It's 8am

SOURCE

June 1st, 2009 12:45 PM Eastern
PHIL KERPEN: It Didn’t Work for Amtrak and It Won’t Work for GM, Either

By Phil Kerpen
Director, Americans for Prosperity

I cautiously cheered the Obama administration’s announcement 60 days ago that GM was on a path to bankruptcy court, because I was hopeful that it would represent an end to political manipulation of the company and a chance to get a clean balance sheet and a new shot as a private company. I couldn’t have been more wrong. Instead GM heads to bankruptcy court with a prepackaged deal that almost completely politicizes the company, with the U.S. government the new majority shareholder.

———

Expect that, like Amtrak, GM will be government-run and subsidized to the tune of billions of taxpayers dollars for decades to come.

———

Taxpayers were already on the hook for $20 billion of bailouts to GM, and today’s deal puts us on the hook for another $30 billion. Even worse, that $50 billion could be just the tip of the iceberg, because the government is now committed to owning and operating an automobile company that could run massive losses for years, even decades, to come.

Today’s New York Times quotes an administration official saying: “We don’t think that after this next $30 billion, they will need more money, but the fact is there are things you don’t know — like when the car market will come back, and how much Toyota and Honda and Volkswagen will benefit from the chaos.” In other words, who knows how much taxpayers will pay. Sky’s the limit.

In 1971, Amtrak was created, the Nixon administration said, “It is expected that the corporation would experience financial losses for about three years and then become a self-sustaining enterprise.” The Obama administration now claims that GM will be a publicly traded company again in six to 18 months. Expect that, like Amtrak, GM will be government-run and subsidized to the tune of billions of taxpayers dollars for decades to come.

The worst part is that government entities are run according to political, not economic, considerations. Every decision—about dealerships and plant closings, about suppliers, about which vehicles to build—will have to pass the Washington tests of political and environmental correctness.

Saab, Saturn, Hummer, and Pontaic will be shuttered. At least nine plants will close. These changes might make economic sense. But with government calling the shots, we will never be sure why certain plants were closed and others were spared.

The Obama administration’s big announcement on fuel-economy standards a couple of weeks ago and the president’s endless drumbeat that Detroit needs to make smaller and lighter cars and stop making trucks and SUVs is proof positive of this theory. Trucks have big margins, and could be a path to profitability. GM does need to find a way to make money on smaller cars, too, but does anyone really have confidence that being overseen and run by government bureaucrats will make that more likely to happen? Instead expect some government-by-committee to turn out vehicles with a Yugo-like design that nobody will want to buy and that taxpayers will end up subsidizing heavily.

General Motors was once an icon of American capitalism, but is now an exemplar of outright government control of a major industry, something completely un-American. Someone alert Karl Marx—we have government ownership of the means of production.

The legendary GM President Charles “Engine Charlie” Wilson was famous for saying in 1953: “For years I thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.”

Today President Obama echoed those sentiments, ending his speech by saying that he hopes that once again what is good for General Motors will be good for the United States of America. We can only hope that he is wrong! — that somehow, what’s being done to GM will not spread to the rest of our country and its economy. That somehow, we will resist the inexorable pull of endless bailouts and government control if we are to restore the free market system that made our country great.
 
SOURCE

Little Engine That Could? Government's Role in GM Bears Resemblance to Amtrak Route
Some analysts say they are concerned that the federal government's effort to prop up the nation's largest auto manufacturer is eerily similar to a 40-year effort to revive the nation's ailing railroad system.


FOXNews.com

Monday, June 01, 2009

General Motors is trying to prove that it is the little engine that could. But the bankrupt automaker may never fully climb the mountain ahead of it, if Amtrak is any example.

Some analysts say the federal government's effort to prop up the nation's largest auto manufacturer is eerily similar to a 40-year effort to revive the nation's ailing railroad system. Billions of taxpayer dollars later, Amtrak still needs the government to survive -- and critics say General Motors appears to be headed down the same track.

"I see no hope whatsoever for the situation," said Wendell Cox, a policy consultant who sat on the government-appointed Amtrak Reform Council a decade ago and draws parallels to the GM intervention today.

The Obama administration is committing $50 billion to General Motors -- $30 billion on top of the $20 billion it has already invested. Administration officials will not speculate on when taxpayers may see a return on the White House-engineered investment, but they insist that Washington will cut off Detroit after that and will be a "passive" investor.

President Obama said Monday the U.S. government, which now owns 60 percent of GM, wants to prop up the company and then "get out" of the auto business. Under the restructuring plan, the Canadian government will take a 12.5 percent stake, and the United Auto Workers will have a 17.5 percent stake. Bondholders receive 10 percent.

Critics say this looks like Amtrak all over again.

Analysts said the government's hope of creating an efficient mass transit service through a partial nationalization of the rail system was stymied by its inability to get tough on unions and rein in labor costs. The same could hold true, they say, as the Obama administration deals with the UAW.

Amtrak has fielded criticism over the years for being guided by officials with little or no transit experience. Today, Obama's Auto Task Force has a combined experience of zero years in the auto industry.

