The labor-supported, House-approved $14 billion package of auto industry bridge loans was killed Thursday by Senate Republicans in what the Associated Press called "a partisan dispute over union wage cuts."

Republicans, breaking sharply with President George W. Bush as his term draws to a close, refused to back federal aid for Detroit's beleaguered Big Three without a guarantee that the United Auto Workers would agree by the end of next year to wage cuts to bring their pay into line with U.S. plants of Japanese carmakers. The UAW refused to do so before its current contract with the automakers expires in 2011.

The Senate Republicans' explanation of their opposition demonstrated that it was not about the merits of rescuing the U.S. auto industry or preserving a crucial remaining portion of the U.S. manufacturing base. Instead, it was an ideologically based class war against workers and their unions. 

It's the kind of class warfare that approves a $700 billion blank check to bail out  Wall Street corporations and white-collar workers in the financial industry, but rejects about $14 billion in bridge loans to U.S. automakers because their blue-collar workers are unionized and therefore earn too much money. The same Republicans who opposed any restrictions of corporate executive compensation in the financial bailout bill now fight to cut the wages of workers at auto plants, and announce they want to get rid of their "antiquated" unions.

Here's how Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina described his opposition:

I’m not trying to get rid of the unions but I am saying that they appear to be an antiquated concept in today’s economy and if a company cannot be competitive with the union structure that they have then we need to recognize that.

…Most of this (the auto bridge-loan legislation) is being done to protect unions. It’s not to protect the workers. What I want to do is make sure we have jobs for these workers and we have first-class American auto companies and we’re not going to do that with the barnacles of unionism wrapped around their necks.

In other words, DeMint wants to preserve the industry but get rid of its unions -- as if that's his choice, and not the workers'. This is exactly the neo-conservative corporate mentality that has not only driven this country's economy into a ditch, but has systematically taken away American workers' freedom of association by forming a union. (And why we need the Employee Free Choice Act to restore that freedom.)

Meanwhile, most members of the lazy commercial media and the endlessly blathering pundits on the teevee are actively abetting this class warfare by repeating the falsehood that UAW members make $70 an hour.  

A New York Times analysis of that lie, being actively spread by those who seek to blame unions for the American auto industry's demise, found their salaries were actually about $55 an hour, which includes the cost of health and pension benefits. Workers at foreign automakers make about about $45 an hour, mostly because they get fewer benefits. The fact that those union-negotiated benefits are more expensive is more an indictment of inexcusably expensive health insurance in this country, as opposed to the "barnacles of unionism" killing the industry.

Media Matters has tracked these blame-the-union lies and sum them up this way:

Even though the crises facing the financial and automotive industries were born primarily of the actions (or inaction) of those in positions of power in private industry and in government, many conservative media figures have assigned blame to specific groups of less wealthy or less influential people -- the poor, minorities, undocumented immigrants, and union members, among others -- disregarding the facts that belie such assignments of blame.

Meanwhile, lost in the class warfare being waged against blue-collar workers and their unions is the debate over the future of the entire U.S. manufacturing base, or what remains of that base after decades of unchecked offshore outsourcing promoted by failed international trade policies.

U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) called for this "serious national discussion" in this statement released Thursday after the Senate failed to move forward on H.R.7321, the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act:

“I am disappointed that the Senate was unable to find a path forward to provide a bridge loan to American automobile manufacturers.  In Washington state, we understand that the strength of our economy is tied to the health of our manufacturing base.  We see it every day in the impact Boeing and our domestic aerospace industry has on the stability of our region, the livelihood of our small businesses, and the strength of our economy.

“The bill we were working towards was not ideal.  But it did tether aide to support restructuring of an industry that may not otherwise survive.  In Washington, over 30,000 jobs at auto dealerships, wholesalers, parts manufacturers, and other businesses depend on the automotive industry.  Each of these jobs means protection from foreclosure, escalating debt, and lost health care.   

“In the middle of the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, I hope that today’s inaction does not result in the path to recovery becoming harder and longer for our entire nation.  

“I believe it’s time to have a serious national conversation about the future of America’s manufacturing industry – from automobiles to airplanes. Having a strong American manufacturing base that can quickly adapt to changing times and produce the quality products of the future is invaluable to our national defense and our long term economic security.”

^{Copyright © 2008 --  Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO}