Skip to main content

Obama Lies About the Auto Bailout

Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post reports:

We take no view on whether the administration’s efforts on behalf of the automobile industry were a good or bad thing; that’s a matter for the editorial pages and eventually the historians. But we are interested in the facts the president cited to make his case.

What we found is one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have seen in a short presidential speech. Virtually every claim by the president regarding the auto industry needs an asterisk, just like the fine print in that too-good-to-be-true car loan.

Let’s look at the claims in the order in which the president said them.

“Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes American taxpayers for their support during my presidency — and it repaid that money six years ahead of schedule. And this week, we reached a deal to sell our remaining stake. That means soon, Chrysler will be 100 percent in private hands.”

Wow, “every dime and more” sounds like such a bargain. Not only did Chrysler pay back the loan, with interest — but the company paid back even more than they owed. Isn’t America great or what?

Not so fast. The president snuck in the weasel words “during my presidency” in his statement. What does that mean?

According to the White House, Obama is counting only the $8.5 billion loan that he made to Chrysler, not the $4 billion that President George W. Bush extended in his last month in office. However, Obama was not a disinterested observer at the time. According to The Washington Post article on the Bush loan, the incoming president called Bush’s action a “necessary step . . . to help avoid a collapse of our auto industry that would have had devastating consequences for our economy and our workers.”

Under the administration’s math, the U.S. government will receive $11.2 billion back from Chrysler, far more than the $8.5 billion Obama extended.

Through this sleight-of-hand accounting, the White House can conveniently ignore Bush’s loan, but even the Treasury Department admits that U.S. taxpayers will not recoup about $1.3 billion of the entire $12.5 billion investment when all is said and done.

Someone explain to me again why a supposedly "progressive" president is lying to justify a coerced (and illegal) loan to a wealthy, irresponsible corporation from hard working poor and middle class Americans?

Here's a fun fact about the Chrysler bailout: the purpose wasn't even to save jobs. Chrysler is owned by a multi-billion dollar private equity firm called Cerberus Capital Management. They could have arguably injected the necessary capital to tie Chrysler over until its profits improved. Poor and middle class Americans were illegally forced by Bush and Obama to make a loan to Chrysler so its ultimate owners wouldn't have to take a hit to their stocks and profits.

There's a word to describe this kind of corruption: evil.


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Popular posts from this blog

My 2011 Trip

Hey Patriots! Hope your New Year is off to a good start! I am multitasking my head off to prepare for a trip around the country of indefinite length and scope starting next week. I'll be headed for Colorado first where I'll investigate medical cannabis laws and their effects; then I'll be flying out to Washington DC for the month of February to attend CPAC and ISFLC; and after that I'll move north to New Hampshire to spend March hanging with members of the Free State Project and learning more about it. I'm not positive what's next after that, but I've got a general inkling, and it might involve venturing overseas to learn a little more about the broader world around us and relay everything I see to you readers here at The Humble Libertarian ! Wish me luck and keep your eye out for updates as I travel. Peace, Wes Wes Messamore , Editor in Chief, T H L Articles | Author's Page

I've Been an Outspoken Critic of Censoring Conservatives, But I'm Not Leaving Patreon Over Sargon of Akkad's Ridiculous Remarks

By: Wes Messamore The Humble Libertarian Photo: Gage Skidmore

Occupy Mordor or Destroy the Ring?

There has been mixed responses to Occupy Wall Street by libertarians. Some see the movement as a positive, while others see them as little more than lazy hipsters. But libertarians must be sensitive to why people feel the way they do about issues. The occupiers point out a legitimate concern that "the 1%" control vastly more power and wealth than "the 99%", and corporations have accumulated more power and privilege than is healthy for an open society. Some other concerns and demands are absurd, but the heart of the matter is on track. The question is why has this happened? While many on the left are quick to blame a nebulous thing called "greed", or lack of regulation, the matter is more complicated than that. This calls for a Lord of the Rings metaphor. Let's say that Sauron, the big cheese bad guy of Lord of the Rings, is the corporate hegemony. The 1%. Most people in Middle Earth agree that this is a problem, but there are a few differ...
–––As Featured On–––