Anti-bailout stance could hurt GOP in Mich.
Opposition of the GOP candidates to the auto bailout was not a factor in Tuesday's primary but could bite the party in the fight for the swing state of Michigan this fall.
Anti-bailout stance could hurt GOP in Mich.
Thomas Fitzgerald, Inquirer Politics Writer
NOVI, Mich. – As Michigan voters headed to the polls for the Republican primary Tuesday, President Obama touted his administration’s bailout of the Detroit auto industry, saying that he had “placed my bet on American workers” while his GOP challengers would have let General Motors and Chrysler go bankrupt.
It was a preview of an attack the president will press in the fall campaign – both in the traditional swing state of Michigan and throughout the industrial Midwest -- against Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum or whomever emerges as the Republican presidential nominee when the chaos of a primary season sorts itself out.
By most accounts, the domestic auto industry is rebounding three years after the bailout. Sales for the Big Three – GM, Chrysler and Ford – are projected to pass 14 million cars this year, up from last year’s 12.8 million. GM alone posted a record $7.6 billion profit in 2011.
Of course, it helped that the government wiped out company debt and made financing available for GM and Chrysler to retool. All the GOP candidates opposed the program as an unfair burden on taxpayers and a political payoff to the United Auto Workers, which received a chunk of GM stock. The government has not received back much of the $50 billion it loaned GM.
Yet supporters say without the support, much of the Midwest, filled with firms that supply the Big Three, would have plunged deeper into recession.
Romney, who grew up in the state, the son of an auto executive and popular governor, has drawn the most fire for opposing the bailout, since he wrote a blunt op-ed in 2008 that was published in the New York Times under the headline “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”
He argued the companies should have gone through the normal bankruptcy reorganization process.
While much discussed in the run-up to the GOP primary here, the bailout probably did little to hurt any of the candidates for the simple reason that they shared the same position and there was no sharp contrast to be made.
Overall, last week’s NBC/Marist poll showed that 63 percent of Michigan voters surveyed said the bailout was a good idea, while 28 percent said it was a rotten one. Among self-identified Republicans, though, the split was 50 percent to 41 percent against the bailout.
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, a Romney supporter, was at odds with his candidate.
“I'm not going to go armchair quarterback it,” Snyder said on ABCs This Week on Sunday. “I think there are alternative scenarios that could have worked also, but the point is, is that it's history, and the important part is it was successful, we're moving along, creating jobs.”
Dennis Anderson, sales manager for an adhesives company that supplies automakers, planned to vote for Romney and said that he too opposed the GM and Chrysler bailout.
“I know I’m biting off my own gravy train, but I wasn’t for them,” said Anderson, 56, who lives in the northwest suburbs of Detroit. “A lot of people got hurt, like retirees who invested in GM bonds.”
He said the auto industry, and Detroit, has “been taking a bad hit ever since I can remember and I’ve lived here my whole life.” Still Anderson added, “I don’t expect the government to take care of me. We are just spending way too much money – my kids are going to be hurting after I’m going paying off that (federal) debt.”
Comment removed.
"Eating our peas" to a Republican is tax cuts for the wealthy, free drugs for seniors and a war in Iraq that was going to pay for itself with oil revenues. Drill baby Drill! Who knew it was working class people they were looking to drill.— mick-of-the-moment- OK, is it me or does that last quote make no f-ing sense? If it's a real quote, it's pretty bad. If it's a auto-correct error it just reinforces the fact that blogs are poor news, and the money you saved in editor salaries you lose in credibility. Conscript a high school English major for chrise' sake.......— enabler1
- The GOP hated the bailouts but loved the polices that caused them. When it came time to put in regulations to stop it from happening again. They fought it tooth and nail.— Bush Destroyed America
- I love how all the investment bankers (whose schemes have destroyed the economy) cry for "retirees who invested in GM bonds." Of course, who put Granny in those bonds, which were junk level for years? Also, the bond funds would have been wiped out in bankruptcy since the lenders providing operating capital had first liens anyway. Absent the bailout, GM (like all legacy companies dealing with pensions that the Korean and Japanese companies coming in on sweetheart deals from Alabama don't have to pay) was not going to survive. If GM didn't survive, neither would all the dealers or suppliers to GM, a loss that would dwarf the loss of GM itself. That's why that bastion of Republicanism, GW Bush, refused to allow the collapse to occur on his watch and gave GM just enough to survive so it became Obama's problem. Well, he fixed it, avoided the depression that Bush left him and the crazed Right wing is up in arms (when they aren't flying birth certificates) that Obama can't restore land values to 2006 levels nor bring down the cost of oil. Consider the alternative, people. The lineal descendants of Herbert Hoover, pushing the identical policies that resulted in the depression, are at it again. Vote carefully in 2012.— Palestra Jon
- This comment has been deleted.— Phishface
- Comment removed.
