Government Motors

Lately more and more people have been referring to GM as “Government Motors.” This is not surprising in light of the significant government involvement in the management and future of GM. President Obama has made various announcements and decisions, and the Supreme Court has been forced to rule on various aspects of the bailout and bankruptcy.

One columnist noticed that the president used the first-person singular pronoun “I” 34 times in one of his announcements about GM and never used the word “law.” It is that last point that has some members of Congress upset. After all, how can the president point to the law when the law does not permit the federal government to do what it is doing?

Let’s go back to the original TARP legislation. There is nothing in the Troubled Asset Relief Program that authorizes the bailout (much less the nationalization of an automaker). The Bush administration used TARP money to make loans to GM and Chrysler even after Congress failed to pass the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act. Think about this for a moment. Congress was given the opportunity to specifically allocate funds to GM and Chrysler, and it rejected the proposal. But the president went ahead and took money from TARP and gave it to the automakers.

At a recent press conference, a number of Republican senators stated that when they voted for TARP, they did not envision that the money would be used to buy up car companies. They feel like the previous Treasury Secretary (Hank Paulson) received a blank check. DeMint says: “No one knew how the money was to be spent. We gave the Treasury department a $100 billion line of credit forever.” Senator Jeff Sessions believes actions by the Bush administration and especially the current actions by the Obama administration are “illegal” and “extra-constitutional.”

These senators (as well as other members of Congress) declare that no Senate or House vote authorized the Treasury’s action to effectively force taxpayers to purchase 60 percent ownership in GM. They are asking, “Where is the constitutional authority for this?”

That’s a good question. Time will tell whether these questions gain momentum or are merely shoved aside. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.