GraniteGrok

This morning, Mitch McConnell says in a press statement:

“Republicans were told last night that an agreement had been reached between Congressional Democrats and the White House on an auto package.

“As of this morning, we still haven’t seen the final version of this bill. Once we do, we’ll review it to see if it meets our standard for support — the taxpayers’ standard for support.

“But let me be clear: there will be no vote on this legislation today. On a bill this critical, with so much taxpayer money at stake, we cannot rush this through without adequate review.

“My members will be discussing the merits of this latest version of the plan at our weekly policy lunch this afternoon.

“So this afternoon I expect to have some more substantive thoughts on this latest proposal’s chances for support within my conference.

“We will address this issue before the end of the week.

“For those who need a refresher, let me remind everyone of the Republican criteria for this legislation: first and foremost, we will not let taxpayers spend their hard-earned money on ailing carmakers unless these companies are forced to reform their bad habits — either inside or outside of bankruptcy.

“This means that workers won’t be paid not to work. This means a final bill would not interfere with pending environmental lawsuits in a one-sided manner. And it means that struggling car companies will have to rationalize their cost structures — because a company that does not respond to market conditions is a company that is doomed to failure anyway. And Republicans will not allow taxpayers to subsidize failure.

So folks - what are YOUR Senators doing about this?  In the tank already, getting ready to stand with Shelby, Ensign, DeMint, Vitter, and Coburn, or sitting on the sidelines waiting for the politically opportune time to get off the fence?

Now is the time for Republicans to start acting like they  believe in free markets making the decisions about winners and losers instead of throwing our hard earned tax dollars at failing businesses.

Oh, the rest of Senator Sununu's Union Leader Op-Ed:

America's economy is in recession. The world economy is in recession. Every family worries about the future, and politicians want to step forward and demonstrate that they are "doing something about it." Sometimes, however, doing the wrong thing is far worse than doing nothing. And passing a $25 billion subsidy package for the Big Three auto manufacturers is without question the wrong thing -- for taxpayers, for consumers and for our economy.

While the current recession has created challenges in every sector of our economy, the range of problems within the Big Three is largely of their own making: aging plants, poor management choices, investments in models the public doesn't want to buy and an uncompetitive structure of wages and benefits. In fact, these carmakers were posting record losses long before the current economic downturn. Why should the American taxpayer subsidize bad business decisions made by these particular firms?

It is simply not the role or the responsibility of government to provide subsidies, support or special benefits to specific businesses. Using government funds for such purposes is unfair to taxpayers, especially those working for businesses that are left out. Instead, the government's role should be to create the best possible environment for investment, job creation and economic growth, and then to let businesses compete for customers on a level playing field.

Government subsidies for the auto manufacturers or any other business also create a moral hazard -- the significant risk that bad behavior and investments will only be encouraged in the future. We have seen the very real implications of moral hazard in the spectacular failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

For decades, these mortgage giants enjoyed the benefits of a government charter that implied a taxpayer guarantee for the bonds they issued. While a few members of Congress called for greater reform, oversight and regulation of these firms, most looked the other way. The rest is history. If this lesson hasn't taught us to move away from the moral hazard of taxpayer subsidies, perhaps nothing will.

Finally, and perhaps most practically, government intervention is not the best way to resolve the fundamental operating problems within the auto industry. Although the bankruptcy process carries its own difficulties, it is designed specifically to help companies address such structural and financial imbalances. Equity holders who chose the board members and management teams must pay out first, but debt holders and labor will also be required to make real concessions. A massive government intervention would only guarantee that these essential changes will be avoided temporarily, placing even greater long-term costs on the taxpayers.

Proponents of an auto company bailout point to the thousands of jobs at the Big Three. No one relishes the job losses that came with an economic recession, but jobs have already been lost in manufacturing, retail, financial services and construction. In fact, the three largest businesses in both the technology and financial service sectors employ far more workers than Ford, GM and Chrysler combined. Special treatment for auto workers above others is unfair and sets a bad precedent, the very same reason that direct government intervention for Bear Stearns and AIG was unwise.

Other auto industry advocates justify intervention by pointing to recently passed legislation to bolster the financial markets. But action such as that economic recovery package should be undertaken with the greatest reluctance imaginable. At the time, the global markets for lending and credit were no longer functioning; moreover, only the U.S. government and its European counterparts had the capacity to inject sufficient capital to restore confidence in the financial system. Without access to basic credit for consumer and business activity, our economy simply cannot function.

During the past 100 years, Americans have created the strongest, most diverse and most robust economy in history. Our achievement has been built on a foundation of markets that are freer, more open and more transparent than any others in the world. The direct and positive relationship between free markets and economic growth is not unique to the United States: Growth for the world's freest economies during the past 20 years has dramatically outpaced those of their more heavily regulated rivals.

Free markets work, but because they allow for the greatest possible human interaction, they are subject to the weaknesses of the human condition. When individuals or businesses experience failure, it can instill anger, disappointment and frustration. These emotions, however, should never be allowed to overwhelm our belief in the power of individual freedom, entrepreneurship and economic opportunity.