About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Politico disappears Bush from GM bailout history

June 08, 2009 6:19 pm ET

SUMMARY: A Politico article quoted Republican criticism of President Obama's "decision to pour about $50 billion" into GM but did not note that $13.4 billion of those funds were authorized by the Bush administration.

12 Comments

In a June 8 article headlined, "Republicans hope General Motors is President Obama's Hurricane Katrina," the Politico reported that the "GOP sees President Barack Obama's decision to help the unpopular carmaker as an easy opportunity to paint him as a bailout-happy, deficit-drunk spendthrift." However, the Politico did not also report that former President Bush also made a decision to assist GM. The article stated, "The Republicans are linking the decision to pour about $50 billion into 'Government Motors' to the new administration's energy, health care and housing plans -- all of which, they argue, will result in higher costs for consumers and bigger national deficits." In fact, the Obama administration did not commit all of the $50 billion in aid to GM; Bush pledged $13.4 billion in assistance to GM in December.

On June 1, the Obama administration announced a plan that will "provide approximately $30.1 billion of financing to support GM through an expedited chapter 11 proceeding." Bloomberg News reported on June 1 that "[b]efore declaring bankruptcy, GM received $20.57 billion in U.S. Treasury loans, according to the court filing today. Administration officials said yesterday the government would advance $30 billion more, with another $9.5 billion from the Canadian government." Among the $20 billion of existing loans are funds that were authorized by the Bush administration, a fact ignored by Politico. On December 19, 2008, Bush announced that GM would receive $13.4 billion in loans from the Troubled Asset Relief Program fund and gave GM and Chrysler until March 31 to demonstrate viability or repay the loans. The Wall Street Journal reported on December 20, 2008:

The auto agreement provides the government with nonvoting stock warrants in GM and Chrysler, adding those ownership stakes to the government's rapidly expanding portfolio that includes much of the American banking industry, American International Group Inc., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[...]

In essence, Mr. Bush's plan lets the auto companies survive through March. He leaves it to the Obama administration to decide many tough questions after that. Obama officials must wrestle with how much in wage and benefit concessions to demand from the United Auto Workers union, which strongly backed Mr. Obama's campaign and helped him carry Michigan over Republican rival John McCain; how to wring savings from the companies' politically powerful dealerships; and what concessions can be squeezed from debt holders, suppliers and other groups.

ProPublica provides a list of the loans the government has pledged to GM to date, totaling approximately $50 billion. In addition to the $13.4 billion bridge loan, the Bush administration provided GM with $884 million to increase its equity share in GMAC.

Prior to GM's June 1 bankruptcy filing, the company also received $2 billion from the Treasury Department on April 22 and $4 billion on May 20, in addition to a $360.6 million loan granted on May 27 to guarantee warrantees during bankruptcy.

From the June 8 Politico article:

General Motors hopes that bankruptcy will make the struggling automaker stronger and more competitive.

Republicans are hoping it will do the same for them.

The GOP sees President Barack Obama's decision to help the unpopular carmaker as an easy opportunity to paint him as a bailout-happy, deficit-drunk spendthrift eager to impose a heavy government hand on a swath of industries.

The Republicans are linking the decision to pour about $50 billion into "Government Motors" to the new administration's energy, health care and housing plans -- all of which, they argue, will result in higher costs for consumers and bigger national deficits. Even the war spending bill now pending in Congress, they say, amounts to a "global bailout" for the International Monetary Fund.

"The pattern here is pretty clear," House Minority leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday. "Every time the president makes a so-called tough decision, it's the American middle class that gets hit the hardest."

Obama defends his administration as a reluctant and stern savior of an industry that's vital to the American economy.

"I refused to kick the can down the road," Obama said when he announced the bankruptcy details. "If GM and Chrysler and their stakeholders were willing to sacrifice for their companies' survival and success; if they were willing to take the difficult but necessary steps to restructure and make themselves stronger, leaner and more competitive, then the United States government would stand behind them."

But Republicans see in GM a chance for their party to come out with a unified message -- a confidence grounded in the conservative belief that government involvement in private industry always spells disaster. And GM's long history of financial problems -- even in more prosperous times -- also makes Republicans see the company as a big albatross around Obama's neck.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by southerngal (June 08, 2009 6:52 pm ET)
        3
      Obama, Bush, both of them are only illustrating government's ineptitude in this bailout nonsense. Funny, Ford is the only one who hasn't declared bankruptcy, and we didn't give them a dime, while GM and Chrysler have our money and they are the two we bailed out. Ridiculous. More reasons why throwing government money at a problem only makes it worse.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by seahawks123 (June 08, 2009 7:44 pm ET)
        3  
        Letting them fail would be worse. Please take your false equivalency somewhere else where it might actually work on less adept readers.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by my4cents (June 08, 2009 10:01 pm ET)
             
          "Letting them fail would be worse."
          How?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 09, 2009 3:28 pm ET)
               
            Uh... tens of thousands MORE woudl be out of work, thus pulling the economy down even farther, and hampering recovery. You know that whole JOBS thing?

            (Or are you one more of those people who think money falls from the sky magically to anyone who simply WOKRS for it? WRONG! Econ 101, and I'll try to use small words: You make money by selling goods & services. This can only happen if people are BUYING goods and services. That only happen when they have INCOME (IOW - a JOB.) See how that works? Now go study, or you fail!
            Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (June 09, 2009 1:50 pm ET)
             
          OBYGB,

          In case you haven't heard - both Chrysler and GM failed.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (June 09, 2009 1:52 pm ET)
               
            OBYG,

            My apologies for getting your initials wrong above.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 09, 2009 3:32 pm ET)
            1  
            Funny, I hadn't heard that, and I work in the Auto Industry. Last I heard, Chrysler was just about out of bankrupcy (save for a few shortsighted bondholder holdouts) and GM's prospects were looking pretty good. Ford didn't want the hassle, had had other options. Can't say I blame them, and more power to them. (Though after this bakrupcy, Chrysler and GM may have beeter contracts and cleaner balance sheets - most of Fords 'options' came from MASSIVE debt.)

            But if you don't know the difference between the various chanpter of bankrupcy, you really should learn what you're talking about before, talking about it.

            Both Co's will be aorund for YEARS to come. Bet the farm on it.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (June 08, 2009 7:59 pm ET)
        3  
        "More reasons why throwing government money at a problem only makes it worse. "

        Yep.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 09, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
             
          LOL! They're always RIGHT, but always for the wrong reasons!!!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by sluggo (June 09, 2009 1:00 pm ET)
           
        "More reasons why throwing government money at a problem only makes it worse."

        Government Money = Internet = Bad
        You are so right!!

        Government Money = Basic Scientific Research = Computers = Bad
        Another illustration of your insightful point!!

        Government Money = Basic Medical Research = DNA/Stem Cells/Life = Bad
        Yet again, your basic point is proven!!!

        How have we overlooked your intelligence all this time????

        Report Abuse
    • Author by tjmccool2284 (June 08, 2009 10:13 pm ET)
         
      It's Politico, they hire English majors not accountants. At least that's their excuse. If they hired history majors, they might have gotten it right.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.