- Two words- CHEVY VOLT. A COMPLETE FAILURE- as usual for liberals.— Keep The Change
- And Thomas- how about mixing in a salad occasionally?— Keep The Change
- Comment removed.
- Chevy Volt = liberal failure? That equation does not compute. Please explain the facts underlying your assertion. Are you claiming that everyone involved in the design and manufacture of this vehicle is liberal?
— philharmonic55 - Thomas if fatter than Christy- right Liberals? Since you are so obsessed with Gov Christy's weight?
Obama is a Liberal he touted the Chevy Volt last week- The Chevy Volt has failed = Liberal failure.— Keep The Change - Investment bankers didn't ruin the economy - idiots (Republican and Democrat) who forced banks to write mortgages for people who should never own the home they "bought" did.
Investment bankers were sold on these being good securities, backed by a real estate market that was humming along. Little did they know that the government was artificially boosting the market with bad loans.
Even when it became clear these were riskier investments, it was too late.
As for some of the car companies, they have cost the taxpayers billions dur to the stock-swap in which the federal government engaged. Right now, for all the boasting of jobs saved, etc., it cost taxpayers $73,000 per job saved.
Maybe that's a good investment, but since the government doesn't do that for every industry and business, it begs the question: why were the car companies so special?
It's pretty clear that the labor unions, which got cherry deals as part of the fed's car company bailouts, were a significant reason for the preferentail treatment. The Obama administration has done this also for the teachers' unions and the government employee unions with other stimulus (i.e. taxpayer)-funded bailouts.
It wasn't just about "saving jobs" - it was primarily about saving union jobs to pay back the unions for their continued support of the Democratic Party and President Obama.
The joke is that Obama's efforts have prolonged the effects of the recession, not improved things. Ford didn't take the bailouts that GM and Chrysler took, and yet they were able to survive and, in fact, thrive. The bailouts simply allowed GM, et. al. to avoid hav— Watching and Waiting - Investment bankers didn't ruin the economy - idiots (Republican and Democrat) who forced banks to write mortgages for people who should never own the home they "bought" did.Investment bankers were sold on these being good securities, backed by a real estate market that was humming along. Little did they know that the government was artificially boosting the market with bad loans.Even when it became clear these were riskier investments, it was too late.As for some of the car companies, they have cost the taxpayers billions dur to the stock-swap in which the federal government engaged. Right now, for all the boasting of jobs saved, etc., it cost taxpayers $73,000 per job saved.Maybe that's a good investment, but since the government doesn't do that for every industry and business, it begs the question: why were the car companies so special? It's pretty clear that the labor unions, which got cherry deals as part of the fed's car company bailouts, were a significant reason for the preferentail treatment. The Obama administration has done this also for the teachers' unions and the government employee unions with other stimulus (i.e. taxpayer)-funded bailouts. It wasn't just about "saving jobs" - it was primarily about saving union jobs to pay back the unions for their continued support of the Democratic Party and President Obama.The joke is that Obama's efforts have prolonged the effects of the recession, not improved things. Ford didn't take the bailouts that GM and Chrysler took, and yet they were able to survive and, in fact, thrive. The bailouts simply allowed GM, et. al. to avoid hav (HTML deleted)— Watching and Waiting
- Investment bankers didn't ruin the economy - idiots (Republican and Democrat) who forced banks to write mortgages for people who should never own the home they "bought" did.Investment bankers were sold on these being good securities, backed by a real estate market that was humming along. Little did they know that the government was artificially boosting the market with bad loans.Even when it became clear these were riskier investments, it was too late.As for some of the car companies, they have cost the taxpayers billions dur to the stock-swap in which the federal government engaged. Right now, for all the boasting of jobs saved, etc., it cost taxpayers $73,000 per job saved.Maybe that's a good investment, but since the government doesn't do that for every industry and business, it begs the question: why were the car companies so special? It's pretty clear that the labor unions, which got cherry deals as part of the fed's car company bailouts, were a significant reason for the preferentail treatment. The Obama administration has done this also for the teachers' unions and the government employee unions with other stimulus (i.e. taxpayer)-funded bailouts. It wasn't just about "saving jobs" - it was primarily about saving union jobs to pay back the unions for their continued support of the Democratic Party and President Obama.The joke is that Obama's efforts have prolonged the effects of the recession, not improved things. Ford didn't take the bailouts that GM and Chrysler took, and yet they were able to survive and, in fact, thrive. The bailouts simply allowed GM, et. al. to avoid hav (HTML deleted)— Watching and Waiting
You can reach Tom Fitzgerald at 215-854-2718 or tfitzgerald@phillynews.com.
Reach Thomas at tfitzgerald@phillynews.com.
