STUTZMAN WOULD HAVE LET GM FAIL – SO MUCH FOR JOBS

Marlin Stutzman’s website states the following:  “The most crucial issue facing Indiana today is creating jobs for Hoosier families.”  Yet, earlier this year, before he was selected in caucus proceedings to run for Mark Souder’s empty seat, Stutzman took a different stance.

At a forum held in New Paris on June 10th, Stutzman was asked the following random question (or perhaps it was providence):

“Would you vote for a bailout of General Motors Corporation?”

Stutzman’s response?

“I would not.  As bad as that sounds … I believe in free markets. … In this country, we have the right to be successful, but we have the right to fail as well. We should not reward bad behavior by bailing a company out.”

And, while Stutzman was adamant he would not “bail out” General Motors, he was – hmm – taking farm subsidies – a form of quasi bail out for his farming operation and a manipulation – to his benefit – of that free market in which he so heartily believes.  But, Stutzman isn’t required to pay back the farm subsidies while GM is required to pay back the bail out loan.  Bazinga!

GM’s failure would have resulted in an estimated loss of over 10,000 jobs – both direct through the termination of workers and indirect through the loss to suppliers, retailers, etc.  Even Representative Souder – for whom Stutzman worked for three years – had enough common sense to vote for the loan to GM understanding the devastating impact the closure of GM would have had on the Third District.

If this is how Stutzman feels, why would Third District voters – especially business owners – want a representative with this attitude in Congress?  His response to the bail out question was an extremely short-sighted and shallow answer to a critical issue which impacted the Third District and its representative – a position for which he is running and for which he is obviously not ready since he fails to understand how to balance his ideology with the good of Third District constituents.

And where does Dr. Hayhurst stand on GM and its workers?  Here is his statement in a recent Fort Wayne Reader article

With regard to bailouts, Hayhurst makes it a point to say no more Wall Street bailouts. “Frankly, with regard to General Motors, I would have supported that.” 

Dr. Hayhurst understands this District and what it takes to protect our interests.  Where Stutzman would have abandoned GM, Dr. Hayhurst would have remained steady in his support – now that is the kind of representative we need.

Advertisements

About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Congress, Marlin Stutzman, Third District and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to STUTZMAN WOULD HAVE LET GM FAIL – SO MUCH FOR JOBS

  1. Charlotte,

    I for one am glad that Mr. Stutzman would not have voted in favor of bailing out GM. I was really angry when Mark Souder voted in favor of bailing out GM. GM should have been allowed to fail and in my opinion it will likley fail at some point anyway.

    I am a small business owner in this Congressional District. In fact I am CPA and in my business I advise small business owners each and every day. I have discussed the GM bailout with other business owners and I have to say that the vast majority of them oppose the bailout of GM.

    Mike Sylvester

  2. Mike:

    I know there are those who would support Stutzman’s position. But again, I find it interesting – heck, hypocritical – that he would have voted against a government loan bailout to GM (and the other automakers) and then turn around and take government farm subsidies which are a form of “bail out” and don’t have to be repaid – unlike the GM loan.

    His continued protestations that he is “forced by law” to do so are inaccurate. Applications must be made for the subsidies. The government does not contact farmers and simply tell them they have to take money.

  3. john b. kalb says:

    Charlotte – The first bail-out of Chrysler was a very big mistake and the most recent was an even bigger one. I called on three Chrysler facilities in Indiana when I was working – They were the most union-damaged operations in Northeast Indiana and the two GM facilities (one in Muncie and one in Marion were close seconds. The UAW is now being “propped” up by the federal government – which just leads to more losses. Just wait and see – I will be able to again say “I told you so”, unless our country makes a very sharp U-Turn in a little over three weeks.
    I am in full agreement with Marlin Stutzman’s feelings about ALL props – including the failed farm program – did you know that there are now more persons working in the Agricultural bureaucracy than are working in farming in our country. What a farce!

  4. John:

    Do you not find anything contradictory in Stutzman’s positions? He opposes loans to bailout the auto industry, but he accepts “free” farm subsidies while he rails against them?

    I am not saying he can’t take a position against the bail out. I am saying he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Like I said to Mike, he continues to say he is forced by law to take the subsidies. This simply isn’t true. I was married to a farmer for years, and we (or rather his parents) got paid not to grow certain crops at certain times.

    Criteria is established and applications must be made. The money just doesn’t magically appear in a bank account.

  5. iceironman says:

    You were against the bailouts. You are for welfare and foodstamps, free healthcare, big govt etc. You believe it is a RIGHT for every American to be ENTITLED to a home. Talking out both sides? Free money for some not others??

    There are already failsafes for business, its called bankrupcy. A re alignment of assets etc. Jobs may have been lost but that money primarily went to prop up union pensions. And jobs were indeed lost anyway.

    Subsidies are nothing more than a progressive idea for more control and bigger govt that came out of the FDRs great depression. Farmers wouldnt need subsidies if the govt would get out of their lives. How about a farmer that pays 100000 in income tax, but gets 40000 in direct subsidies, easy decision isnt it. Quit taking so much in taxes to “spread around” and many business wouldnt need subsidies. Ever since the depression, and Teddy Roosevelt, the govt medling in business has messed EVERYTHING up. How about the govt mandating tier 4 diesel emmisions on agricultral use, driving the cost of a new combine to half a million, 750,000 with heads. Yes the environment is important but to mandate and industry whos machines only run 100-200 hours per year?? And its only .001% of the population that it effects??

    Why wouldnt progressives pay farmers not to grow a crop, they pay people everyday not to work!!!!!!

    Why would Hayhurst say “just this once its ok for bailouts”. Once the floodgates are open, its over. To answer the question, he is being disingenuous, and flat out dishonest. He is pandering to unions at GM, so much for change or a new pollitician. Say what they want to hear.

  6. Arthur Lewis says:

    The ‘bailouts’ for GM were a success, and had they not happened, our entire regional economy would have collapsed. It’s not only GM who was saved, but also many of the first and second tier automotive suppliers upon whom so many people and small businesses depend. There’s a time to be idealistic, and a time to be pragmatic. That’s why politicians of many stripes supported these measures. It’s easy for their opponents to criticize these measures now, but thank God they (the measures, not their opponents) succeeded.

  7. iceironman says:

    From the wall street journal
    The biggest losers here are GM’s bondholders. According the Treasury-GM debt-for-equity swap announced Monday, GM has $27.2 billion in unsecured bonds owned by the public. These are owned by mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds and retail investors who bought them directly through their brokers. Under Monday’s offer, they would exchange their $27.2 billion in bonds for 10% of the stock of the restructured GM. This could amount to less than five cents on the dollar.

    Guess it depends on who you are?

    The problem with America today is its all about ME ME ME. We brag on how much we reap out of a centralize govt. We bitch about pork barrel spending, then people like Aurthor and Charlotte bragg about how much they get. Charlotte was personally against bailouts, but when its in her backyard, well its ok(or if a political opponent,stutzman, expresses her exact sentements but Hayhurst takes the easy road). Plus the money went to the powerful unions, just a bonus.

    Make up your minds, are you for or against bailouts??

    • Arthur Lewis says:

      No doubt the bondholders got the shaft. But had the bailouts not happened, they would have gotten the shaft anyway, and there would have been many more losers as well.

      • iceironman says:

        The bond holders should have had first grabbs at the bailout money not unions. I dont like my govt picking the winners and losers. They let some slip, others get the cash. I dont like the shifty dealership closures. A well known successful GM dealership loses its contract, others that are less successful keep theirs? Sounds like a little bit of payback from Uncle Sam for being involved politicaly.

  8. Arthur Lewis says:

    What a hypocrite. Free markets, my ass, when his farm has taken more than a million in subsidies.

    • iceironman says:

      It would be different if he started the progressive movement to control agricultral prices, he did not. In fact it was an absolute failure most like other govt plans. Govt first said we will guarantee x amount for wheat, guess what, everyone planted wheat, guess what, there was an over supply, guess what, the govt ended up dumping the wheat at HUGE losses because they didnt follow the free market princeples of supply and demand. Farmers were against one crop subsidising others, they fought it at first. But, like anything it just becomes expected as an entitlement. Farmers today have never seen a time without subsidies. Subsidies are a very trackable system, if you have a problem with it, seek out your congressman and change it. http://www.ewg.org for more info and all payments to your local farmers. Tell me where the tracking to the unions with the bailout money went? Can you account for it?

      Am I a hypocrite because I cant stand Social securtiy, but will take my 5cents on the dollar when its my turn??

      Do you know the agricultral reporting rules? Do you think you can just go out and plant a crop without reporting? Thus getting the govt involed. Do you think you can not report grain sales, thus kicking in the subsidies? See, this goes back to privacy issues as far as Im concerned. The govt knows everything on a farming operation.

  9. Arthur Lewis says:

    Yes, you are a hypocrite if you can’t stand social security, but would take your 5 cents on the dollar when it is your turn. And yes, as a farmer, I do know the agricultural tracking rules, and Stutzman’s argument that he had no choice but to take the subsidies is pure bull.

Comments are closed.