So it was hard to feel sorry for the executives when Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), late in the hearing, reminded them again that "the symbolism of the private jet is difficult," and mischievously asked the witnesses whether, in another symbolic gesture, they would be willing to work for $1 a year, as [Robert] Nardelli [of Chrysler] has offered to do.Could one conclude that these CEO care more about maintaining their perks than the longterm health of their respective companies? Especially if cutting their own salaries or taking a commercial flight might help the future financial well-beings of not only their companies but America's auto industry?
"I don't have a position on that today," demurred [Richard] Wagoner [of GM] (2007 total compensation: $15.7 million).
"I understand the intent, but I think where we are is okay," said [Alan] Mulally [of Ford] ($21.7 million).
"I'm asking about you," Roskam pressed.
"I think I'm okay where I am," Mulally said.
And don't even think about asking him to fly commercial.
I suppose when you think about it this is what happens when you come to the gov't expecting some sort of bailout because your business just isn't making the cash like it used to. Maybe Washington is finally tired of this bailout business having had to bailout the financial industry. My conclusion is that the reason these companies are in this situation has nothing to do with the economy but it's of their own makings. They're responsible for their failings and while they could stress their importance to the economy of this nation if they made some necessary steps years ago there's be no need for this bailout. Also I won't hold either industry totally culpable since the Gov't has a tendency to intervene not thru financial aid but by regulations.
I want you to also look at this vid produced by the auto industry. What's do you think about this?
Another post of interest on this subject comes from Marathon Pundit
Big Three jump start looking unlikely