GM, now 60% owned by U.S. government, is once again contributing to political campaigns, mostly to the CBC

When General Motors went through bankruptcy last year, it suspended its political donations. Now that it's owned by the U.S. government, it's donating to lawmakers' pet projects again.

The carmaker gave $41,000 to groups associated with lawmakers, the vast majority of it -- $36,000 -- to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, the company reported on a disclosure form last week. The CBC Foundation is a charity with 11 members of the Congressional Black Caucus on its board.

"We've always given to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation as far back as anyone can remember," said Greg Martin, GM spokesman. "Our commitment remains unabated, and we continue to be a proud supporter of their work to advance economic development in communities throughout the U.S."

According to its disclosure forms, the company did not give any money to honor lawmakers in 2009, the year of its bankruptcy filing. The U.S. government now has a 60 percent stake in the reformed company.

"By anyone's definition that was an extraordinary time for the company," Martin said. "We did suspend giving for that particular time."

GM's return to the business of donations remained small compared with the giving of some corporations. Overall, corporations and other entities that were registered to lobby Congress gave $10.7 million to honor politicians and military figures in the first six months of the year. That is down slightly from the $10.8 million spent in the last half of 2009. Donations were down 27 percent from the same period two years ago, but there were still 37 entities that gave at least six figures in the latest six-month period.

Defense contractors disclosed some of the biggest gifts. One of the top honorees was Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who was a guest at an April gala for the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, a nonprofit group that provides counseling to friends and family who have lost loved ones in the military. BAE Systems donated $150,000 to the event, and defense contractor Science Applications International Corporation donated $100,000, according to disclosure forms. General Motors also gave $5,000 to honor Skelton.

General Motors has not reactivated its political action committee, which can give to election campaigns, according to the latest reports with the Federal Election Commission. The PAC contributions come from senior employees who give to support the company's political goals.

Yes, the Volt is green, but it costs $41,000, requires premium gasoline and "looks suspiciously similar to a Toyota Prius"

GENERAL MOTORS introduced America to the Chevrolet Volt at the 2007 Detroit Auto Show as a low-slung concept car that would someday be the future of motorized transportation. It would go 40 miles on battery power alone, promised G.M., after which it would create its own electricity with a gas engine. Three and a half years — and one government-assisted bankruptcy later — G.M. is bringing a Volt to market that makes good on those two promises. The problem is, well, everything else.

For starters, G.M.’s vision turned into a car that costs $41,000 before relevant tax breaks ... but after billions of dollars of government loans and grants for the Volt’s development and production. And instead of the sleek coupe of 2007, it looks suspiciously similar to a Toyota Prius. It also requires premium gasoline, seats only four people (the battery runs down the center of the car, preventing a rear bench) and has less head and leg room than the $17,000 Chevrolet Cruze, which is more or less the non-electric version of the Volt.

In short, the Volt appears to be exactly the kind of green-at-all-costs car that some opponents of the bailout feared the government might order G.M. to build. Unfortunately for this theory, G.M. was already committed to the Volt when it entered bankruptcy. And though President Obama’s task force reported in 2009 that the Volt “will likely be too expensive to be commercially successful in the short term,” it didn’t cancel the project.

Nor did the government or G.M. decide to sell the Volt at a loss, which, paradoxically, might have been the best hope for making it profitable.

Fed bailout overseer faults order to close car dealerships

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department failed to consider the economic fallout when it told General Motors and Chrysler to quickly shutter many dealerships as part of government-led bankruptcies, a federal watchdog found.

A report released Sunday by the special inspector general for the government's bailout program raised questions about whether the Obama administration's auto task force considered the job losses from the closings while pressuring the companies to reduce costs.

Treasury didn't show why the cuts were "either necessary for the sake of the companies' economic survival or prudent for the sake of the nation's economic recovery," said the audit by Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the $787 billion stimulus program known as TARP.

"Treasury made a series of decisions that may have substantially contributed to the accelerated shuttering of thousands of small businesses," investigators said.

Those decisions resulted in "potentially adding tens of thousands of workers to the already lengthy unemployment rolls — all based on a theory and without sufficient consideration of the decisions' broader economic impact," the report said.

America bailed out GM, but who will bail out America?

Today is the first anniversary of one of this country's less-than-crowning milestones: the bankruptcy of General Motors, once the largest and richest company in the country, and indeed the world.

Keeping GM alive, albeit in shrunken form, was an expensive undertaking for America's taxpayers: about $65 billion in all, if one counts government aid to the company's former financial arm, formerly GMAC, now renamed Ally Bank. For all that money we, as a country, should take away some lessons from the experience. The following get my vote for the three most important:

• Problems denied and solutions delayed will result in a painful and costly day of reckoning.

• In corporate governance, the right people count more than the right structure.

• Appearances can be deceiving.

All three might sound blindingly obvious, but it's amazing how frequently they're ignored. That's especially true for the first lesson, about denial and delay.

Everybody knew it was ridiculous and unsustainable to pay workers indefinitely not to work (in the United Auto Workers union's Jobs Bank), to keep brands such as Saturn and Saab that hardly ever made money, and to pay gold-plated pension and health-care benefits to employees. But all of these practices, paid for by mounting debt obligations, continued for decades in GM's 30-year, slow-motion crash.

Yet there were plenty of warnings. A dramatic one came in a January 2006 speech by auto-industry veteran Jerome B. York, who represented the company's largest individual shareholder at the time, Kirk Kerkorian. Unless GM undertook drastic reforms "the unthinkable could happen" within 1,000 days, predicted York (who died recently). As things turned out he was a mere 30 days off.

The relevant question looking forward is whether the unthinkable—going broke—also could happen to America.

Everybody knows that we're running unsustainable federal deficits. And that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created financial sinkholes by helping lenders make mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. And that many states' public-employee pensions funds are hopelessly underfunded for the level of benefits they provide. And that shoveling more money into the public schools without insisting on structural reforms and accountability hasn't produced results and won't do so in the future.

Addressing these issues inevitably means enforcing spending discipline and standing up to public-employee unions in a way that GM failed to do with the UAW. Continued denial and delay will prove ruinous. To put it another way: America bailed out General Motors, but who will bail out America?

Washington Examiner: White House in "full-fledged credibility crisis" over Blago, GM, Obamacare

Hard on the heels of that shocking Pew Research Center survey finding that four out of five Americans don't trust government comes a blitz of new revelations about the Obama administration that amount to a full-fledged credibility crisis. The latest disclosures are especially damaging because they concern President Obama's possible misrepresentation of his relationships with former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and convicted felon Tony Rezko, his administration's misleading statements about Obamacare costs, and questions about improper manipulation of government-owned General Motors and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Blagojevich revelations were no less serious for being accidental. Blagojevich's defense attorneys filed a federal court motion to subpoena Obama concerning charges that the former governor tried to sell the U.S. Senate seat formerly occupied by the chief executive. Improper formatting of the heavily redacted public version of the motion contained evidence that Obama spoke to Blagojevich about the Senate appointment a week before telling White House reporters that he had not done so. The document also revealed that federal prosecutors are withholding from Blagojevich's attorneys documents describing what Obama told investigators about conversations with Rezko on the appointment or his financial ties to the Chicago developer who was one of his key fundraisers.

On Obamacare, the president and his appointees said repeatedly over the last year that it would reduce government health care spending. Yet now comes Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's Department of Health and Human Services secretary, confessing that "We don't know how much it's going to cost." Why is Sebelius only now saying this when her own department just made public a report obviously months in preparation that projected government health care costs overall will go up, not down? That same HHS report also said Obamacare's Medicare cuts could put 15 percent of all hospitals out of business, making treatment harder to get and more expensive, especially for seniors.

Finally, General Motors claimed in national advertisements this week that it repaid its Troubled Asset Relief Program loans, plus interest, five years early. But the TARP inspector general said GM used other TARP funds to repay its original TARP loans, so the ads were fundamentally dishonest. Recall here that White House adviser Carol Browner told GM and other automakers to "write nothing down" about their dealings last year with administration officials on fuel economy standards. So it seems entirely appropriate to ask if GM's repayment claims were "suggested" by somebody in the Obama White House. That would be the same White House that is also now suspected of improperly influencing the SEC to file fraud charges against Goldman Sachs just as Congress debates Obama's financial reform proposal. As the Obama administration will learn, plummeting public trust eats away at the fundamental credibility of government and undermines its ability to carry out even its most basic duties.

GM repaid bailout money with other bailout money

A top Senate Republican on Thursday accused the Obama administration of misleading taxpayers about General Motors' loan repayment, saying the struggling auto giant was only able to repay its bailout money by dipping into a separate pot of bailout money.

Sen. Chuck Grassley's charge was backed up by the inspector general for the bailout -- also known as the Trouble Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Watchdog Neil Barofsky told Fox News, as well as the Senate Finance Committee, that General Motors used bailout money to pay back the federal government.

"It appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle," Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a letter Thursday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

GM announced Wednesday that it had paid back the $8.1 billion in loans it received from the U.S. and Canadian governments. Of that, $6.7 billion went to the U.S. treasury.

But Grassley said in his letter that a Securities and Exchange Commission form filed by GM showed that $6.7 billion of the tens of billions the company received was sitting in an escrow account and available to be used for repayment. He called on Geithner to provide more information about why the company was allowed to use bailout money to repay bailout money, and how much of the remaining escrow money GM would be allowed to keep.

"The bottom line seems to be that the TARP loans were 'repaid' with other TARP funds in a Treasury escrow account. The TARP loans were not repaid from money GM is earning selling cars, as GM and the administration have claimed in their speeches, press releases and television commercials," he wrote.

The UAW owns General Motors; with White House aid, Karl Marx's vision has been realized

My last all-American-made car was a 1976 Dodge Aspen. It ground up its own transmission three times. On one of those occasions we were driving toward grandmother's house, 250 miles away, for Christmas.

About 100 miles from our destination the shifter stopped working while the car was in the third of four gears. Stopping was no longer an option. By carefully adjusting my speed while approaching intersections and building up speed to climb hills I was able to navigate all of the obstacles and finish the trip.

But it was a white-knuckle journey that left me seethng with rage.

Years later, I told the story to an acquaintance who had spent his working career in Detriot auto plants, although he was not an auto worker. He told me that he had watched as line workers ate lunch, tossing their wrappings into gas tanks still lying open on the factory floor.

Later, those line workers would seal the two halves of a gas tank with the trash still inside. My acquaintance thought it was funny.

I no longer cared because I hadn't owned an American-made car for more than 20 years.

Now the perpetrators of the Dodge Aspen and dozens of other instant lemons, through the UAW, own General Motors. Does anyone, other than the United States government, think that's a good thing? Does anyone, other than the government, think that we've forgotten or forgiven the trash that was foisted on us over the years by the auto industry?

It was Honda, Toyota and other Japanese auto makers that forced General Motors and the other American car companies to mend their ways in the manufacturing plants. But that mending came about because the plants were run by managers who answered to executives of corporations engaged in competition for markets.

Who will the UAW answer to? A one-party government that regularly demonstrates contempt for free markets while building a statist system in which government allocates ownership of failed corporations instead of leaving those decisions to the bankruptcy system. That's how General Motors came to be owned by the UAW.

Some of us may shudder at the prospect of White House oversight. Air Force One, after all, just made a $329,000 flyover photo-op that sent New Yorkers scurrying for cover.

But Karl Marx would have nodded with approval, amazed at the eventual success of his 1848 screed that called on workers to overthrow their bosses and take control of the factories.

Even Marx, who thought big, would not have imagined that the White House would be a party to the fulfillment of his Communist Manifesto.