GM IPO Could Help Democrats in 2010 Election

Will car company's rebound save Democrats from voter's bailout anger?

August 24, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (12)

A little over a year after filing for bankruptcy, General Motors took the initial steps last week to break free from its majority shareholder—the government. By filing the paperwork for an initial public offering, GM signaled it is ready to shake off its pejorative recent nickname, Government Motors. Experts say the stock sale could come as early as October or November, a potential plus for the Obama administration just ahead of midterm elections. But whether the administration's $50 billion rescue of GM is seen as a policy success will depend on how much the taxpayers get paid back. And both political parties are likely to bring the issue with them on the campaign trail.

The string of bailouts for domestic auto companies and Wall Street banks last year angered some taxpayers, and the 2010 primaries suggested that voters are upset at government spending in general, making this a tricky issue. Leading up to the midterms, Republicans have accused the government of growing too big, spending too much, and intervening too often in the markets with bailouts. Democrats have been defending spending, suggesting the jobs saved will be worth the investment. GM posted high profits in the first two quarters and repaid the Treasury Department $8 billion in loans in April. But the company did not release the price of the public offering or the number of shares being sold, so it is difficult to tell how much the government and taxpayers will be repaid.

But for those who argue the bailout was necessary to prevent a domino effect that might have come with liquidation, the jobs saved by the bailout are worth the investment. "The money that the government gets back is just the icing on the cake," says Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute. "The bailout was worth doing even if the government were never repaid. Creating jobs in the U.S. economy is not cheap." Eisenbrey estimates that unemployment insurance alone would have cost $16 billion per year.

Democrats are likely to agree and, on the campaign trail, to point to the bailout as a successful policy. "This is another important step in GM's rebound and in the recovery of the domestic auto industry," said Michigan Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, in a statement. "A successful IPO will be even more evidence that the steps the government took in 2008 and 2009 were good for workers, good for Michigan, and good for the nation. I'm optimistic this success story is going to keep getting better."

But with voters still on edge about government spending, some analysts say even wrapping up the issue with the IPO won't help Democrats. "What this actually does is to remind people that the bailout was done, that the bailout is, in a sense, ongoing," says David John, senior policy fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, echoing what Republicans are likely to tell voters. "It's doubtful that we are going to see that $50 billion again."

For now, the debate about whether this is a symbol of recovery or a reminder of the bailouts is likely to break on party lines. However, one thing is clear according to Eisenbrey. "This is a symbol of how much better things are than they were two years ago," he says. "But I don't think this by itself signals that the economy is safely on the road to complete recovery."

Tags:
General Motors,
2010 Congressional elections,
Carl Levin,
Congress

Reader Comments Read all comments (12)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Good for GM! There would have been more jobs lost if the feds had not helped GM. BTW; I'm no fan of Bush, but it was Bush who initially implemented the bailouts.

HopeforAmerica of WA 9:07PM August 30, 2010

It is doubtful that either the author and many of the readers really understand what has happened with the bailout of GM & Chrysler. Let's review the facts. First, President Obama totally upended and subverted the traditional bankruptcy laws of this country. Those bankruptcy would have erased stockholder value and placed the company in the hands of the bondholders who could, then, have, through the Chapter 11 process, reorganized the company should the bankruptcy judge and secured creditors felt it had merit. GM undoubtedly had enough merit to survive, at least in part (which was all that happened anyway).

But that's not what Obama did (he also did not follow the established legal procedures in the BP oil spill matter, either). He and Congress spent $50 billion on GM and $8 billion on Chrysler (strangely not mentioned in this article)--but the money went mostly to union pension funds. Both stockholders and bondholders of these companies were given the shaft, and unions were given part of the company and the government and the Canadian government took the rest. Is that fair? It's certainly is not the law.

Now we (Obama) have forgiven Chrysler the $8 billion and will never see a nickel of that money. And the concept that GM will pay the government back it's full $50 billion is highly unlikely. Will GM survive--perhaps, and hopefully it will. But it could have and should have using traditional Chapter 11 bankruptcy procedures that were recommended for the company at the time. Now, because of Obama, he has put uncertainty into the equation for bondholders of any major entity that may be taken over by an invasive, intrusive government--a government that can and obviously will steal their equity at the blink of an eye. More economic uncertainty is what Obama has created.

SherlockHolmes of NH 10:53AM August 29, 2010

GM is issuing stock to raise more money? Apparently, they didn't get enough from their first "free" IPO. No, Government Motors isn't going away. They are just building $40,000 electric vehicles. I wonder how Ford made it without government help.

Jim of MI 8:11PM August 28, 2010

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos