From David Shepardson of The Detroit News Washington Bureau, the liberal media bias headline of the day:
Cheney Opposed Decision to Save GM. The decision didn't "save GM." It simply bailout out the UAW. The piece starts out just as the headline suggests:
Former Vice President Dick Cheney says he opposed the decision to save General Motors Corp. from collapse in December 2008.
The bailout didn't save GM from collapse. These people are either ignorant of what bankruptcy is, or simply think we're too stupid to know the difference between bankruptcy and collapse. Speaking of, remember when the bailout of GM and Chrysler was advertised as the necessary remedy to keep the autos from going bankrupt? The result was that they took all those billions of taxpayers dollars... and went bankrupt. The only difference was that they had to go through bankruptcy proceedings with the 800-ound government gorilla on their backs. And the gorilla liked to pick winners and losers. UAW the winner, bondholders the losers.
But a funny thing happened in the runup to bankruptcy. The narrative changed from the bailout saving the autos from bankruptcy to saving the autos from liquidation. It was and is a false narrative. Without the bailout, GM and Chrysler would have gone through bankruptcy proceedings, would have shed their bad debt, and more importantly their unsustainable union contract, and come out a stronger, more competitive company. Instead, the yoke of the union contract is still around their necks thanks to Obama, and any progress that GM and Chrysler have made is in spite of, not because of the bailout. Fortunately for both companies, they have competent engineers pioneering better products. I've seen many of them come and go through my courses.
So shame on David Shepardson for what appears t be naked liberal bias in what is supposed to be a news piece.
By the way, I would be remiss in not pointing out what liberals claim is a success story:
Treasury hikes estimate of auto bailout losses to $14.3B. Actually, the loss is far more than that because the $14.3 billion number ignores the backdoor bailout that the media continues to refuse to cover:
Government Motors, Dems, Obama celebrate first quarter profits made up entirely of backdoor taxpayer bailout that the press still refuses to report. I'll summarize the backdoor bailout in two prior posts:
That's right - neither Chrysler nor GM pay taxes. They are exempt for several years costing taxpayers at least $42 billion. That was a decision Obama made (the regime gave any 'private' company a
tax exemption if they drank the kool-aid and took TARP money). Ford gets no such privileged
treatment, pays its taxes and
still has to compete on the open market with both. For someone who gives lip service to "leveling the playing field" Obama tilted it severely to political points. And with the non-curious, lazy media at his back, he gets headlines like the above and it's based on news that is misleading at best, and outright false at worse. Including
the tax breaks, how much will the total
loss be to US taxpayers? This much:
Government to LOSE $85 Billion on Government Motors, Obama calls it a success... The original bailout was $80 billion. Put up $80 billion, end up losing $85 billion. Only in the world of the
federal government is that called a success.
More GM news via
Instapundit:
BROKEN PROMISE: General Motors Again Ripping Off Americans: Warranties Edition.
And related auto industry news here in the D:
Pelosi aide defends $35K congressional tab for Detroit auto show. Compared to the deficit, and the $5 trillion in new debt under Pelosi, $35k is just a speck of dirt on a drop in a really big well.
