Anyone care to see where the attacks against General Motors are originating from? And why? [View all]

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/rush-is-wrong-about-general-motors



Rush is wrong (about General Motors)

Limbaugh blasts GM for trying to sell the Chevrolet Volt in China, but his central premise (based on a New York Times story, no less) may be wrong.

Thu, Sep 29 2011 at 6:19 PM EST

<snip>Limbaugh is no fan of the federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, though the Big Three would be the Big One (Ford) without it, and the economic impact on the U.S. economy would be incalculable. Rush is beside himself because taxpayer-subsidized GM is trying to sell the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid in China. I think that’s a great idea, considering our enormous trade deficit. That’s the reversal of what we’ve seen so far — American tax credits going to support cars like the made-in-Japan Nissan Leaf (Nissan’s American factory doesn’t open until next year).

The central premise of Rush's rant — that GM will give away the secrets to the Volt in exchange for lucrative Chinese subsidies — is definitely incorrect, but that's just the beginning. Here are a number of areas where I think Rush is wrong (and one place where he has half a point):

•No automaker can ignore China. Not only has the Chinese auto market surpassed that of the U.S., but General Motors sells more cars there than here. The Chinese bought 2.35 million GM vehicles last year. The Chinese market grew 45 percent just between 2008 and 2010, and its sales of 13.6 million in 2009 eclipsed the 10.4 million sold in the U.S. I mentioned GM to a Chinese friend, and she looked blank until I said the word “Buick.” Then she was excited. “Everybody loves Buick in China,” she said. Without Chinese sales, Buick would have gone the way of Pontiac and Saturn. Is it necessary to explain to Limbaugh that the auto industry is international these days, and no car company sells only to domestic buyers?

•GM is in payback mode. Here’s Limbaugh: “Professional subsidy-sucking General Motors, which seems content to marinate in its taxpayer ‘investment’ indefinitely, is getting ambitious. No, not in the sense of paying back the $50 billion U.S. government bailout…” But as Reuters wrote in 2010, “GM completed the repayment of its loans from the U.S. and Canadian governments by paying the outstanding balances of $4.7 billion and $1.1 billion respectively.” Now I know it’s more complicated than that sentence suggests. GM paid back the relatively small direct loan, but it’s still Government Motors because we took a 60.8 percent stake in the company; that will be paid back when the company goes public (again). GM is motivated to get the government off its back. There’s a reason candidates, especially Mitt Romney, are backpedaling on their opposition to the government investment: because this was a successful bailout. Both GM and Chrysler are recovering, selling cars again, and supporting a vast network of suppliers that would have gone belly-up otherwise.

--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-rush-freaks-20120112,0,16119.story

Limbaugh freaks as Romney lays claim to Obama's bailout

By David Horsey

January 12, 2012, 5:42 p.m.

Rush Limbaugh is freaked out by Mitt Romney giving backhanded praise to President Obama for saving the American auto industry.

This week, in an interview on CBS, Romney defended himself against critics of his work at Bain Capital by equating what he did as a corporate restructuring specialist with Obama’s temporary takeover of General Motors and Chrysler in 2009. “In the general election,” Romney said, “I’ll be pointing out that the president took the reins at General Motors and Chrysler – closed factories, closed dealerships, laid off thousands and thousands of workers – he did it to try to save the business.”

Limbaugh has gotten his voluminous knickers in a twist because Romney is essentially acknowledging that what Obama did was a good thing. Limbaugh and his legion of cranky followers believe Obama’s action was a frightening display of big government socialism aimed at preserving union pensions and union jobs. To them, Romney’s words are capitulation, if not treason.

In fact, the Republican front-runner’s comments amount to something else: another huge flip-flop. In a New York Times op-ed piece in 2008, Romney wrote, “If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye."