So Much for the Liberal New York Times

Those who are still believers in the myth of the liberal media must be more than a little confused by what they are hearing and reading in the coverage of the American auto industry's request for a federal loan to help it through this credit crunch.

Take the supposedly liberal New York Times. In a piece for Tuesday (Dec. 2, 2008), writer Steven M. Davidoff lists eight "questions" about the aid, which he calls a "bailout" rather than a loan. The "answers" he provides to his questions betray a remarkable ignorance about Michigan in general and the auto industry in particular.

For example, who will really get the money, he asks ominously, adding "...if the Detroit Three now has more money to play with, will the unions try and claw it back? Does he have any clue how many concessions have been made by the UAW and how long jobs have been going away?

His next question suggests the automakers just "sell more cars." Nobody is selling cars right now. His own newspaper reported recently that foreign-made cars are piling up so fast at California ports that the companies are leasing all the available lots they can find to park them in. People without jobs do not buy cars, whether they are made here or elsewhere. Another suggestion from Davidoff is to cut union wages, overlooking the fact that the starting wage will be $14 an hour for new hires under the last contract. Except for the CEOs, he doesn't suggest cutting any other management wages. He also suggests the companies "raise more debt from assets." Ford has already mortgaged virtually everything. Another suggestion -- borrow money from Wall Street instead. Why didn't the banks just do that if it's so easy in this situation?

His underlying premise is that bankruptcy has always been inevitable for the American automobile industry. That's highly debatable. The industry is where it is because of a confluence of $4 a gallon gasoline, a credit crunch, and a recession. Any two of those three it could probably have withstood.

Davidoff also asks what makes the American automakers "so special" since they don't employ as many people as Wal-Mart. Did Wal-Mart build the tanks and planes that defeated Nazi Germany and Japan? Did Wal-Mart create the American middle class with its wages? Did Wal-Mart pull the nation out of its post-9/11 recession with its rebates and incentives for new car purchases? Does Wal-Mart impact another 200,000 American jobs with its purchases from suppliers? No, no, no, and no.

Davidoff really puts his ignorance on display when he chides Michigan for failing "to move past the automakers and build sustainable industries around what it does have — world class research universities (Michigan, Michigan State and Wayne). It needs to build jobs based on these resources and its vast, higher educated populace. Focusing on the auto industry has been a loser. And that will likely remain so. Clinging to a shrinking industry is bad for Michigan and bad for the unions."

Davidoff, you ignorant slut. Don't you know that Michigan is becoming Hollywood East, with its tax incentives to the movie industry? Don't you know that Google has an operation in Ann Arbor? Don't you know that Michigan is moving to boost alternative energy so that people can be put to work building windmills and other equipment in that field? Don't you know that Gov. Jennifer Granholm has made diversifying Michigan's economy her top priority for six years?

Then he closes with this, "Ultimately, as the airlines have shown, bankruptcy is not always liquidation. Perhaps bankruptcy is what you really need to truly restructure and sell cars people buy." Apparently, Davidoff has no clue that bankruptcy will take down the suppliers that the foreign automakers depend upon and that they, too, will be affected, possibly even shut down, by the inability to get parts for up to a year. Davidoff, a law professor who specializes in "deals," clearly does not understand manufacturing.

And The New York Times should not have anyone so ignorant of an industry commenting on its future.