The federal government — that’s you and me — still owns about one-third of General Motors, thanks to a premiere example of crony capitalism that bailed out a company unable to compete in the marketplace as it was structured. Now that GM has grabbed the taxpayer cash, the executives are perturbed. They don’t like the attention being paid to the deal and thus have banned both President Obama and Gov. Romney from touring GM plants during the campaign in hopes of diverting attention from the massive taxpayer bailout of the company.
“We would like to put all of our energy behind selling our cars and trucks,” said Bob Ferguson, GM’s vice president for global public policy. “It’s an understatement to say we can’t wait for November to get here.”
GM and experts say the company has been intentionally less visible in lobbying on some federal issues and is, in effect, taking cover until the election is over.
Memo to Mr. Ferguson: Your entitlement attitude is palpable to those of us who have paid to keep you afloat. And if you’re wondering how GM is really doing, here’s a good recap. And for those interested in more on crony capitalism — the kind that takes place right here in North Carolina, JLF’s Jon Sanders has put together a great resource.
........As you post your comment, please conform to Right Angles's simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. If you wouldn't say it to a co-worker in front of your boss, it probably is not civil and respectful. We will delete any comment that fails this test and issue a warning to the poster. A second offense will result in a ban on commenting on this site. In sum, disagreements, arguments even, are welcome; abusive behavior is not. Thanks.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
27
2012 At 10:29 am, geek49203 Said:
Donna –
Let’s think thru this, okay?
That GM is “Government Motors” to most of us is bad enough. When a politician who gave them money — or the guy who is likely to give them more money (they hope) after the election — campaigns, it is an implied endorsement. This is precisely the kind of grey area that one avoids when no gov’t money is taken, or when such visit are banned. IF I was a GM shareholder (which would be stupid) I certainly wouldn’t want to be seen as a supporter of Obama, with all of those whispers about “paybacks” and political-industrial cronyism.
Second, we live in an era when a company loses sales from one side or the other based on “endorsements.” Quite frankly, I don’t even consider Progressive Insurance due to their CEO’s activities, nor would I ever apply to companies (ie, Google) who are openly supportive of Obama/liberals/Dems. And we can see that companies are likewise penalized by those on the Left. So why would any right-thinking CEO allow their company to be dragged into this mess? Tell me — would you buy, say, a Ford if you thought that Ford was backing Obama?
Memo to Ms. Martinez — sometimes the knee-jerk response isn’t conservative, or even the right thing, to say?