THAT’S DEBATABLE:

Congress wasn’t able to agree on a $25-billion emergency bailout of the so-called Big Three — General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler — but lawmakers may be called back next month for another crack at it if the auto makers can come up with specific plans that will assure legislators it won’t be the first of many handouts.

What would the auto makers have to do to convince you to support a bailout? Or do you think they should be allowed to fail?

 

I will not comment on the efficacy of the proposed $25-billion loan to the Big Three automakers and will abstain from voting thereon. This is because I own property on which a subsidiary of General Motors Corporation is my tenant.

So, I believe it would be inappropriate for me to vote on a direct taxpayer subsidy to a company by name from which I derive substantial income. Interestingly, the ethics committee of the House said I have no conflict and can vote and speak as I wish. I disagree.

How ethical the ethics committee is is a story for another day.

Rep. John Campbell

(R-Newport Beach)

 

I would be in favor of easing costly government regulations for the auto industry and reducing tax burdens on employees by providing tax-free stock options in place of pay raises, as described in my recently introduced bill, HR 7292. Any taxpayer-funded cash infusion would be counterproductive and would not bring about the necessary changes for the auto companies to become profitable.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher