Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ed Driscoll

Sopranonomics

May 26th, 2009 - 7:40 pm

“The Washington Post editors have figured out the Obama administration’s modus operandi: give money, then strong-arm the recipients”, Jennifer Rubin writes, quoting the Post:

In theory, a government bailout should provide a short-term infusion of cash to give a struggling company the chance to right itself. But in its aggressive dealings with U.S. automakers, most recently General Motors, the Obama administration is coming dangerously close to engaging in financial engineering that ignores basic principles of fairness and economic realities to further political goals.

[. . .]

While the Obama administration has been playing hardball with bondholders, it has been more than happy to play nice with the United Auto Workers. How else to explain why a retiree health-care fund controlled by the UAW is slated to get a 39 percent equity stake in GM for its remaining $10 billion in claims while bondholders are being pressured to take a 10 percent stake for their $27 billion? It’s highly unlikely that the auto industry professionals at GM would have cut such a deal had the government not been standing over them — or providing the steady stream of taxpayer dollars needed to keep the factory doors open.

Jennifer adds:

But this, of course, is nothing new. Have we already forgotten the AIG bonus flap? Has Tim Geithner let the banks pay back their TARP money yet? This is what comes, inevitably, from an administration with a vast social and economic agenda, which has used an economic crisis as an “opportunity” to alter the relationship between the public and private sectors.

Meanwhile, Doug Ross ponders if anti-Obama campaign contributions dictated which Chrysler dealers were shuttered:

Red State, American Thinker, Joey Smith and Reliapundit provide anecdotal and quantitative evidence that would appear to confirm a decided bias against dealers who donated to GOP causes or to anti-Obama Democrats.

Special note for moonbats: no one here is saying that the sole criterion for closing a dealership was partisanship. What we ask is: does it seem odd that the list of closed dealerships appears to have contributed a grand total of $200 to Barack Obama and millions to GOP candidates/causes?

Quote from an attorney who Deposed Chrysler’s president last week: “It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers… It really wasn’t Chrysler’s decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President’s automotive task force.”

Stay tuned. Data crunching is underway.

Gateway Pundit adds:

Chrysler Dealership owner Jim Anderer was on with Neil Cavuto. Jim’s dealership is being shut down. Anderer noted that the closings didn’t make any sense and that many of them were profitable. Anderer says the country was shutting down his business. He couldn’t understand how they were making their decision on which dealerships they were closing.

Click over for video.

Update: Allahpundit adds, “I don’t know. To believe this is true, you’d have to believe Obama applied some awfully heavy-handed pressure to get his way. And really, what are the odds of that?”

Heh.™

Related: More AIG hypocracy spotted here.

Click here to view the 2 legacy comments

Comments are closed.

One Trackback to “Sopranonomics”