Romney benefited from the auto bailout?

Romney benefited from the auto bailout?

So, I have to admit, I hate politics. I don't follow them until I absolutely have to, which is usually about 24 hours before I vote. Which is why an email that  a friend sent me yesterday hit me in the sweet  spot of my voting research. It was a link to an article in "The Nation" entitled: Mitt Romney's bailout bonanza by Greg Palast.

It's a really long article (really, really long) that tells a very long (very, very long) and winding story about how Mitt Romney's $1 million investment (perhaps more) in Elliott Management turned into multi-million dollar gains. How does this relate to the auto bailout? Elliott bought up debt from auto supplier Delphi Automotive when it declared bankruptcy. Because Delphi was considered essential to the success of bringing General Motors and Chrysler back to life, according to the article, it got $12.9 billion directly or indirectly from the federal government.

So, if I'm connecting the dots correctly and the information in the article is accurate: When Elliott bought initial shares of Delphi in 2009 at 20 cents a share then sold those same shares in 2011 (post bailout) for $22 a share, well, that accounts for a 3000% profit. So, what exactly does that do to an initial $1 million investment? Hmmmmm ...

The last 2 graphs of this very (very, very, very) long story bring the point home:

Nevertheless, even if the Romneys were blind to their initial investment in Elliott, they would have known by the beginning of 2010 that they had a massive position in Delphi and would make a fortune from the bailout and TARP funds. Delphi is not a minor investment for Singer; it is his main holding. To invest in Elliott is essentially a “Delphi play”: that is, investing with Singer means buying a piece of the auto bailout.

Mitt Romney may indeed have wanted to let Detroit die. But if the auto industry was going to be bailed out after all, the Romneys apparently couldn’t resist getting in on a piece of 
the action.

So, the question I have to ask is: For a guy who appears to have benefited nicely from the bailout, how can he be so vocally against it? Or, is he against it for everyone but himself?

Please, discuss ...

And, um, by the way ... have you voted yet? If not, you should. Whether you're republican or democrat, it's important.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I'm fairly sure that Romney would say anything. I'm surprised that this didn't get out in time for it to make any difference. And there is never hypocrisy when it comes to making money. Sure.

    I knew that things were going in a screwy direction when other Republicans were working him over in the Ohio and Michigan primaries for saying that the auto companies should have gone through bankruptcy. Certainly they did, but it was a government sponsored one to get them through the process as quickly as possible. I wonder what would have happened if they went through a bankruptcy similar to the Tribune Co. one, which has lasted at least 3 years.

  • You don't pay attention until 24 hours from voting?

    Supposed you missed the entire Bengazi thing, too.

    Do the electorate on both sides of the aisle a favor next time: buckle down for at least 72 hours prior and get a grasp on what's happening. Just going uh...duh.. let's see now..... at this point is really, really irresponsible.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    That wasn't why I sent Richard to read this.

    I said the reason was that you had evidence that Romney was a money grubbing hypocrite. Apparently Richard couldn't comprehend that.

  • In reply to jack:

    i'm happy to have everyone's opinion. but to call me irresponsible for tuning out all the attack ads? i find that funny. i probably did more research in 24 hours than 99% of the people who voted.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    actually, within the 24 hours before the election i do a lot of research on every candidate. so, i don't think it's irresponsible at all. i even researched every judge on the ballot. did you? if not, that would be irresponsible.

  • Sorry, Jill.

    You must be superwoman to do that much research on not only the main candidates but all the judges. Amazing.

    You are the Evelyn Woods of candidate research.

    Whose fooling whom, really?

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Apparently, by saying that you would not be p.oed at the result, you Richard. Enjoy another 4 years.

Leave a comment