Opher BanarieGM Gets Billion$; Lays Off Thousands
January 26th 2009 18:32
So, after going to Congress twice for a bailout and being approved for $13.4 BILLION taxpayer dollars, GM today announced that it will lay off 2,000 workers and halt production in several plants for weeks.
Of course, GM is still required to report to Congress with a "viable" business plan on February 17th, but the question must be asked why the company gets to double-dip. If they are getting taxpayer dollars to keep running, why should taxpayers have to pay additional dollars for the unemployment and other benefits of GMs laid off employees? Shouldn't those costs be paid by GM out of the bailout they are receiving? And what about the economic consequences to the communities where GM is closing plants and reducing payroll? Will taxpayers be burdened with those costs, too?
It seems to me that the "trend" toward Socialism is becoming a slippery slope: As more company bailouts turn into "restructuring" including layoffs, the economic impact will be magnified, resulting in more calls for bailouts, etc. The government becomes not only the employer of last resort, but the investor of last resort, and the manager of last resort. The problem is that Congress has proven it cannot manage anything without tossing in a heaping handful of politics and pork-barrel priorities. So, will these bailouts really prove beneficial to the country? Doubtful.
GM factory workers who get laid off typically get "sub pay," in which they receive unemployment benefits, and GM pays the difference, up to most of their salary, for 48 weeks.
After unemployment pay runs out, the laid-off workers would go into the jobs bank, where the company pays laid-off workers most of their pay and benefits while trying to find them jobs elsewhere.
After unemployment pay runs out, the laid-off workers would go into the jobs bank, where the company pays laid-off workers most of their pay and benefits while trying to find them jobs elsewhere.
Of course, GM is still required to report to Congress with a "viable" business plan on February 17th, but the question must be asked why the company gets to double-dip. If they are getting taxpayer dollars to keep running, why should taxpayers have to pay additional dollars for the unemployment and other benefits of GMs laid off employees? Shouldn't those costs be paid by GM out of the bailout they are receiving? And what about the economic consequences to the communities where GM is closing plants and reducing payroll? Will taxpayers be burdened with those costs, too?
It seems to me that the "trend" toward Socialism is becoming a slippery slope: As more company bailouts turn into "restructuring" including layoffs, the economic impact will be magnified, resulting in more calls for bailouts, etc. The government becomes not only the employer of last resort, but the investor of last resort, and the manager of last resort. The problem is that Congress has proven it cannot manage anything without tossing in a heaping handful of politics and pork-barrel priorities. So, will these bailouts really prove beneficial to the country? Doubtful.
| 45 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog