The GM Scandal Is Worse Than You Think: Here's another reason government should never own a business. In February 2010, the Obama administration's t***sportation secretary, Ray LaHood...

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Here's another reason government should never own a business.

In February 2010, the Obama administration's t***sportation secretary, Ray LaHood, told America, without a shred of evidence, that Toyota automobiles were dangerous to drive. LaHood offered the remarks in front of the House subcommittee that was investigating reports of unintended-acceleration crashes. "My advice is, if anybody owns one of these vehicles, stop driving it," he said, sending the company's stock into a nose dive.

Even at the time, LaHood's comments were reckless at best. Assailing the competition reeks of political opportunism and cronyism. It also illustrates one of the unavoidable predicaments of the state's owning a corporation in a competitive marketplace. And when we put LaHood's comment into perspective today, it's actually a lot worse. The Obama administration not only had the power and ideological motive to damage the largely nonunionized competition but also was busy propping up a company that was causing preventable deaths.

No one is innocent, of course, but not everyone is bailed out. So Toyota, after recalling millions of cars and changing parts and floor mats even before LaHood's outburst -- and after years of being hounded by the administration -- recently agreed to pay a steep fine for its role in the acceleration flap. This, despite the fact that in 2012, Department of T***sportation engineers determined that no mechanical failure was present that would cause applying the brakes to initiate acceleration. The DOT conducted tests that determined that the brakes could maintain a stationary car or bring one to a full stop even with the engine racing. It looked at 58 vehicles that were supposedly involved in unintended acceleration and found no evidence of brake failure or throttle malfunction.

Attorney General Eric Holder kept at it, though, and Toyota finally agreed to a $1.2 billion settlement (it has about $60 billion in reserves) to make it go away. Though it looks as if the company doesn't think the fight is worthwhile, for all I know, it's guilty. I'm certain, though, that General Motors is. It announced this week that it was recalling over a million vehicles that had sudden loss of electric power steering. This, after recalling nearly 3 million vehicles for ignition switch problems that the company had known about since 2001 and are now linked to 13 deaths.

GM has apologized. But does anyone believe that the Obama administration took as hard a look at GM as it did Toyota? As early as 2007, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration knew that there may be problems with air bags but never launched a formal investigation. The NHTSA's acting chief, David Friedman, testified that GM never told the agency that faulty switches were at the root of the air bag problem. Fine. Before plowing billions of tax dollars into saving the United Automobile Workers, did the car czar or any other Obama officials take extra care to review DOT records to ensure that taxpayers would not be funding the preventable deaths of American citizens? Would DOT and Holder exhibit the same zealousness for safety with GM as they did when it came to Toyota? In the midst of the bailout debate and subsequent "turnaround," news of a cover-up and major recall would have been a political disaster.

So it's difficult to understand why this isn't a huge scandal. If every obtuse utterance by an obscure Republican congressman gets the media juices flowing, surely the possibility of this kind of negligence is worth a look. Can anyone with access to the administration ask some of these questions? Because if you take credit for "saving" a company (actually, an "industry," as no one would have ever driven again if Obama hadn't saved the day), you also get credit for "saving" the real-life unscrupulous version of the company. "I placed my bet on the American worker," Obama told union workers in 2012. "And I'll make that bet any day of the week. And now, three years later, that bet is paying off." Betting $80 billion of someone else's money to prop up sympathetic labor unions isn't exactly fraught with political risk. Unless it turns out that your administration is less concerned about the safety defects of the company you own than it is about the company you dislike. That would be corruption.

http://townhall.com/columnists/davidharsanyi/2014/04/04/the-gm-scandal-is-worse-than-you-think-n1818493/page/full

just chris

bmac32 wrote:

Here's another reason government should never own a business.

In February 2010, the Obama administration's t***sportation secretary, Ray LaHood, told America, without a shred of evidence, that Toyota automobiles were dangerous to drive. LaHood offered the remarks in front of the House subcommittee that was investigating reports of unintended-acceleration crashes. "My advice is, if anybody owns one of these vehicles, stop driving it," he said, sending the company's stock into a nose dive.

Even at the time, LaHood's comments were reckless at best. Assailing the competition reeks of political opportunism and cronyism. It also illustrates one of the unavoidable predicaments of the state's owning a corporation in a competitive marketplace. And when we put LaHood's comment into perspective today, it's actually a lot worse. The Obama administration not only had the power and ideological motive to damage the largely nonunionized competition but also was busy propping up a company that was causing preventable deaths.

No one is innocent, of course, but not everyone is bailed out. So Toyota, after recalling millions of cars and changing parts and floor mats even before LaHood's outburst -- and after years of being hounded by the administration -- recently agreed to pay a steep fine for its role in the acceleration flap. This, despite the fact that in 2012, Department of T***sportation engineers determined that no mechanical failure was present that would cause applying the brakes to initiate acceleration. The DOT conducted tests that determined that the brakes could maintain a stationary car or bring one to a full stop even with the engine racing. It looked at 58 vehicles that were supposedly involved in unintended acceleration and found no evidence of brake failure or throttle malfunction.

Attorney General Eric Holder kept at it, though, and Toyota finally agreed to a $1.2 billion settlement (it has about $60 billion in reserves) to make it go away. Though it looks as if the company doesn't think the fight is worthwhile, for all I know, it's guilty. I'm certain, though, that General Motors is. It announced this week that it was recalling over a million vehicles that had sudden loss of electric power steering. This, after recalling nearly 3 million vehicles for ignition switch problems that the company had known about since 2001 and are now linked to 13 deaths.

GM has apologized. But does anyone believe that the Obama administration took as hard a look at GM as it did Toyota? As early as 2007, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration knew that there may be problems with air bags but never launched a formal investigation. The NHTSA's acting chief, David Friedman, testified that GM never told the agency that faulty switches were at the root of the air bag problem. Fine. Before plowing billions of tax dollars into saving the United Automobile Workers, did the car czar or any other Obama officials take extra care to review DOT records to ensure that taxpayers would not be funding the preventable deaths of American citizens? Would DOT and Holder exhibit the same zealousness for safety with GM as they did when it came to Toyota? In the midst of the bailout debate and subsequent "turnaround," news of a cover-up and major recall would have been a political disaster.

So it's difficult to understand why this isn't a huge scandal. If every obtuse utterance by an obscure Republican congressman gets the media juices flowing, surely the possibility of this kind of negligence is worth a look. Can anyone with access to the administration ask some of these questions? Because if you take credit for "saving" a company (actually, an "industry," as no one would have ever driven again if Obama hadn't saved the day), you also get credit for "saving" the real-life unscrupulous version of the company. "I placed my bet on the American worker," Obama told union workers in 2012. "And I'll make that bet any day of the week. And now, three years later, that bet is paying off." Betting $80 billion of someone else's money to prop up sympathetic labor unions isn't exactly fraught with political risk. Unless it turns out that your administration is less concerned about the safety defects of the company you own than it is about the company you dislike. That would be corruption.

http://townhall.com/columnists/davidharsanyi/2014/04/04/the-gm-scandal-is-worse-than-you-think-n1818493/page/full

Here's another reason government should never own ... (show quote)

To claim the only one who benifited was the UAW is just plain stupid. One of the only if not the only good thing Obama has really done was the auto bailout. The ripple effect would have been devastating if GM and Chrysler had went under the loss of jobs for the auto workers was just the tip of the iceburg. To blame unions for all the problems is to ignore the fact that they only took what they were given, managment should have put the brakes on that runaway train.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Just seems odd that no problem was found with the Toyota's computer by the government yet GM has been hiding some of these problems since 2002. Went looking to buy in the mid 80's a GM only to read an article they were using the wrong t***smissions on several of the larger cars. Got with a guy who did nothing but t***smissions to learn a little something and how to identify the differences. Off to the dealer and yep they were still using the one for the Pontiac T-100 in several of their cars. After have one one of GM's worst, Pontiac Phoenix had had enough fo GM's trash.

just chris wrote:

To claim the only one who benifited was the UAW is just plain stupid. One of the only if not the only good thing Obama has really done was the auto bailout. The ripple effect would have been devastating if GM and Chrysler had went under the loss of jobs for the auto workers was just the tip of the iceburg. To blame unions for all the problems is to ignore the fact that they only took what they were given, managment should have put the brakes on that runaway train.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

bmac32 wrote:

Here's another reason government should never own a business.

In February 2010, the Obama administration's t***sportation secretary, Ray LaHood, told America, without a shred of evidence, that Toyota automobiles were dangerous to drive. LaHood offered the remarks in front of the House subcommittee that was investigating reports of unintended-acceleration crashes. "My advice is, if anybody owns one of these vehicles, stop driving it," he said, sending the company's stock into a nose dive.

Even at the time, LaHood's comments were reckless at best. Assailing the competition reeks of political opportunism and cronyism. It also illustrates one of the unavoidable predicaments of the state's owning a corporation in a competitive marketplace. And when we put LaHood's comment into perspective today, it's actually a lot worse. The Obama administration not only had the power and ideological motive to damage the largely nonunionized competition but also was busy propping up a company that was causing preventable deaths.

No one is innocent, of course, but not everyone is bailed out. So Toyota, after recalling millions of cars and changing parts and floor mats even before LaHood's outburst -- and after years of being hounded by the administration -- recently agreed to pay a steep fine for its role in the acceleration flap. This, despite the fact that in 2012, Department of T***sportation engineers determined that no mechanical failure was present that would cause applying the brakes to initiate acceleration. The DOT conducted tests that determined that the brakes could maintain a stationary car or bring one to a full stop even with the engine racing. It looked at 58 vehicles that were supposedly involved in unintended acceleration and found no evidence of brake failure or throttle malfunction.

Attorney General Eric Holder kept at it, though, and Toyota finally agreed to a $1.2 billion settlement (it has about $60 billion in reserves) to make it go away. Though it looks as if the company doesn't think the fight is worthwhile, for all I know, it's guilty. I'm certain, though, that General Motors is. It announced this week that it was recalling over a million vehicles that had sudden loss of electric power steering. This, after recalling nearly 3 million vehicles for ignition switch problems that the company had known about since 2001 and are now linked to 13 deaths.

GM has apologized. But does anyone believe that the Obama administration took as hard a look at GM as it did Toyota? As early as 2007, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration knew that there may be problems with air bags but never launched a formal investigation. The NHTSA's acting chief, David Friedman, testified that GM never told the agency that faulty switches were at the root of the air bag problem. Fine. Before plowing billions of tax dollars into saving the United Automobile Workers, did the car czar or any other Obama officials take extra care to review DOT records to ensure that taxpayers would not be funding the preventable deaths of American citizens? Would DOT and Holder exhibit the same zealousness for safety with GM as they did when it came to Toyota? In the midst of the bailout debate and subsequent "turnaround," news of a cover-up and major recall would have been a political disaster.

So it's difficult to understand why this isn't a huge scandal. If every obtuse utterance by an obscure Republican congressman gets the media juices flowing, surely the possibility of this kind of negligence is worth a look. Can anyone with access to the administration ask some of these questions? Because if you take credit for "saving" a company (actually, an "industry," as no one would have ever driven again if Obama hadn't saved the day), you also get credit for "saving" the real-life unscrupulous version of the company. "I placed my bet on the American worker," Obama told union workers in 2012. "And I'll make that bet any day of the week. And now, three years later, that bet is paying off." Betting $80 billion of someone else's money to prop up sympathetic labor unions isn't exactly fraught with political risk. Unless it turns out that your administration is less concerned about the safety defects of the company you own than it is about the company you dislike. That would be corruption.

http://townhall.com/columnists/davidharsanyi/2014/04/04/the-gm-scandal-is-worse-than-you-think-n1818493/page/full

Here's another reason government should never own ... (show quote)

Since GM was aware of the issue as early as 2001, your logic escapes me. It's always easier to overlook something that has a history of being overlooked.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

The article states since 2001. If it's easier to overlook why did they not overlook Toyota. The so-called experts could find a thing wrong with the control software in the Toyota but they went ahead and sued. GM has known about their problem, so has the government yet very little has been done. Could the reason be GM and the government knew about this and the government went right ahead and gave them money and now the government is d**gging the heels because we have money tied up in GM.

GM has a damn poor record.

http://www.lemonauto.com/complaints/1_gm_recalls.htm

lpnmajor wrote:

Since GM was aware of the issue as early as 2001, your logic escapes me. It's always easier to overlook something that has a history of being overlooked.

DotsMan

just chris wrote:

To claim the only one who benifited was the UAW is just plain stupid. One of the only if not the only good thing Obama has really done was the auto bailout. The ripple effect would have been devastating if GM and Chrysler had went under the loss of jobs for the auto workers was just the tip of the iceburg. To blame unions for all the problems is to ignore the fact that they only took what they were given, managment should have put the brakes on that runaway train.

Note to all of those who believe that Obama's bailout of the auto industry was a good thing. The auto company bailout program was set in motion by George W Bush.
A few other things:
TARP: GWB plan.
Mortgage bailouts: GWB plan.
Troops pulled out of Iraq: GWB plan.
K*****g Osama Bin Laden: GWB plan.
In short: Every "good thing" that Democrats praise Obama for, except Obamacare, is a plan or program set in motion by the "evil" and "incompetent" George W Bush.
Not that I think that all of these are good things, just thought you should know who really should get credit.

Have a nice day.