Bankruptcy

Tying an Auto Industry Bailout to Health Care

By Bob Lawless

I'm skeptical about a government-sponsored auto industry bailout and think chapter 11 probably provides the best policy tool to deal with the current problem. Although auto industry execs have balked at the idea of a bankruptcy filing, some have promoted the idea of a "prepackaged" chapter 11 as if it offers some sort of risk-free panacea. That is wrong, and I recommend Fred Tung's post over at The Conglomerate where he discusses the pitfalls that even a prepackaged chapter 11 might have. Discussing a prepackaged filing presents similar tough issues as a regular chapter 11. My task with this post, however, is not to take on the question of whether we should bailout the U.S. auto industry but, if we do decide to do it, one way we might do it better.

Former Credit Slips guest blogger and oberlawyer David Yen suggested to me that an auto industry bailout be tied to the industry's health care costs. This is a good idea and deserves some attention in the debate. The idea, as Yen wrote to me, is:

Instead of just giving the Big 3 auto companies money, we should give them tax credits tied to their health care bill. The tax credit would be structured so that if a more comprehensive health plan is ever enacted, there could be a relatively smooth transition. This would be a two fer.

The tax credit would incentivize the auto companies to ensure their workers have adequate health-care coverage, helping to alleviate one of the biggest financial stresses on the American middle class.

One thing that particularly appeals to me about Yen's proposal is that it would harness the disciplining effect of the market to force auto companies to come up with realistic long-term business plans.The tax-credit proposal perhaps might be even be extended to pension costs. The proposal then would eliminate the principal competitive disadvantage of the U.S. auto industry, namely the huge employee benefit costs that non-U.S. automakers do not have to pay. The U.S. automakers would no longer have  high employee benefits costs as an excuse for their failure to compete with apparently more nimble and creative automakers outside the United States.

The proposal is not perfect. For one thing, the tax credit would not raise the $25 - $50 billion in funds the automakers want. In 2007, health-care costs for GM were $4.6 billion and $2.2 billion for Ford according to their annual reports. (Thank you to Amy Tomaszewski, a University of Illinois Reference Librarian and Assistant Professor of Library Administration, for tracking down those figures.) As a private concern, Chrysler's health-care costs were not available, but even added together, the Big 3's health-care costs are not going to come to the amounts the auto industry seeks. Also, the Big 3 need cash today. A tax credit would produce money tomorrow, an income stream against which the Big 3 theoretically could borrow to raise cash today. But, theory does not necessarily work with the credit markets nowadays. Perhaps the government could advance the funds as a loan to be repaid by the tax credits? Finally, one would have to structure the tax credits in a way they do not cause the automakers to overinvest in "gold-plated" coverage for their employees--a weakness that Yen also identified--and maybe such a corrective is easier said than done?

There may be other problems to Yen's proposal that are not immediately evident. It is, however, a very creative idea that deserves discussion. I hope I have done justice to it with my description. Comments are open.

Full post as published by Credit Slips on November 21, 2008 (boomark / email).