Bailed-Out GM Gives $10 Million for MLK Monument

Comments Off

As you read this you might also be interested in: General Motors Refuses To Honor Pre-Bankruptcy Warranties In Court Case: Argues Old GM Versus New GM Precludes Responsibility

 

General Motors has been very benevolent since receiving $50 billion of taxpayer funds less than two years ago. GM, the GM Foundation and Chevrolet are donating more than $10 million towards the building of a Martin Luther King, Jr. monument in Washington, DC. Following is a list of just some of GM and GM Foundation recent giveaways.

 

money flow

  • $40 million for “clean energy projects.”
  • $4.5 million for college scholarship programs to benefit students; criteria list includes being female, being a minority or being a military member.
  • $27.1 million to United Way for restructuring of Detroit schools.
  • $1 million to Haiti earthquake relief.
  • $70,000 to the United Negro College Fund
  • $2 million to Detroit for community recreation centers near Chevy Volt manufacturing plant.
  • $41,000 to groups associated with lawmakers with a $36,000 majority going to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.

The GM Foundation is legally separate from the company, but is fully funded by GM. If the GM Foundation has to make philanthropic distributions, there may be better causes, such as assistance to GM bondholders suffering hardship after having their rights sacrificed for the benefit of the United Auto Workers.

Perhaps most controversial is GM’s return to political contributions. There has been much debate on whether or not a corporation that is partly owned by the US Government should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns. In GM’s case, money was donated to both Republicans and Democrats with the majority going to Democratic candidates in last year’s elections.

National Legal and Political Center

General Motors Refuses To Honor Pre-Bankruptcy Warranties In Court Case: Argues Old GM Versus New GM Precludes Responsibility

Comments Off

Unbelievable !!!

General Motors Co (GM.N) is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit over a suspension problem on more than 400,000 Chevrolet Impalas from the 2007 and 2008 model years, saying it should not be responsible for repairs because the flaw predated its bankruptcy.

The lawsuit, filed on June 29 by Donna Trusky of Blakely, Pennsylvania, contended that her Impala suffered from faulty rear spindle rods, causing her

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/files/2011/05/obama-motors.png

rear tires to wear out after just 6,000 miles. [ID:nN1E7650CT]

Seeking class-action status and alleging breach of warranty, the lawsuit demands that GM fix the rods, saying that it had done so on Impala police vehicles.

But in a recent filing with the U.S. District Court in Detroit, GM noted that the cars were made by its predecessor General Motors Corp, now called Motors Liquidation Co or “Old GM,” before its 2009 bankruptcy and federal bailout.

The current company, called “New GM,” said it did not assume responsibility under the reorganization to fix the Impala problem, but only to make repairs “subject to conditions and limitations” in express written warranties. In essence, the automaker said, Trusky sued the wrong entity.

“New GM’s warranty obligations for vehicles sold by Old GM are limited to the express terms and conditions in the Old GM written warranties on a going-forward basis,” wrote Benjamin Jeffers, a lawyer for GM. “New GM did not assume responsibility for Old GM’s design choices, conduct, or alleged breaches of liability under the warranty.”

David Fink, Trusky’s lawyer, declined to comment.

John Penn, a former president of the American Bankruptcy Institute who is not involved in the case, said the question of “successor liability” is common for manufacturing companies that go through bankruptcy.

International Business Times

Private emails detail Obama admin involvement in cutting non-union worker pensions post-GM bailout

Comments Off

What was that Obama said about NOT being involved in the everyday decisions at General Motors?

New emails obtained by The Daily Caller contradict claims by the Obama administration that the Treasury Department would avoid “intervening in the day-to-day management” of General Motors post-auto bailout.

These messages reveal that Treasury officials were involved in decision-making that led to more than 20,000 non-union workers losing their pensions. (General Motors not eager to be political talking point in 2012)

Republican Reps. Dan Burton and Mike Turner say that during the GM bailout, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner decided to cut pensions for salaried non-union employees at Delphi, a GM spinoff, to expedite GM’s emergence from bankruptcy.

At a Wednesday hearing, the House Oversight Committee’s Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending started pushing the Treasury Department for answers on the effects of the bailout and on how much of a role the department played in picking winners and losers.

The key point of the Wednesday hearing was to show that the Obama administration advised GM on how to eliminate the Delphi workers’ pensions. The evidence suggests Geithner’s team played a significant role in that process, despite claims to the contrary.

In 2009 congressional testimony, senior Obama administration official Ron Bloom said the president told the Treasury Department to stay out of the management of these companies and downplayed any administration intervention.

“From the beginning of this process, the President gave the Auto Task Force two clear directions regarding its approach to the auto restructurings,” Bloom said then. “The first was to behave in a commercial manner by ensuring that all stakeholders were treated fairly and received neither more nor less than they would have simply because the government was involved. The second was to refrain from intervening in the day-to-day management of these companies.”

But the emails TheDC obtained show high-ranking Treasury Department officials, including Matthew Feldman of Treasury’s Auto Task Force, corresponding with senior GM officials on how to make certain decisions regarding who was going to win and who was going to lose.

Read entire article @ Daily Caller

 

Thanks For The Bailout Suckers; GM to invest extra $540 million in Mexico to build motors

Comments Off

Well here’s the thanks for US taxpayer’s bailout:

US giant General Motors will invest $540 million to produce two low-emission motors in central Mexico, the company announced here Thursday, accompanied by President Felipe Calderon.

The latest project for GM in Mexico would create 500 direct and another 500 indirect jobs in its plant in Toluca, Calderon said.

GM has four plants in Mexico, and has invested some $5 billion here since 2006, Calderon said.

GM was left reeling by an industry slump when the global economic crisis hit. It received 49.5 billion dollars from the US Treasury and emerged from a bankruptcy restructuring in 2009.

It successfully returned to public trading last November by raising 23.1 billion dollars in an initial stock offering — the largest in history. (Actually GM did not repay the loans with money it earned from selling cars. Instead, GM repaid the TARP loans with money it withdrew from another TARP fund at the Treasury Department.The day before the GM story broke, Neil Barofsky, the government TARP watchdog, testified before the Senate Finance Committee. He explained that GM did not use earnings to repay its TARP debt. The April quarterly report to Congress from his office stated: “The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account.”)

 

Definition of GM’s Success

Comments Off

Not sure if you’ve felt it or not, but as long as GM owes me money and the government holds shares, I don’t own a GM vehicle. It’s a personal thing I guess, but I just hate being lied to. From the Washington Times:

Barack Obama: Losing $84 billion big success

Kerry Picket

Barack Obama has some ‘splaining to do about taxpayers’ profitable “investment” in General Motors. It turns out the president is imagining things.

Though Democrats tout the auto bailout as a success, recent reports illustrate the taxpayer cost of the GM auto bailout was substantially larger than the Obama administration and a Congressional Oversight report has owned up to.

“American taxpayers are now positioned to recover more than my administration invested in GM,” President Obama said, according to a piece in USA Today last November. Steven Rattner, former head of the Treasury’s auto task force agreed, telling CNN in November: “Recent progress at GM gives reason for optimism that it may be possible for taxpayers to get every penny back.”

In fact, Investor’s Business Daily reported that even the White House’s Director of the National Economic Council remarked that the Treasury Department Department had a good chance in “recovering most, if not all, of its investment in” GM.

However, a March 16 Congressional Oversight report, tells a different story. It estimates taxpayers will be out of $25 billion. Additionally, the report points out that “full repayment will not be possible unless the government is able to sell its remaining shares at a far higher price.”

That’s only the beginning. Both the White House and the Congressional Oversight report omit the fact that during its bankruptcy, GM got a $45 billion tax break, courtesy of the American people.

GM is driving “away from its U.S.-government-financed restructuring with a final gift in its trunk: a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion,” reported The Wall Street Journal last November.

Over one year after  the promises President Obama and his administration made about the auto bailout, a February piece on AutoBlog also confirms that GM will also get a $14 billion dollar domestic tax break:

GM will be able to skip its tax tab due to years of massive losses. Companies are typically forgiven a portion of future taxes due to their past losses, but that benefit is typically stripped after an organization goes through bankruptcy.

However, the Obama administration and its allies presently continue to celebrate the success of the auto bailout, regardless of the facts.  “I don’t think there’s any doubt that this was a success,” said (H/T Detroit News) acting assistant secretary at the Treasury Department Tim Massad, who oversees the TARP program at Treasury, to a House panel on Wednesday.

In Obama’s world, success mean taxpayers only lost as much as $84 billion.

Thanks For The Bailout Suckers; GM to invest extra $540 million in Mexico to build motors

Comments Off

Well guess for right now the joke was on us………….many of us were the suckers. Just goes to show you, now days when they tell you a bill will do a certain thing, be careful it may do the opposite.

Thanks For The Bailout Suckers; GM to invest extra $540 million in Mexico to build motors

US giant General Motors will invest $540 million to produce two low-emission motors in central Mexico, the company announced here Thursday, accompanied by President Felipe Calderon.

The latest project for GM in Mexico would create 500 direct and another 500 indirect jobs in its plant in Toluca, Calderon said.

GM has four plants in Mexico, and has invested some $5 billion here since 2006, Calderon said.

GM was left reeling by an industry slump when the global economic crisis hit. It received 49.5 billion dollars from the US Treasury and emerged from a bankruptcy restructuring in 2009.

It successfully returned to public trading last November by raising 23.1 billion dollars in an initial stock offering — the largest in history.

Red White Blue News

House votes to overthrow some of Obama’s ‘czars’

Comments Off

Good for the House………keep up the good work attacking all things unconstitutional as the czars are. For you liberals reading this blog that also includes the ones George W. Bush had as well. We play no favorites here, except those that abide by the Constitution 100%. The U.S. Constitution explicitly states government officers with significant authority (called ‘principal officers’) must be nominated by the President and are subject to a vote of the U.S. Senate.

“Article II. Section 2. “He (the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consults, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”

House votes to overthrow ‘czars’

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) speaks on Capitol Hill. | AP Photo 

Scalise was behind the amendment, which ousted nine ‘czars’ from the White House. | AP Photo Close

The House voted Thursday to dethrone nine White House “czars.”

Republicans successfully added an amendment to the continuing resolution that would leave President Barack Obama’s senior advisers on policy issues including health care, energy and others out of a job.

The vote was 249-179.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) offered the amendment that blocks funding for various policy advisers to combat what he called “a very disturbing proliferation of czars” under Obama.

“These unappointed, unaccountable people who are literally running a shadow government, heading up these little fiefdoms that nobody can really seem to identify where they are or what they’re doing,” Scalise said Thursday. “But we do know that they’re wielding vast amounts of power.”

The jobs on the chopping block: White House-appointed advisers on health care, energy and climate, green jobs, urban affairs, the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, oversight of TARP executive compensation, diversity at the Federal Communications Commission and the auto industry manufacturing policy.

These so-called “czars” have been favorite targets of Republicans and conservative talk radio hosts, especially energy and climate adviser Carol Browner, who is leaving the administration.

“This is a person who’s continued to do things behind closed doors,” Scalise said of Browner.

GOP lawmakers assailed Browner’s office after a recent report showed that the White House rewrote crucial sections of an Interior Department report to suggest an independent group of scientists and engineers supported a six-month ban on offshore oil drilling.

“It was found out that it was the climate czar that actually doctored the president’s own scientific study to try to say that scientists that the president appointed recommended a moratorium on drilling,” Scalise said. “It turned out the scientists didn’t say that at all.”

A federal investigation found no wrongdoing by Browner.

But Scalise had harsh words to go around for the other “czars,” too. “There’s actually a czar out there trying to still impose a cap-and-trade regime,” he said of the special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern, who works at the State Department.

The amendment would defund the White House “green jobs czar” slot that has been vacant since Van Jones resigned in 2009 after reports surfaced that he signed a petition seeking an investigation into whether the U.S. government was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

“The last green jobs czar we had left in disgrace because he expressed comments embracing communism and actually tried to blame the government, the American government, for September 11th attacks,” Scalise said.

“This amendment would say to AIG and General Motors, and Chrysler and Ally – the financial company – no one will now be supervising what you do, and even though you haven’t yet paid back the federal government, there will be no enforcement of restrictions on your bonuses, no enforcement of restrictions on your compensation,” he said.

Scalise got 13 Democrats to vote for his amendment and it wasn’t just the usual Blue Dogs: Dan Boren (Okla.), Ben Chandler (Ky.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Henry Cuellar and Gene Green of Texas, Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Ed Pastor (Ariz.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Mike Ross (Ark.), and North Carolina’s Heath Shuler, Mike McIntyre and Larry Kissell.

One Republican – Wisconsin’s Reid Ribble – voted no.

Politico

The top 10 violations of the Constitution by Obama and the 111th Congress

Comments Off

This article lists the top 10 Constitutional violations by Obama and Pelosi and friends the last two years, it is by no means all of them.

The top 10 violations of the Constitution by Obama and the 111th Congress

At the close of the 111th Congress, America is deeply in the bog of Thomas Jefferson’s prophetic warning: “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Unfortunately, the broken chains of the Constitution have failed to contain the federal government.(That’s because no one will stand up to them, not even Congress or the Senate)

By way of review, let’s take a stroll through the junkyard of constitutional violations that have been painted fresh by President Obama and the 111th Congress. Here’s my top-ten list, highly abbreviated for length.

#10. — 9/11 Responders Relief Fund: We love and honor those who put themselves in harm’s way for our security. However, giving the 9/11 first responders money after the fact violates the Constitution. Article 1.8 gives Congress the right to expend funds for all the purposes itemized, provided it is done for the general welfare, NOT for individuals or preferred groups. The states may reward heroes if they so choose.

#9. — Checks and Balances Failure: The Chairmanship of the UN Security Council: Where was Congress when President Obama became the chairman of the powerful UN Security Council in 2009? The normal monthly rotation for that chair goes to the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. because Article 1.9 of the Constitution forbids the president (and all other office-holders) from accepting any present, foreign office or title from a foreign country or a foreign potentate unless it is specifically authorized by Congress. The Founders wanted to prevent deal-making, corruption, and foreign influence from affecting America’s internal affairs.

#8. — Net Neutrality: The government is trying to stop Internet providers from blocking or slowing some web traffic and prevent providers from showing favoritism. The FCC thinks it should be able to regulate the Internet like it regulates utility companies. This violates the property rights of Internet providers and interferes in the market’s free choice of which services receive funding. Article 1.8 makes it clear that the FCC is not constitutionally authorized to pass laws, especially those disguised as regulations.

#7. – Czars: The moniker for appointees who report to no one but the president has taken on a new and eerie resemblance to the dusty Russian tsars of old. Article 2.2 grants the president leeway to appoint managers, but those managers may not have any regulatory, legislative or law-making powers — such powers are reserved to the legislative branch. Today’s “czars” have the power of cabinet members without having to go through a vetting process or the confirmation process prescribed for cabinet members. Czars are unelected and untouchable political decision-makers — in violation of Article 1.1.

#6. — Cap and Trade: The Clean Energy and Security Act mandates greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and 84 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. By 2020, this tax will extract an estimated $160 billion from the economy, or an average $1,870 per family. Once again, had the chains of Article 1.8 not been broken, America would be spared such tomfoolery. Cap and trade masked in any disguise whatsoever cannot be justified as a general welfare activity.

#5. — Cash for Clunkers: The government offered $4,500 rebates to people turning in their clunkers for more fuel-efficient vehicles. When the first program quickly ran out of the $4 billion allotted to it, another $2 billion was added. Follow-up analysis showed the program did nothing to stimulate the economy and put many people into additional debt by encouraging them to purchase cars that they otherwise would not have bought during these hard economic times. The government has zero authority to selectively give individuals tax money for purchases of vehicles, according to Articles 1.2 and 1.8 — and common sense.

#4. — TARP Funding: The original 2008 act authorized $700 billion to bail out banks and other institutions. The government has no business rescuing private financial institutions from bad judgment and risky ventures. Article 1.8 excludes permission for Congress to grant financial aid or loans to private companies. Any use of Treasury funds must go toward the general welfare, not to specific groups.

#3. — Illegal Immigration: Arizona is being invaded. When that state passed SB 1070 to stem the flow of violent illegals into its sovereign territory, a derelict federal government turned around and sued. At issue was the Feds’ failure to control the border, so Arizona took it upon itself to do just that — to uphold existing federal immigration laws. It didn’t add new laws; it simply gave local authorities the power to enforce federal responsibilities. The federal government claims the right to manage immigration, but when it refuses to carry out that obligation, thereby jeopardizing the security of border states, it is derelict in its duties. Arizona should haul the federal government before the Supreme Court for malfeasance. Article 4.4 clearly states that the U.S. shall protect states from invasion — more than 400,000 illegal aliens (est.) in Arizona is, by definition, an invasion.

#2. — Economic Stimulus Bill: The $814 billion stimulus is the most backward-thinking proposition to come along since human sacrifice. Dumping borrowed money into an over-fed, bloated and out-of-control ogre doesn’t solve anything, it simply temporarily props up with blocks of melting ice cream a failed and failing government of extravagance. Not only does it illegally take money out of the economy that could be used to provide jobs, but it’s using borrowed money — with interest due.

And the worst violation of the Constitution over the past two years is …


#1. — Health Care Reform: Health care reform was the last lever needed to lift the lid off the pot of American gold and empty it out for socialism. It required all Americans to have health insurance whether they wanted it or not. Earlier this month, Federal Judge Henry E. Hudson said that the government has no power “to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”

The string of constitutional violations supporting the judge’s rejection is long and shocking:

For purposes of regulation, Congress invoked Article 1.8 and claimed insurance may be controlled because it falls under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. But insurance is not interstate commerce — you can’t buy insurance across state lines.

Language in the bill says the health care law may NOT be changed or amended by anyone once signed into law. This violates the role of Congress. Article 1.1 makes it clear that only Congress is authorized to make law, meaning it has every right to alter, amend and change the health care law. To restrict Congress is to change its constitutional duty. The 111th Congress must think it can change the Constitution without amending it — a violation of Article 5, which outlines the amendment process.

The health care bill also violates the 10th Amendment because it coerces states into complying with a new national program that reaches far into state jurisdiction.

So, what do you do when you’re navigating through a blizzard of political white-out where visibility is reduced to zero, the road is slick and slippery, and disaster is strewn about in all directions? You come to a complete stop — and put on the chains.

Paul B. Skousen is a former analyst for the CIA, an intelligence officer in the Reagan White House, and staffer for Senator Orrin Hatch.

Daily Caller

You mean GM and Chrysler weren’t the only ones?

Comments Off

So, Ford was bragging about not taking any bailouts, GM was the only bad one…and we were sending US dollars to bail out foreign carmakers too?  Well, why not, we apparently are going to bail out the EU too.  Sure, let the taxpayers suffer, let the unemployed suffer, but by golly, lets help everyone outside this country.  I can’t wait for the progressives to go home..

Ford, BMW, Toyota Took Secret Government Money

Ford, BMW, Toyota Took Secret Government Money In the depths of the financial collapse, the U.S. Federal Reserve pumped $3.3 trillion into keeping credit moving through the economy. It eventually lent $57.9 billion to the auto industry — including $26.8 billion to Ford, Toyota and BMW.

The Fed on Wednesday was forced to reveal the identity of the companies it aided during the crisis, after contending to Congress that keeping their identities and the details of such lending secret was essential. Much of Wall Street, and corporate giants such as General Electric, Harley Davidson and McDonald’s, took advantage of the Fed’s help. We’ve done the math on how the Fed propped up the auto industry.

While Chrysler and General Motors had to go to Congress to beg for cash in 2008, every other automaker’s finance arm was having trouble as well. Typically, once they lend money to a buyer, they sell the loan, get the cash upfront, then pump the proceeds back into the business. They also take out short-term loans called commercial paper that keeps the day-to-day business afloat. The crash cut the circuit, raising the chances the automakers couldn’t make loans to buyers and keep selling new vehicles.