With Amtrak, the government got too involved in decision-making, leading to inefficiencies in the system that would never be corrected, say analysts. Since its creation in 1970, Amtrak has sucked up $30 billion in taxpayer money, and the money is still flowing. The original aid package from Congress in 1970 was $340 million with an expectation the railroad would make a profit in five years.

The potential parallels are worth being concerned about, critics say.

"I think the $50 billion might as well be kissed goodbye. I would expect that this is just the beginning," Cox, principal at the Wendell Cox Consultancy, said of the GM deal.

"I think the long-term outcome will be the same," said Ronald Utt, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "It's unlikely to ever recover the huge investment that's been made in it, and you will then be carrying this forever and ever and ever. (The government has) been carrying Amtrak now for more than 35 years."

Conservatives in Washington treated Monday's announcement with a hefty dose of skepticism. They called for a clearly stated exit strategy and said GM's success is by no means assured.

"Does anyone really believe that politicians and bureaucrats in Washington can successfully steer a multinational corporation to economic viability?" House Minority Leader John Boehner said in a written statement.

Though the rhetorical question might sound like a recycled GOP talking point, the analysts who spoke to FOXNews.com say the fear is justified. The government will have a hard time resisting getting closely involved in GM management, leading to the kind of problems that dogged Amtrak over the decades.

Utt and Cox said parochial, political interests have driven Amtrak to make ineffective decisions -- like maintaining costly, long-distance lines and setting up inefficient routes that detour through low-population areas.

Amtrak has experienced a boost in ridership recently, which its management attributes in part to high gas prices and better service. Though it is still in the red, Amtrak reported a record 28.7 million passengers in fiscal year 2008, marking its sixth straight year of record ridership.

The company notes on its fact sheet that "no country in the world operates a passenger rail system" without public support.

At the same time, Amtrak reported earning $2.45 billion in fiscal year 2008, and racking up $3.38 billion in expenses. Congress last year committed another $13 billion over five years to the rail service, with proponents of the investment saying at the time that the service had been underfunded for too long and this would finally help "rebuild" Amtrak.

It's unclear whether that will happen. And it's unclear whether the Obama administration will be able to exit its budding relationship with GM as quickly and efficiently as it hopes.

Obama on Monday said the government would act as "reluctant shareholders" and has "no interest" in running GM -- though the U.S. federal government will name a majority of board members.

Obama said the proceedings, though painful for all stakeholders, would "mark the end of an old GM and the beginning of a new GM." He held up Chrysler's quick, month-long bankruptcy proceedings as evidence that such a restructuring can be accomplished and that his critics were "wrong."

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., issued a statement saying he has "every confidence" GM will emerge at the top of the global automotive sector.

With more plants and dealerships set to close and more jobs expected to be lost as a product of the bankruptcy proceedings, the auto workers also claims it has made sacrifices -- brushing off suggestions that it stands to reap benefits from bankruptcy.

"We gave Citgroup hundreds of billions of dollars and AIG hundreds of billions of dollars with no accountability," said Brian Fredline, president of the UAW's Local 602 chapter in Lansing, Mich.

With GM, "We know where that money's going. It's going to support American industry and American jobs, and that's how it will be spent. And if you want to get that taxpayer money back, buy a GM product. You'll like it."

FOXNews.com's Judson Berger and FOX News' Major Garrett contributed to this report.
 
When it comes right down to it..the GVTs just bought job security for a whole whack of people. Those directly and indirectly affected.

Beats letting GM falter into bankruptcy and being bought up piecemeal by some billionaires in the UAE or China, eh?

No. Let them live or die by their merits alone. The Constitution does not provide for a Corporate Ownership clause....for a reason.
 
picky picky...Can you imagine Madison or Jefferson wanting the feds to own General Buggy?
 
can you imagine how different they would have done things if they hadn't lived in an agrarian society with a vastly different economic apparatus than we have today???
 
Chrystler and GM are in bankruptcy protection despite the HUGE influx of cash..you think it would've been easier if the money hadn't come in??

dont know about easier, and dont care. i do know it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper on the taxpayers though
 
fuel economy standards

We're having a recession now, but we're fucking the Arabs up pretty good too. If we can keep our demand for oil very low, it's going to crush them. Then they'll just be a bunch of towelheads sitting in the desert, and you know who is gonna be laughing? america. fuck yeah.
 
Re: fuel economy standards

We're having a recession now, but we're fucking the Arabs up pretty good too. If we can keep our demand for oil very low, it's going to crush them. Then they'll just be a bunch of towelheads sitting in the desert, and you know who is gonna be laughing? america. fuck yeah.

The ones laughing will be India and China as the supply that used to go to America is redirected to their burgeoning economies.
 
Re: fuel economy standards

The ones laughing will be India and China as the supply that used to go to America is redirected to their burgeoning economies.

yeah until we throw some pretty heavy tarriffs on them biatches, so they can't export to the USA and we can show them who the president of the world is!
 
dont know about easier, and dont care. i do know it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper on the taxpayers though
I'm sure the taxpayers will get dividends once the new GM comes back...not to mention taxes paid by all those still-employed workers.
 
Back
Top