Thursday, May 28, 2009

"What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

As if the post facto screwing of the bond-holders with all that that will entail for the economy down the road wasn't a big enough reason for the Obama administration not to have taken over Chrysler (and not to take over GM), we're seeing suspicions, and reasons for suspicion, of this:
Evidence appears to be mounting that the Obama administration has systematically targeted for closing Chrysler dealers who contributed to Repubicans. What started earlier this week as mainly a rumbling on the Right side of the Blogosphere has gathered some steam today with revelations that among the dealers being shut down are a GOP congressman and closing of competitors to a dealership chain partly owned by former Clinton White House chief of staff Mack McLarty.

And, apparently
one of the guys advising SecTreas on this thing is married to someone who used to be one of the people in charge of fundraising for the Democratic Party. This explains so much it’s scary.


Listen, I try to avoid hyperbole. It tends to be counterproductive, and if you hyperventilate about everything, then hyperventilating about the big stuff can be ignored because, well, you hyperventilate about everything, so where's the credibility?

But. If the Obama administration is actually using the Chrysler bankruptcy Government Takeover to punish polital opponents and/or reward political supporters, that's a grotesque abuse of power. It is as bad as anything Richard Nixon did. And it ought not be allowed to stand, because we are not a nation of laws if it does - we become a nation where political patronage is not only a component of success, it is the primary component of success. And that's is one of the roads to ruin.

Labels: , , , ,

|

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Changing the rules in the middle of the game is rarely a good idea

Elections have consequences.

Dennis Buccholtz:
I purchased GM bonds in 2005 and own $91,000 worth. These bonds account for a very sizeable portion of my retirement income, and so it is absolutely devastating to watch GM's problems bring the once venerable company to the brink of failure. My standard of living is truly in jeopardy.

Despite the terrible position my fellow bondholders and I are in, we are being portrayed as the cause of GM's problems and inability to restructure.

Who is perpetrating this myth? The American government, which is at once encouraging investment in U.S. companies and vilifying those who have already invested. Billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars have been used to stabilize companies to restore investor confidence. But how can investors be confident when they're at risk of ending up on the wrong end of the government's stick?

...

I am a retired dye-making trade worker and even worked in the auto industry during my career. I don't understand why the government is penalizing people like me just for having funded my retirement with GM bonds. Bondholders, especially small bondholders, are being ignored in negotiations and singled out to bear the greatest share of the cost of restructuring GM.

Actions have consequences. The more we see, the more it is obvious that this administration's economic plans cannot possibly improve the economy in this country. The only remaining question is whether the administration believes that it is improving the economy, or whether it's goals are more important - to it - than improving the economy...

Labels: , , ,

|