Treasury: GM "Payback" Claims Not Misleading

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

In response to Senator Chuck Grassley’s concern that GM’s claim to have paid back taxpayer loans was misleading, the US Treasury is now saying that it has no problem with The General’s statements. According to the Freep, a Treasury letter to Grassley explains that:

GM’s decision to pay off the loan signaled the automaker did not face “extraordinary expenses,” and that Treasury approved the loan payoff.

“The fact that GM made the determination and repaid the remaining $4.7 billion to the U.S. government now is good news for the company, our investment and the American people,” said Herbert Allison, assistant Treasury secretary for financial stability.

Strictly speaking, GM’s claim to have paid back all US Government loans is correct. The only issue is that GM’s ad touting the payback makes no reference to the fact that it still owes the Treasury upwards of $40b. If that misleads folks, well, apparently the Treasury Department isn’t going to do anything about it.

And why would they? The better GM does, the better it looks like Treasury has managed the bailout, and GM’s success is undoubtedly tied to its ability to convince Americans that it doesn’t owe them anything, even if it does. The problem for both GM and the White House is that even former GM “ambassadors” are lining up to knock this misleading softball out of the park… and fan the flames of anti-GM sentiment in the process. All of which just increases the likelihood that taxpayers won’t ever be paid back in full.

Wouldn’t it be easier if some high-profile administration official simply acknowledged that GM has along ways to go? Or what about if GM didn’t try to score PR brownie points off this money-shuffle in the first place? At this point the auto bailout can’t be un-done, but it can still be made even more pointless by whipping up opposition with these Treasury-backed half-truths. After all, if you owe someone money but can’t pay them back, the least you could do is be honest about it.


Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
6 of 64 comments
  • FleetofWheel FleetofWheel on Apr 29, 2010

    GM is just posturing to get more loans. That's why they are pretending to have paid back the previous loans. In the car biz, this is what dealers to to underwater car buyers, roll over the underwater amount into the next car purchase.

  • Steven02 Steven02 on Apr 29, 2010

    Honestly, the claim isn't misleading. GM stated they have paid pack the loans. GM didn't state they have repaid the gov't everything that they were paid in. The rest of the money that is owed the gov't is in equity of the company. Whether the amount paid was too much, that is easily debatable. On the flip side, the money from the account that was used to pay the loan was going to go towards the loan anyway, if there was anything left in the account on June 30. http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2010/04/how-did-gm-pay-off-the-loans-early.html GM paying this pack lowers the liability that the Govt had in GM. That is a good thing for the American tax payer.

    • See 3 previous
    • Undrgnd40 Undrgnd40 on Apr 29, 2010

      i hope i didn't offend. i just responded because you had me thinking about the equity part of the deal rather than the loan part. and no matter what the truth is, now nobody believes them.

  • Redapple2 jeffbut they dont want to ... their pick up is 4th behind ford/ram, Toyota. GM has the Best engineers in the world. More truck profit than the other 3. Silverado + Sierra+ Tahoe + Yukon sales = 2x ford total @ $15,000 profit per. Tons o $ to invest in the BEST truck. No. They make crap. Garbage. Evil gm Vampire
  • Rishabh Ive actually seen the one unit you mentioned, driving around in gurugram once. And thats why i got curious to know more about how many they sold. Seems like i saw the only one!
  • Amy I owned this exact car from 16 until 19 (1990 to 1993) I miss this car immensely and am on the search to own it again, although it looks like my search may be in vane. It was affectionatly dubbed, " The Dragon Wagon," and hauled many a teenager around the city of Charlotte, NC. For me, it was dependable and trustworthy. I was able to do much of the maintenance myself until I was struck by lightning and a month later the battery exploded. My parents did have the entire electrical system redone and he was back to new. I hope to find one in the near future and make it my every day driver. I'm a dreamer.
  • Jeff Overall I prefer the 59 GM cars to the 58s because of less chrome but I have a new appreciation of the 58 Cadillac Eldorados after reading this series. I use to not like the 58 Eldorados but I now don't mind them. Overall I prefer the 55-57s GMs over most of the 58-60s GMs. For the most part I like the 61 GMs. Chryslers I like the 57 and 58s. Fords I liked the 55 thru 57s but the 58s and 59s not as much with the exception of Mercury which I for the most part like all those. As the 60s progressed the tail fins started to go away and the amount of chrome was reduced. More understated.
  • Theflyersfan Nissan could have the best auto lineup of any carmaker (they don't), but until they improve one major issue, the best cars out there won't matter. That is the dealership experience. Year after year in multiple customer service surveys from groups like JD Power and CR, Nissan frequency scrapes the bottom. Personally, I really like the never seen new Z, but after having several truly awful Nissan dealer experiences, my shadow will never darken a Nissan showroom. I'm painting with broad strokes here, but maybe it is so ingrained in their culture to try to take advantage of people who might not be savvy enough in the buying experience that they by default treat everyone like idiots and saps. All of this has to be frustrating to Nissan HQ as they are improving their lineup but their dealers drag them down.
Next