“Obama *did* ‘let Detroit go bankrupt’”

by Walter Olson on September 10, 2012

Good Tim Carney column on the Dems’ absurd posturing in Charlotte on the auto rescue. “Here’s the truth: what Romney proposed for Detroit was more or less what Obama did.” (For extra credit, observe the parallel with some GOPers’ insistence that RomneyCare was utterly dissimilar to ObamaCare in every respect.) More: National Review; Reuters on the Chevy Volt.

Related: Romney’s ridiculous “jobs I’ll create” commercials [Ira Stoll]

{ 5 comments }

1 Scott Jacobs 09.10.12 at 7:33 am

It wasn’t in any way “more or less what Obama did”.

Romney’s method would have involved us sinking billions and billions into companies to save Unions…

2 Ron Miller 09.10.12 at 12:13 pm

I’m not expert on this. But Romney is saying he would have done it very different. Obama agrees that he would have done it very differently. Romney is saying they should have pushed more for private help instead of offering as much public assistance as they can.

To me, Romney is saying let them go into bankruptcy and hope it all works out. Heck, we might even help you a bit. Obama is saying go into bankruptcy and we are going to hold you hand the whole way and make darn sure we protect this industry. Which one is the smarter approach? People will argue this forever. But I would let these guys agree to disagree.

3 mojo 09.10.12 at 2:13 pm

WashExam is broke:
[message:protected] => Unknown MySQL server host ‘vip.washingtonexaminer.com’ (2)

4 Walter Olson 09.10.12 at 3:54 pm

Washington Examiner is up now. A great many sites were down earlier in the day due to a multi-domain attack.

5 wfjag 09.10.12 at 6:40 pm

@Scott Jacobs:
“It wasn’t in any way ‘more or less what Obama did’.

Romney’s method would have involved us sinking billions and billions into companies to save Unions…”

Scott, my appreciation of the major difference is that Romney would have used the existing bankruptcy laws and interest holders rights approach — so that the bond holders and people like the Delphi Corp pensions (the pensioners of which were mainly non-Union) — would have been better protected, and the UAW would have been forced to re-negotiate. So, while $Billions would have been sunk into companies, the Unions wouldn’t have had the favored position that resulted from the Obama/Dem bailout.

If you have a cite supporting your contention, I’d appreciate it since my impression is based on admittedly partisan sites analyses, and while that’s what I have, the truth may lie elsewhere.

.

Comments on this entry are closed.