... and who it was that got screwed in doing so:
Auto Bailout or UAW Bailout? Taxpayer Losses Came from Subsidizing Union CompensationRead the whole thing.
By James Sherk and Todd Zywicki, The Heritage Foundation
The U.S. government will lose about $23 billion on the 2008-2009 bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. President Obama emphatically defends his decision to subsidize the automakers, arguing it was necessary to prevent massive job losses. But, even accepting this premise, the government could have executed the bailout with no net cost to taxpayers. It could have—had the Administration required the United Auto Workers (UAW) to accept standard bankruptcy concessions instead of granting the union preferential treatment. The extra UAW subsidies cost $26.5 billion—more than the entire foreign aid budget in 2011. The Administration did not need to lose money to keep GM and Chrysler operating. The Detroit auto bailout was, in fact, a UAW bailout. [link]
One can argue whether or not General Motors needed government assistance. What can't be argued, though, is the manner in which that assistance manifested itself. In the end, we paid to keep auto union wages at a level the industry can't afford.
Obama will argue, however, that it was a much better use of your savings than providing it to your grandchildren for their college educations.
- - -
It's worth noting, too, that not all auto personnel were treated alike by Obama and his ilk in the White House. Just ask those who spent their lives at Delphi.