more than worth the investment.
Shiney, time will tell if it was worth it. I maintain it would have been better for it to fail and rebuild. We are not even sure if it really worked or not. If we still get Gov. Motors and Cry-sler in another BK, what have we solved? Will Uncle Sugar Ray Obama and his brain trust continue to bail them out? What’s the incentive to succeed when nothing pays off like failure? We’ve just kicked the can down the road for our children and grandkids to pay the massive debt off. This burden and the health care monstrosity will weigh on the economy for a very long time. We really need the money in low interest loans for small business who need the credit to survive and create jobs. Many here and elsewhere maintain we didn’t fix a thing, just paid off the UAW short term (who will still be begging for a VEBA bailout at some point).
A strong economy is always the best defense, and despite wingnut fantasies about rampant socialism, keeping the US from a total meltdown was more than worth the investment.
I don’t understand this argument. Your assumption is that without bailing out GM and Chrysler, the economy would have ‘melted down’. I know that’s what GM and Chrysler representatives, union members and organizers, employees and all of their lobbyists were yelling from the top of some place very high, but c’mon. These companies have been mismanaged by many of the same people that are still running them.
I believe the same thing was said about C4C – that it needed to be done. And now we’re hearing the same thing yet again regarding throwing more money at GMAC and Delphi.
It is easy to forget that when the bailouts occurred house prices and the stock market were in a freefall. Now things are more stable, they are both smaller, suppliers have had some to adjust, and the American peaple are more used to the idea that one of the big three might fail. The consequences of a total failure and dissolution of GM and/or Chrysler now would be a mere unpleasantness, not the economic nuke it would have been just one short year ago. The price was high, but buying time is not always a bad strategy.
“What’s the incentive to succeed when nothing pays off like failure” – this is just a slogan with no meaning in regard to the big 3 bailouts. Who exactly did the government reward for failing? The application to the Bank bailouts is far more apt, but I don’t see the peaple complaining about bailouts pushing for limitations on derivatives or private equity firm “assets converted to debt and we pocket the money while the company collapses” buyouts – those were the peaple who reaped the rewards while hollowing out our economy.
I cannot believe anyone can say with a straight face that an uncontrolled bankruptcy – essentially a total failure – of GM and Chrysler in late 08 would have been anything but a massive devastation to our then very fragile economy. It would not have been a few domestic car dealers closing, it would have been ALL of them closing. Suppliers would have been shuttered causing repercussions for Ford and transplants. The domino unemployment due to the loss of income by thousands would have devastated home values, retailers, etc., far worse than they already were. The impact on the economy would have forced Ford into bankruptcy, adding more swirl to the spiral.
This is not about who is currently running the companies, but about the consequences of them failing without the government stepping in and financing their bankruptcies.
BTW – this argument does not apply to C4C, which I was not at all sold on.
I think the term ‘zombie’ was first used in this context to refer to the Japanese banking system during their ‘lost decade’ following the collapse of the Japanese real estate market. The banks were still in business but unable (or unwilling) to perform their function of lending money. Not dead, but not really alive. Corker probably picked up the term there, not here . . .
@jkross22
Nardelli and Cerberus gone, Lasorda gone, Daimler gone, Press facing a corner trying to figure out his finances and on the way out.
Marchionne, you know him? Fiat, new board …what else am I missing here on the Chrysler side?
“These companies have been mismanaged by many of the same people that are still running them.”
Are you talking about GM and the Wall Street Geniuses?
@shiney2:
I agree with you 100%
The government would never had to step in had it not been for the implosion caused by the same Geniuses that are still running Wall Street.
have coined a few myself…Red Ink Rick, Board of Bystanders, Mark LaNaive with his Red Toe Tag Sales, and now Bent Over.
as to Sen Corker…how about “somebody with some sense in their head”?
dkulmacz is correct. Wikipedia cites it as being first used in 1987. “Zombie bank” has been getting tossed around very liberally in financial circles since 2007.
Actually, ‘zombie’ became popularized by George Romero’s “Night Of The Living Dead” in the 1960’s – before then, it was an obscure nomenclature of island voodoo beliefs — :-)
AMC is showing a remastered original of NOTLD this evening (8:00PM EDT), with commentary by director George Romero.
(Full discolsure: I had a 5-second appearence as a zombie in the sequel: “Dawn of the Dead”, so it’s not too off topic.)