Romney: White House Calling The Shots At GM

by Paul Niedermeyer

Published: February 24th, 2010

romney white house calling the shots at gm

Presidential campaigns always start with books, and Mitt Romney’s ‘No Apology’ is rolling off the presses. For a guy who unapologetically strapped his dog (in a carrier) on the roof of the Family Truckster, that seems a fitting enough title. But the White House is asking for one; well, not exactly an apology, but it is firmly denying that it is “calling the shots” at GM. According to a Detroit News story, “Romney writes that that an unnamed CEO of an automotive industry corporation told him that despite what is said publicly, ‘the government is calling the shots on every major decision at GM, including which plants to expand and which to close.'” Romney also calls on the government to distribute its GM shares directly to the American people.

Romney’s assistant, Eric Fehrnstrom explains:

“There’s ample evidence that the government is calling the shots at GM, from the Obama administration orchestrating the selection of a new CEO to Rep. Barney Frank pressuring GM to keep open a facility slated for closure. The real issue is that government ought to get out of the auto business and distribute its shares to taxpayers.”

To which the White House responds:

“President Obama took difficult and politically unpopular steps to give the American auto companies a second lease on life and save tens of thousands of American jobs — and today these companies are emerging stronger than ever.

“While the president will continue to monitor the taxpayers’ investment in these companies, he has enough on his plate to have no interest in running them. We don’t, nor have we ever, run the day-to-day operations of GM. Decisions and management are handled by the company alone.”

GM also denied Romney’s claims: “We are free to make the business decisions to restore GM to profitability. We’re making progress, and we are confident we have a bright future.

Romney, son of former AMC Chairman George Romney, paints an (unsurprising) theme regarding Detroit’s fortunes, past and future:

Romney calls the “decline of the industry and of the great state of Michigan painful to watch.” He adds that restructuring and getting Washington politicians out of “the management of the companies” will lead to a turnaround.

“There is every reason why we ought to be able to reclaim our leadership in the national and international auto market,” writes Romney.

Through such steps as the company shedding “excessive retiree burdens” and investing in technologies, and the federal government setting a “predictable” energy policy, “the American automobile industry would vigorously rebound, and many of thousands of jobs would be preserved and, over time, more thousands would be added.”

Romney opposed the federal “bail-out” of 2008, favoring a managed bankruptcy which the Obama administration eventually undertook. Romney: “The managed bankruptcy that I proposed ultimately occurred,” Romney writes, “but only after tens of billions of taxpayer money had been wasted, and only after sweetheart deals and paybacks for favored interest groups had been engineered with the public’s money.”Only one question to Mitt: why isn’t he calling for a distribution of the government’s Chrysler shares? Seems like he knows a dog when he sees it, and knows how to get it out of sight.

Paul Niedermeyer

More by Paul Niedermeyer

Comments

Join the conversation

3 of 35 comments

Maverick on Feb 24, 2010

Romney is a douche of the highest order. Anything to pander to the base, eh? Even if it is true that the White House is calling the shots--which I highly doubt--at least GM has got it together for the first time in decades. Might even have the possibility to be a great company once again. Chrysler? That is another story. No one can help that company and it never should have been saved.

Like Reply
- Daanii2 on Feb 24, 2010
  
  "GM has got it together for the first time in decades." In what sense? Despite the shot to the vein of government money that GM is still feeling, the company is bleeding red ink and a corporate basket case.
  
