Take a look at the stakeholders in the $15 billion bridge loan legislation for the Detroit automakers and you'll see why there's no clear message coming from anyone on the not-a-bailout; the automakers no longer have clout in D.C., the House Democrats seem fixated on making the not-so-Big Three into "Big Green," House Republicans are busy offering an alternative non-"ass-backwards" plan in the House that would have the Feds provide insurance which would cover up to 50% of losses of new investment in case of a default or bankruptcy. Senate Republicans, led by Sen. Shelby (R-Foreign Autobama) on the other hand are just eager to find a way to kill the UAW with some cockamamie scheme similar to House Republicans.

We guess given every other stakeholder's got both hands tied behind their backs (mostly of their own doing) or is completely without a clue when it comes to economics (Sens. Shelby and Ensign, we're looking at you), we shouldn't be surprised it was the lame duck White House that would actually craft a realistic message on the proposed bill. In the span of one press conference, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Joel Kaplan changed the message of the bill being a bridge loan for the not-so-Big Three to make it to the waiting hands of the Obama administration into what it should have been all along — "bankruptcy lite."

What this "bankruptcy lite" bill would provide the short-term financing the Detroit automakers need to give them an opportunity to do what we've said they need to do, take a few months to work with all the parties — UAW, dealers, suppliers, etc. — and get a realistic cost structure put in place before March 31st, 2009. At that time the "car czar" appointed by the President would either accept the plan presented by GM and Chrysler, come up with his own plan, or say "screw you two" to both and call back the collateral put down for the loan.

The plan makes sense to us, and it probably makes sense to the American people.

Photo Credit: CHRIS KLEPONIS / AFP

Later in the interview he was more than willing to agree to funds for the gaming industry, because "they employ more." Let's ignore for a moment Ensign's lack of understanding of the difference between a primary industry and a service / support industry. Let's also ignore the Senate Finance Committee member's ignorance of the term "indirect job." In fact, let's agree with the Senator that yes, the travel and hotel industry does employ more direct jobs than the automakers. But, let's not ignore what Ensign's ignoring: Guess where all those Strip-walkin' Midwestern beer-cozy-carrying union workers won't be visiting if the not-so-Big Three go under? [via CNBC]

"I want to bring Michigan back. I am not willing to sit back and say 'too bad for Michigan, too bad for the car industry, too bad for the people who lost their jobs, they are gone forever.' I will not rest when I am president of the United States until Michigan is brought back."

January is a long time ago in Romneyville as Mitt said this in the NY Times earlier this week:

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

What's the difference?

After losing both the New Hampshire and Iowa primaries, Michigan became an incredibly important state for Romney's presidential quest. He was a big cheerleader for the auto industry and, according to the NY Times He:

campaigned as a populist champion for the auto industry on his way to winning Michigan’s primary last year, excoriating Senator John McCain for declaring on the stump that some of the industry’s lost jobs were not coming back.

Circumstances are different now and the $700 billion treasury bailout enraged small business conservatives. Michigan isn't as important a state for Romney as it once was and, if he wants to stay relevant, talking about the Detroit bailout has proven to be a big way to gain attention.

There's nothing wrong about believing that bankruptcy is the best path for the automakers. Many would disagree, but it is a completely valid point. What's wrong is that when Romney says Detroit shouldn't "ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost," he fails to mention that in Michigan, during the primary, he also bet on Michigan. He said that he opposed new mileage requirements. He said we should give aid to bailout health care and pension costs of the automakers. From another article in January:

Romney proposed increased government spending for research on advanced fuels and vehicles, aid to automakers to deal with the costs of health care and pensions for retirees, and tax cuts for most taxpayers to help them buy new cars.

[...]

In Warren, McCain said he would be "ashamed" to tell voters that the lost jobs would return to Michigan, but he vowed to take care of displaced workers through a promised job retraining program that would be offered through community colleges.

There's nothing outrageous about what Romney is saying, but we have yet to see him aknowledge why he suddenly changed his mind.

[Photos by Bryan Mitchell/Getty Images, Scott Olson/Getty Images, GEOFF ROBINS/AFP/Getty Images, Bill Pugliano/Getty Images, J.D. Pooley/Getty Images ]