The spending measure includes $23 billion in disaster aid for such places as the hurricane-stricken Gulf Coast and flood-ravaged Midwest. It also doubles the amount of energy assistance to help low-income families pay home heating and air-conditioning bills, setting aside $5.1 billion.
California's share of the energy assistance would jump from $103 million to $225 million, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors' Assn.
In California, a family of four with an annual income of $42,427 or less is eligible for the utility-bill assistance, though the legislation allows the state to raise the eligibility level.
The measure omits an extension of the long-standing ban on new oil drilling off much of the U.S. coast. The ban is set to expire Tuesday night, but supporters hope to renew all or part of it next year.
As for the auto industry loan program, backers insisted that it was not a bailout and said the money would be repaid. They noted that a so-called bailout program that provided $1.5 billion in loan guarantees to Chrysler in 1980 turned a $313-million profit for the government.
The Energy Department has not yet written all the regulations for the loan program, and it is unclear how the funding would be divided. Automakers would be able to repay loans over as much as 25 years, and the Energy Department would have discretion to defer repayment for as long as five years.
Automakers hope to pay about 5% interest on the loans, instead of rates as high as 20% they are paying to borrow money currently, in part because of their poor credit ratings. That would save them about $100 million a year for every $1 billion in loans.
Lawmakers from Michigan, which leads the nation in unemployment with a rate of 8.9%, were joined by executives from General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, the congressional Auto Caucus and 10 state governors in lobbying for the loan program. They argued that it was crucial because the crisis in credit markets had raised borrowing costs.
The loan program drew criticism from Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group.
"Boosting the automakers' bottom line may make good political sense with Michigan a battleground state, but it doesn't make sense for taxpayers who risk being stuck with yet more debt," the group said.
--
richard.simon@latimes.com
