Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

CARROLL: Not yet his own man

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 13, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Michael Bennet

Photo by Lauren Victoria Burke/Rocky Mountain News

Michael Bennet

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

You won't glean much insight into Michael Bennet - aka, Colorado's next U.S. senator - from his early interviews with the media. He played it safe and never strayed outside the four corners of received Democratic wisdom.

You know the litany: We must redouble our efforts in one military quagmire (Afghanistan) while withdrawing from another. The Bush tax cuts were bad, but repealing them in a recession would also be bad, so we'll keep them for the time being even though they've got to go. Naturally, Bennet is a "huge believer in balanced budgets and in conservative fiscal management" while an equally fervent supporter of an $800 billion economic stimulus plan, and heaven knows what else afterward.

And, of course, he opposes a litmus test for judicial nominees but supports a president picking nominees who think like him, as if there's much of a difference. If there was even a mild surprise in any of Bennet's many answers, it had to do with the auto industry bailout, where he seemed skeptical of additional subsidies.

"I'm not yet convinced of how serious the industry is [about restructuring]," Bennet said. "I think the U.S. auto industry is incredibly important to our economy. And I think we have every opportunity to reinvent it, and to be able to have Detroit become a leader in the design and manufacture of fuel-efficient vehicles and vehicles that run on alternative fuels. But I want to see that, and I think a lot of people want to see that."

Even on this matter, however, notice that Bennet parrots notions that have become cliches among leading members of Congress - and which he really ought to reconsider. The Big Three's troubles have essentially nothing to do with their failure to become leaders in the "design and manufacture of fuel-efficient vehicles." Their cost structure is higher than their competitors because of pensions, labor contracts and other longstanding burdens; they have too many brands and an outdated distribution system; and they've had to battle the perception of lagging quality, at least on some models, compared with several foreign automakers.

If they'd never built a single SUV and tried instead to push smaller cars onto buyers in the 1990s and early years of this decade, they'd probably be in even worse shape today. Those SUVS, after all, generated profits. That's why they were built - oh, and the fact that the public wanted them.

After all, "the reason Europe has fuel-efficient cars is high gas prices, not CAFE laws," writes Paul Ingrassia, a former Detroit bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal. "What's more, the only times that Americans have switched to smaller cars is 1973, 1979 and the spring of 2008, when gas prices here were high."

That's not to say Toyota's dominance of the hybrid market (70 percent of hybrids sold in this country have a Toyota nameplate) doesn't give it an advantage going forward, given consumers' shifting preferences, but that's hardly the Big Three's Achilles' heel.

The most troubling sentiment in Bennet's assessment of the U.S. auto industry is his belief that "we have every opportunity to reinvent it."

We as in whom? Congress? Egad.

I've listened to Bennet speak about education issues often enough to appreciate his intelligence and what I sense is an independent mind. And I really didn't expect to see evidence of the latter in these early days. But if he's going to make a case across Colorado for his election in 2010, he'll have to prove he's his own man. And what better way to achieve this than for him to trample on a few of his own party's shibboleths?

Once he's been safely sworn in, of course.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • January 13, 2009

    8:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    EP writes:

    I agree with you that his responses to canned questions tend to be remarkably cliche however I can't help but notice that your criticism thereof seems just as cliche from the other side.
    Also, if the Big 3 are in trouble because of contractual burdens, why are these showing themselves as such only now? I feel like these unions and pensions have been around for decades, what was different twenty years ago?

  • January 13, 2009

    9:37 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    EP
    Take the long view. As union concessions rose, market share declined.

  • January 13, 2009

    9:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    We need a union model like Germany's.

  • January 13, 2009

    1:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ILoveChipotle writes:

    Another democratic pary hack - If he's anything like Ritter or Salazar, republicans shouldn't have much of a problem in 2010.

  • January 13, 2009

    1:31 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    Last time I checked, Vincent is in favor of contracts -- except, I guess, when those contracts are with workers.
    Vincent is so transparent, it's amazing anyone can see him. He's also complained for years about the big burdensome pensions that United and other airlines have. His soluntion is simple.
    Dump pensions and labor agreements, but by God, he better get everything owed him!
    Guess what Vincent, those pensions you love to complain about? The workers put in their 30 or 40 years of labor. The auto companies promised them pensions. Now they're retired -- and you're telling the auto companies to dump the retirees overboard.
    Guess who will first in line at the courthouse if the RMN folds, and Scripps says "Sorry, no money left. We're scrapping all agreements"?

  • January 13, 2009

    2:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Darwin writes:

    "Guess what Vincent, those pensions you love to complain about? The workers put in their 30 or 40 years of labor. The auto companies promised them pensions. Now they're retired -- and you're telling the auto companies to dump the retirees overboard."

    Just like the government made promises regarding Social Security benefits, never be taxed, will always be around (remains to be seen), etc.

  • January 13, 2009

    2:55 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    MaxPlanck writes:

    In his expected dimunition of the role CAFE standards played in the 90's through the 1st half of the current decade, Vincent conveniently overlooks the stranglehold Detriot's lobbyist machine had in Congress over any attempts to beef them up. Instead Detriot was free to "create" demand for a repackaged pickup truck - the SUV - and reaping enormous profit in the process. So, if they'd focused on more effficent technologies instead of lobbying Congress to short curcuit CAFE standards, the US auto industry would be in a lot better shape today. Some of those SUV hulks are sitting on your advertisers' lots, aren't they Vince?

  • January 13, 2009

    3:37 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    sstnt writes:

    How much will those retirees get if the company goes under? Pennies on the dollar. It's in the vested interest of everyone (Company, workers, retirees, government) to do the smart thing. Everybody needs to give enough to make this work. If anybody says, "that's mine, don't touch it", then the whole thing may go to hell in a handbasket and we'll all be bailing to keep the ship of sinking. Everybody involved had a part in this fiasco. Both sides only point fingers at the other side though.

  • January 13, 2009

    8:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dwschulze writes:

    EP wrote:

    "Also, if the Big 3 are in trouble because of contractual burdens, why are these showing themselves as such only now?"

    Where have you been, EP?

    It was just over 3 years ago that GM was poised on the verge of bankruptcy. And in the early '80s Chrysler required a government bailout to avoid bankruptcy.

    The current bailout is just postponing the inevitable. And forcing Detroit to build fuel efficient vehicles is politically correct folly. The whole green energy agenda is special interest politics, not sound business.

  • January 13, 2009

    11:55 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    "The whole green energy agenda is special interest politics, not sound business."
    You mean sound business practice like Dodge selling trucks whose two selling points, according to commercials, are:
    1) You can drive them through a wall of fire.
    2) The engines ROAR when you press the gas pedal.
    And we all know how important it is to the American economy to have trucks that ROAR and can go through a wall of fire.
    I shudder to think what how pathetic the gas milage is, but as long as it ROARS who cares, right?
    OK, so Dodge will sell some trucks to men in their twenties (or older men who act like they're only 20) who want to be "manly men".
    Boy, that'll really improve Chrysler's cash flow!
    I seem to recall that in the 1980s, Toyota and others sold a bazillion small trucks that got the job done, and were fuel-efficient. Lets face it, the average truck buyer isn't hauling tons of hay, or huge amounts of stuff. The average truck buyer is probably a suburbanite who hauls groceries home. So someone out there ought to make a light truck that's fuel-efficient and looks manly.

  • January 19, 2009

    5:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    wrtr83 writes:

    I, also, am certain that new-Senator Michael Bennett will achieve his own independent instinct by trampling on a "few of his own party shibboleths," as Vincent Carroll hopes, just like our other brand-spanking new senator, Mark Udall. I believe Udall has proven his independence by voting his party line every time. Perhaps we should rename Udall Senator Lite and Senator Bennett Senator Extra Lite. Coloradans deserve better. They had a chance, but they couldn't see Udall for the socialist--liberal--progressive that he is. You guys didn't let them. I hope that works out for you.