Republican presidential hopeful Willard Mitt Romney renewed his opposition to the Obama administration's bailout of General Motors and Chrysler today in several Michigan newspapers, contending President Obama's rescue made the companies worse. I wish I could leave politics to the professionals, but Romney's take just doesn't square with the facts as I lived them...
Young Willard with his father in better days.
Let me explain, point by point (Romney's words excerpted in bold quotes):
"Three years ago, in the midst of an economic crisis, a newly elected President Barack Obama stepped in with a bailout for the auto industry."
I'd do it again."
"The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse. I believe that without his intervention things there would be better."
The crux of Romney's argument: If Obama had not acted, private companies would have stepped in and run a "managed bankruptcy." What this ignores is that in the fall of 2008, before Obama was even sworn in, no one on Wall Street or anywhere else was willing to lend GM and Chrysler a penny — let alone the $81 billion they and their financial arms eventually needed.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
An informative article at Motoramic by Justin Hyde on "What Mitt Romney Gets Wrong" re: the auto industry "bailout":