Without consensus and balance there will be no reforms in the U.S.
By
Lorenzo Gonzalo Read Spanish Version
The
debate about aid to the automotive industry is possible because the
financial debacle has justified the undertaking of similar actions.
In this case, the government could help U.S. manufacturing companies
to put them back on their feet. Manufacturing in the U.S. is a vital
factor, whose role was as essential for the nation’s growth as the
aid given in the 19th Century for the development of agriculture and
its systematic sustenance.
Along
with those rescue measures, discussion panels have been formed in
various areas of government and in universities and social and
economic institutions to eliminate the causes and establish new
mechanisms that will prevent similar situations in the future.
The
discussion now ongoing in Congress about aid to the auto makers will
irremediably lead to a solution. During the past session, the
legislators could not reach an accord, especially because the
Democrats opposed using $25 billion of the $700 billion approved to
deal with the economic crisis. Two thirds of that sum have been
delivered to the financial institutions and the troubled banks. But
it was not a capricious refusal.
If
we look closely at that debate, we’ll see that the aid itself is not
under discussion. The terms
under
which the aid must be granted are the issue.
When
Congress recessed, the executives of the automotive Big Three had to
go home without any aid in sight. Nevertheless, it’s expected that
they will return again for the session that begins in December. This
time, they are expected to arrive in Washington in commercial planes,
not in the three executive jets they used to fly to the capital in
November, arousing severe criticism for an industry that is losing
money.
The
message they took home, after hearing the rejections, was to put
together a viable plan to ensure that the aid will not drop into a
bottomless pit and that the industry can really recover. The basic
accusations made during the Congressional hearings in November were
the lack of efforts to create initiatives for the production of more
efficient vehicles, a greater development of technologies that can
dispense with oil, and effective plans for the creation of the
required batteries, so electric cars may be feasible and practical.
President-elect
Barack Obama, with a jovial but discreet and distant style, has not
made any judgments regarding the industry. Instead, he has developed
a plan to save and create 2.5 million jobs by late 2010, and another
plan to reduce government expenditure.
On
Sunday, Nov. 23, for the first time, his team mentioned the auto
industry, urging it to submit a real work plan that will justify the
financial aid it requested.
If
we consider that part of the economic plan of the new administration
is concentrated on developing the manufacturing industry, we must
suppose that the policies to be followed about the auto industry, as
well as the others in the U.S., will ensure that the industries can
play an effective role in the creation of jobs and later in the
strengthening of the nation’s industrial capacity.
Everything
indicates that the days of million-dollar salaries for the
executives, regardless of the financial situation of their companies,
and also during periods of bonanza, will be a thing of the past.
The
new administration seems intent on establishing a climate of
political stability that will enable it to go ahead with its plans,
so errors may be corrected quickly. To do this, it will need a
peaceful environment, as far from sterile ideological discussions as
possible.
The
task is arduous and will not be possible without the startup of a new
style of government, with a swift decision-making capability and a
frank use of consensus in the discussions between the Executive and
Congress.
Lorenzo
Gonzalo is deputy director of Radio Miami.