That’s where the Fed stepped in. In normal circumstances, the Fed only lends money to banks, leaving the decisions about who should get credit to them. But when the financial markets started to collapse in late 2008, the Fed set up several programs to lend money directly to corporations, a highly unusual step.

According to the data, from October 2008 through June 2009 the fed bought $45.1 billion in commercial paper from the credit arms of four automakers – Ford, BMW, Chrysler and Toyota – along with GMAC (the former General Motors credit arm). Of those, Ford sold the most, with $15.9 billion.

The Fed also lent $13 billion to investors who bought bonds backed by loans to new car buyers from automakers and banks. The Fed made clear that while investors got the loans, the move was meant to keep the lenders in business; the credit arms of Ford, Chrysler, Nissan, Volkswagen, Honda and Hyundai all benefited directly.

Ford spokeswoman Christin Baker said the two programs “addressed systemic failure in the credit markets, and that neither program was designed for a particular company, or even a particular industry.” Ford Credit has disclosed through SEC filings and conference calls with media and investors that it was taking part in both programs.

BMW told Bloomberg that the Fed lending “supported our financial profile and offered us an additional funding source, especially at times when the money markets and capital markets did not function properly and efficiently.”

According to the Fed, the commercial paper loans have been paid in full, while some $2 billion remains outstanding on loans for bond investors.

The secrecy surrounding the details of the loans only masked how much aid corporate America and Wall Street needed. While General Motors and Chrysler took the brunt of the blowback for relying on government handouts, the reveal of the Fed numbers show that a far bigger slice of the U.S. auto industry needed help.

IRS Turns TARP Into the Theft that Keeps on Thieving

Comments Off

Here’s an interesting and frustrating read at the same time…….One must ask: Why do these government leaders believe it would be bad for the government to extend tax cuts for individuals yet good for the government to extend tax cuts to businesses it owns?…….Ordinarily companies that undergo major restructuring have restrictions placed on their tax benefits. But the IRS has ruled companies that received bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program will not face those restrictions.”

IRS Turns TARP Into the Theft that Keeps on Thieving

From Steve Stanek, a research fellow for budget and tax issues at The Heartland Institute:

How ironic that President Obama and other leading Democrats oppose extending tax cuts for “the wealthy” even as the United States government announces tens of billions of dollars of tax breaks for the wealthiest of all: itself.

News comes today of a decision by the Internal Revenue Service to grant $45 billion of tax breaks to General Motors, which happens to be majority owned by the United States government by virtue of the government’s taxpayer bailouts. Other companies that received billions of taxpayer bailout dollars also will receive favorable tax treatment, raising the final tax break total.

One must ask: Why do these government leaders believe it would be bad for the government to extend tax cuts for individuals yet good for the government to extend tax cuts to businesses it owns?

The answer comes from the Wall Street Journal’s article on this obscenity against taxpayers and assault on free enterprise and fair competition: “The government’s rationale, said people familiar with the situation, is that the profit-shielding tax credit makes the bailed-out companies more attractive to investors.”

Of course. Later this month General Motors will be selling shares of stock, and the company wants a high price. So does the government, which owns more than 60 percent of General Motors and hopes to recoup some of its “investment” by selling its shares at a high price. Same goes for the other bailed-out companies that also will be allowed to shed future tax liabilities.

Neither GM nor Ford officials would respond to requests for comment. Ford, of course, is an American automaker that took no taxpayer bailout money. Ford also did not follow GM into bankruptcy, which means Ford is meeting its financial obligations. GM has walked away from billions of dollars of financial obligations. And for this GM is rewarded by the IRS.

Ordinarily companies that undergo major restructuring have restrictions placed on their tax benefits. But the IRS has ruled companies that received bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program will not face those restrictions.

GM received $60 billion in taxpayer largesse. Now it gets to walk away from $45 billion in tax liabilities. So we are piling a bailout on top of the earlier bailout.

TARP: the theft that keeps on thieving.

Some What Reasonable

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers