Quote Of The Day: Payback's A Bitch Edition

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

My commitment is to the American taxpayer. My commitment is to recover every single dime the American people are owed… We want our money back and we’re going to get it.

Without even getting into the politics of President Obama’s proposed “financial crisis responsibility fee,” it’s easy to see that the initiative holds a wealth of implications for America’s TARP-recipient automakers. In Obama’s new rhetoric, taking TARP money put businesses in a new category of special obligation to the taxpayers. Though the fee is targeted at financial institutions, the principle applies just as much to Detroit.

Banks owe the government about $60b in TARP money, while GM and Chrysler owe about $50b. Unlike the financial institutions though, it’s clear that GM and Chrysler will never be able to pay back their full obligation to the taxpayers. This has Wall Street types in a fury, accusing the White House of forcing them to subsidize Detroit.

The real irony in all this isn’t that successful banks will be penalized while failing Detroit gets a pass. That makes perfect sense, because as Rep Barney Frank puts it “getting money from these banks is a good way to expand government revenue without expanding the deficit.” There’s no such money to be had from GM and Chrysler.

The real irony is that the bank bailout allegedly took place because nobody understood the real nature of the crisis, shrouded as it was in the opacity of financial industry jargon. Now that the moment of crisis is over, the banks are back to making money, while the automakers are still dreaming of that first post-bankruptcy profit. Which one turned out to be the more difficult, complex industry?

If you don’t want banks making risky bets you can tie “fees” to their leverage ratios. But how do you legislate your way to a successful automaker?


Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 31 comments
  • TonyJZX TonyJZX on Jan 15, 2010

    good point the CEOs, merchant bankers and other leeches will always get their cut

  • VanillaDude VanillaDude on Jan 15, 2010
    What makes this leverage powerful is not an appeal to class warfare however, it is the fact that incompetent risk management and short sighted lobbying efforts (and the aquiescence of one very self interested political party) on the part of our financial institutions have led us into this mess in the first place. This tax goes against all banks. Even the ones who played by the rules and didn't take risks. It will increase the costs of banks, both good and bad. It paints all banks and banking institutions as bad. It takes the sins of the few, and forced everyone to pay for those sins. And the financial lobbyists gave over 70% of their political financial support to Democrats. The old "Monopoly Banker" GOP guy has been long gone and only exists in pop myths. Wall Street supports Obama. This political move by Obama innoculates him from any charges that exposes him to the deal making he did in 2008 and last year. And by your comments it sounds like Obama has reasons to believe he can play this game and win.
    • Tedward Tedward on Jan 16, 2010

      VanillaDude Well, I'm not sure if you read my posts thoroughly. First of all, the tax applies to the biggest financial institutions, those that a. can afford it without necessarily having to pass the buck on and b. have all benefited substantially from the expenditure of bailout funds (whether or not they received any they breath easier today (or at all) because of it). Not all banks, not by any reasonable standard. They all made more money, one way or another, on this deal than they will ever pay out, especially once they are done trading in their own leverage. Think of this as similar to Lahood's embracing the pay-per-mile scheme as the boogeyman to everyone else's (all of sudden quite reasonable sounding) gas tax hike. I specifically noted that many Democrats will milk this for campaign funds, while never having any intention of voting for it, and also noted that Obama is only willing to go all out on this (speech at least) because of his legal and political obligations to Congress. They, in effect, mandated his full and public support of some sort of tax levy, and he is delivering. Re: financial lobbyist's donation tendencies in the last election. When, in recent politics, has there been a more clear cut landslide in the making? The financial lobbyists always, ALWAYS, donate to the likely winner. The amount they donate to a clear loser is only enough to ensure they don't wean those politicians off of the fundraising teat or make real enemies. Everyone knows this. The dig at Republican politicians was, I thought, well deserved and lacking in the usual political hyperbole. They did trade votes for donations on a grand scale, and they did so in a transparent and immediate (most importantly) fashion. It was shameful and obvious. That is why Obama is in any kind of position to begin trading shots with the banks. I'm hardly drinking any kool-aid in acknowledging this.

  • MaintenanceCosts I wish more vehicles in our market would be at or under 70" wide. Narrowness makes everything easier in the city.
  • El scotto They should be supping with a very, very long spoon.
  • El scotto [list=1][*]Please make an EV that's not butt-ugly. Not Jaguar gorgeous but Buick handsome will do.[/*][*] For all the golf cart dudes: A Tesla S in Plaid mode will be the fastest ride you'll ever take.[/*][*]We have actual EV owners posting on here. Just calmly stated facts and real world experience. This always seems to bring out those who would argue math.[/*][/list=1]For some people an EV will never do, too far out in the country, taking trips where an EV will need recharged, etc. If you own a home and can charge overnight an EV makes perfect sense. You're refueling while you're sleeping.My condo association is allowing owners to install chargers. You have to pay all of the owners of the parking spaces the new electric service will cross. Suggested fee is 100$ and the one getting a charger pays all the legal and filing fees. I held out for a bottle of 30 year old single malt.Perhaps high end apartments will feature reserved parking spaces with chargers in the future. Until then non home owners are relying on public charge and one of my neighbors is in IT and he charges at work. It's call a perk.I don't see company owned delivery vehicles that are EV's. The USPS and the smiley boxes should be the 1st to do this. Nor are any of our mega car dealerships doing this and but of course advertising this fact.I think a great many of the EV haters haven't came to the self-actualization that no one really cares what you drive. I can respect and appreciate what you drive but if I was pushed to answer, no I really don't care what you drive. Before everyone goes into umbrage over my last sentence, I still like cars. Especially yours.I have heated tiles in my bathroom and my kitchen. The two places you're most likely to be barefoot. An EV may fall into to the one less thing to mess with for many people.Macallan for those who were wondering.
  • EBFlex The way things look in the next 5-10 years no. There are no breakthroughs in battery technology coming, the charging infrastructure is essentially nonexistent, and the price of entry is still way too high.As soon as an EV can meet the bar set by ICE in range, refueling times, and price it will take off.
  • Jalop1991 Way to bury the lead. "Toyota to offer two EVs in the states"!
Next