  Like
Geeber on Feb 25, 2010
tedward: a)First of all, a few hundred spies isn’t/wasn’t unusual, I’d bet any amount of money that China has at least as extensive a network as Russia did during the cold war. For that time, it WAS unusual, and several people who should have known better preferred to pretend that the espionage didn't exist. And I'm willing to bet that China's network isn't as effective because we are more vigilant...thanks to the foundation of national security created by people who were condemned as anti-communist nutcases back in the day. tedward: Also, I have never seen any serious discussion of the matter that didn’t include the caveats of we don’t actually know who most of these people are, if there were that many in the first place (the duplicate issue), or whether the covernames all indicated active spies (maybe prospects, wiretaps, etc…). A retired Soviet intelligence/military official wrote a book and confirmed the accuracy of what was in the Venona files. The title escapes me at the moment. tedward: To make my original point again, McCarthy wasn’t particularly effective at doing more than terrorizing American citizens for political gain, the real work went on within our intelligence/enforcement agencies, and McCarthy wasn’t a fool, he undoubtedly knew that. The point isn't whether he was effective. The point is whether there really were communist spies within the American government and military. Senator McCarthy was ridiculed on the grounds that the "communist threat" existed largely in his imagination. The accusation was that he went hunting for "reds" and only found a "pink dentist." They ridiculed him for denouncing a threat that, in their minds, had NEVER existed. These were people who insisted that Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were innocent (and we now know that they were guilty, too). The Communist threat was real, and they had infilitrated several sensitive U.S. agencies in the 1940s and early 1950s. The Venona files confirm this. Fortunately for us, the Truman and Eisenhower administrations had taken the appropriate actions to remove these people. McCarthy was about three years too late. tedward: tanking? What, is he down in the 30’s? He’s not campaigning, while dealing with a brutalized job market, and he holding on without launching an internation incident. His popularity has been sliding dramatically - ESPECIALLY among independents. And independents are the ones who put him into office (there aren't enough liberal Democrats to elect a president, just as there aren't enough conservative Republicans to elect one). ALL presidents are rated for their job performance while in office. Whether he is campaigining is irrelevant. He is on the news every night. He didn't disappear from the public view after January 20, 2009. Implying that we can't rate his popularity because he is hard at work instead of campaigning is disingenuous at best. As for the brutal job market - I understand that he inherited a bad situation. On the other hand, he pushed through a bloated stimulus package with the the dire threat that unemployment would reach a certain percentage point if Congress didn't pass it. It did pass, and the unemployment figures are HIGHER than what he said they would be if the stimulus bill was passed. That is his fault for overpromising, plain and simple, unless Karl Rove was using his evil mind rays to make the president say things he really didn't mean. tedward: Not bad, he’s also more able than any other politician I can think of at clear explanation, and that will go a long way when he does start his campaign. Sorry, but I work in the Pennsylvania General Assembly, and not too much that I've seen from President Obama so far impresses me. He is someone who came too far too fast, and bolstered a wafer-thin resume with good looks, hype and the excitement of electing the first African-American president. I've seen 'em come and seen 'em go...sooner or later, politicians have to prove whether there is substance underneath the style. So far, President Obama is the Mustang II of politicians. I didn't always like President Clinton, but he knew how to roll with the punches while throwing a few of his own. For that matter, he's no Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell, who I really can't stand, but who has managed to get his way many times with a General Assembly that was firmly in the control of the Republicans during his first term, and then was divided (Republican Senate, Democratic House of Representatives) during most of his second termm. tedward: Also, it is true that very few trust the current Republican leadership, so he gets a huge leg-up once the debate is back to character judgement and “trust”. The only problem with that theory is it has been put to the test in three states - New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusettes. In each respective election, the voters decisively elected the candidate NOT endorsed by the president. Apparently they don't trust the president where it counts - when entering the voting booth. Or, they ignore him. tedward: The “got nothing done” thing is ridiculous, and is really just a key part of the meme that Republican politicans were trying to create when they decided to go all-in on blocking health care, it may work, but probably not when his future campaign starts spinning that to his own advantage (the inevitable obstructionism/love insurance companies double smear is obviously coming). Except that, as I've noted in my previous post, the Democrats control Congress AND the White House. Republican opposition to the stimulus package didn't prevent it from passing... tedward: Did you miss the last election, or perhaps, most glaringly, the health care question session? That health care thing was handled poorly by the Republican leadership, as they should never have let their lightweights anywhere near that man and a camera. A mistake that they quickly remedied I might add. If you are talking about the 2008 presidential election, that campaign is over...what the Republicans said then is irrelevant. John McCain is just another senator once again. People don't remember and don't care. It is no longer relevant. tedward: And what modern government doesn’t meddle? Our’s certainly has through every congress/president match-up I can recall. Please explain when, prior to now, the federal government has: 1. Pressured an automobile company to fire a CEO. 2. Told an automobile company to eliminate divisions. Did the government tell Chrysler to can DeSoto in 1961, or Plymouth in 2001? Was it government pressure that led to the closure of Oldsmobile in 2004? 3. Forced a company to reverse a decision on a factory closure. The federal government regulates the automobile industry, but it does that on an industry-wide basis. The same regulations that apply to Toyota apply to GM and Ford. That is not the same as "meddling" in the affairs of a company. As I said, the first two examples were the correct actions to take. So, either the president reads The Truth About Cars, or what we've been saying here is just plain common sense. The only problem with government actions is that, just like the old slogan for a certain brand of potato chip, it's hard to stop after just one (or two). If the Cruze flops, for example, will GM get more money from the government? Or will the federal govermment suddenly need a fleet of 20,000 brand-new Cruzes as department vehicles? tedward: You must not know much about Senate procedure if you need to ask why votes are succefully blocked. The Democrats are in charge, and the rebellion has largely occurred WITHIN THEIR OWN PARTY. Blaming Republicans may comfort the faithful, much like GM fanboys blame Consumer Reports for the woes of the domestic car industry, but doesn't hold water with those of us who understand how legislatures work. The effort to win votes has relied largely on bribing key legislators with various provisions favorable to their states (but not necessarily for other states). The public backlash has been against that effort, NOT against Republican obstructionism. President Obama said he was against that sort of thing (and against backroom deals, and for more media access, etc.). His compliance with "business as usual" is what is hurting him, not those mean things Republicans are doing. He ends up looking like a guardian of the (increasingly discredited) old way of doing things, but still ineffective at the same time. The worst of both worlds...

Like Reply