Try as they might, there isn't enough candy in the world to fully coat this one. Obama's rhetoric simply doesn't match up with his actions, and the New York Times knows it.
Let's start with GM's CEO himself, who also happens to be the CEO of the United States. We have The One's professed reluctance to take over two of the big three automakers.
“We are acting as reluctant shareholders, because that is the only way to help G.M. succeed,” Mr. Obama said . . ..
Hmmm. How very Chavezian. A private company can only succeed if the government steps in? If that is true, then why does GM need to be the one that is saved? What about these other companies that filed for bankruptcy last year?
- Circuit City
- Sharper Image
- Linens 'n Things
- Bennigan's
- Frontier Airlines
- Mrs. Field's Cookies
- Bally's Total Fitness
- Lehman Brothers, the 4th largest U.S. Investment Bank
- IndyMac, the 7th largest mortgage originator in the United States
All of these companies had employees with families and made products many of us have bought, used, or loved (at least in the case of Mrs. Field's). And yet they were not taken over by the government or given any sort of bailout. They either reorganized under existing bankruptcy laws or went paws-up altogether. That's the American way. Why? Because the American government doesn't take over private companies.
But in Barack Obama's America, the government does take over private companies. While the president pleads out of one side of his mouth that he doesn't want to be in the car business, The Times uses the "N" word.
The company was forced into the filing by President Obama, who is betting that by temporarily nationalizing the onetime icon of American capitalism, he can save at least a diminished automaker that is competitive.
Nationalized . . . temporarily. Good weasel-word, temporarily. No fixed expiration on that one is there? And how does a guy that doesn't want to be in the car business (despite nationalizing it) "save" a car company? How are we supposed to tell whether he failed at saving it? Will he announce one day that he regrets having hired a guy to save the country's largest automaker that had never run so much as a lemonade stand before taking the oath of office? Will he then fire himself?
The Times remains skeptical about The One's car-building prowess.
It also places the government in uncharted territory as a business owner, as it takes a majority ownership stake in the company during its restructuring.
Of course the term "uncharted" in this case means, "never before done in America." A cynic might say "uncharted" means "un-American." Nationalizing private companies, however, is well-charted territory in Venezuela, which is run by a totalitarian, America-hating thug who happens to love our new president.
Here is some more from the guy that doesn't want to be in the car business.
The new G.M. will be leaner and better run and its cars more fuel-efficient, the president said, in yet another acknowledgment that the days of high-finned gas-guzzlers are gone forever.
The president was envisioning a much smaller, retooled G.M. can make money even if new car sales remain at a sluggish 10 million a year in the United States and even if G.M., once the giant of the industry, drops below its current 20 percent market share in this country.
The days of gas guzzlers are over? Forever? Don't the American consumers decide which retail products are gone forever, by not buying them? But our new president, while not running the car business, tells us exactly which kinds of cars GM will make for us. Apparently whether anyone buys them is not a factor.
Mr. Obama is taking several risks, but none may be bigger than the decision that the government will take a 60 percent share of the stock in a new G.M., leaving taxpayers vulnerable if the overhaul is not successful. . . .
“We are acting as reluctant shareholders, because that is the only way to help G.M. succeed,” the president said, declaring as he has before that his administration has no interest in running a car company and will stay out of all but the most fundamental decision-making. . . .
Although the president said that, once the government sets up new management and a board it will remove itself from G.M.’s day-to-day operations, his aides anticipate intense pressure as the company’s managers are called to testify in Congress and face questions like why they decided to build new cars in Mexico and South Korea, rather than in Michigan or the South.
Let's see if we have this straight. The government will be making the fundamental decisions for the company and yet the company managers will have to testify before Congress to justify fundamental business decisions like how and where they want to build cars.
And if The State does not approve, what then, blindfolds and cigarettes?
Comments