Bailout Watch 575: White House Predicts $30b Loss On Auto Bailout

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

In a NY Times Op-Ed a few weeks back, I laid into the Obama administration for allowing GM to pretend that its $6.7b planned payback is even in the ballpark of what it owes the taxpayers. “If tens of billions in lost tax dollars is simply the inescapable price of preventing a systemic economic collapse, the White House should tell us so,” I wrote. Well, it appears that the White House agrees. Sort of. In an interview with the Detroit News, Gene Sperling, the senior counsel to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner admitted

The real news is the projected loss [from the $82b+ auto sector bailout] came down to $30 billion from $44 billion

Well, halle-frickin-lujah. Now show us how we’re really going to get $50b out of GM and Chrysler.

Though Obama added a few rhetorical flourishes to highlight the “necessary sacrifices” angle to the auto bailout in a speech this week, the problem has never really been the governments. Don’t get it twisted, the White House’s admission was the right thing to do politically and morally, but the auto bailout is almost the least of its worries on the fiscal policy front. Indeed, the pure political implications of the bailout are likely to be minimal in comparison to the commercial implications. As I concluded in the NYT Op-Ed:

Afterward, while our government contemplates its runaway deficit and getting rid of its 8 percent of Chrysler’s equity, perhaps we’ll get an admission that General Motors still owes the American people. Without one, the relationship between the public and the automaker, and the Obama administration as well, may never be the same.

The relationship in real danger here isn’t the one between Obama and the American people. It’s the one between GM and Chrysler and the American people. Obama can always blame Bush or raise the “disorderly liquidation” counterfactual. For GM and Chrysler, outstanding debt is a lingering reminder of their unprecedented failure. In a brutally competitive industry, where firms will use a single MPG advantage to lay into rivals, a $30b outstanding welfare bill will follow the bailout babies like a dark cloud. Making good on every penny of their public support isn’t merely a question of political principle, it’s a matter of survival.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 25 comments
  • DetroitsaRiot DetroitsaRiot on Dec 13, 2009

    TARP funds weren't created from pixie dust. We are all paying, and will continue to pay the price for a dollar that has less and less value. This is the kind of mentality that is in place at the Big Three unfortunately (especially GM apparently). At least Ford didn't go on the dole as did GM and Chrysler.

  • Andy D Andy D on Dec 14, 2009

    The sad part is that I coulda run GM or Chrysler down the tubes for 1/2 the salary . It would have been a decent gig whilst I was getting back on my feet from being laid off by the phone company. Wanna buy a bridge?

  • Sobhuza Trooper That Dave Thomas fella sounds like the kind of twit who is oh-so-quick to tell us how easy and fun the bus is for any and all of your personal transportation needs. The time to get to and from the bus stop is never a concern. The time waiting for the bus is never a concern. The time waiting for a connection (if there is one) is never a concern. The weather is never a concern. Whatever you might be carrying or intend to purchase is never a concern. Nope, Boo Cars! Yeah Buses! Buses rule!Needless to say, these twits don't actual take the damn bus.
  • MaintenanceCosts Nobody here seems to acknowledge that there are multiple use cases for cars.Some people spend all their time driving all over the country and need every mile and minute of time savings. ICE cars are better for them right now.Some people only drive locally and fly when they travel. For them, there's probably a range number that works, and they don't really need more. For the uses for which we use our EV, that would be around 150 miles. The other thing about a low range requirement is it can make 120V charging viable. If you don't drive more than an average of about 40 miles/day, you can probably get enough electrons through a wall outlet. We spent over two years charging our Bolt only through 120V, while our house was getting rebuilt, and never had an issue.Those are extremes. There are all sorts of use cases in between, which probably represent the majority of drivers. For some users, what's needed is more range. But I think for most users, what's needed is better charging. Retrofit apartment garages like Tim's with 240V outlets at every spot. Install more L3 chargers in supermarket parking lots and alongside gas stations. Make chargers that work like Tesla Superchargers as ubiquitous as gas stations, and EV charging will not be an issue for most users.
  • MaintenanceCosts I don't have an opinion on whether any one plant unionizing is the right answer, but the employees sure need to have the right to organize. Unions or the credible threat of unionization are the only thing, history has proven, that can keep employers honest. Without it, we've seen over and over, the employers have complete power over the workers and feel free to exploit the workers however they see fit. (And don't tell me "oh, the workers can just leave" - in an oligopolistic industry, working conditions quickly converge, and there's not another employer right around the corner.)
  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh [h3]Wake me up when it is a 1989 635Csi with a M88/3[/h3]
  • BrandX "I can charge using the 240V outlets, sure, but it’s slow."No it's not. That's what all home chargers use - 240V.
Next