Contrary to Claim, White House Did Control GM's Daily Business And Cut Workers' Pay?

-By Warner Todd Huston

When Barack Obama threw millions of our tax dollars at General Motors to "save it," the administration claimed that it would not involve itself in the "day-to-day management" of the venerable car company. New emails obtained by The Daily Caller, however, casts doubt on this claim.

In fact, as Matthew Boyle reports, the emails "reveal that Treasury officials were involved in decision-making that led to more than 20,000 non-union workers losing their pensions."

It turns out that Treasurer Secretary Timothy Geithner pressured GM, widely derided as Government Motors, to cut the pensions for the salaried, non-union employees at Delphi, a company owned by GM.

You read that right. Obama and his cabinet members are responsible for stealing away the retirement benefits of employees. Now, just think of this for a second. Isn't it the Democrats led by Obama that claim they are the champions of the workingman? Aren't they constantly claiming that they want to help workers get good benefits, good salaries, and good pensions?

Yet, here we have Obama and his minions slashing people's earned benefits? Here we have Obama eliminating people's retirement funds? What happened to all that "we care about the workers" business?

Ah, but we see... the workers in question weren't union workers. So, in truth Democrats don't care about workers. They only care about unions.

CHICAGO TRIBUNE VIDEO

Comments

Leave a comment
  • How dare the government interfere when the at one point largest international corporation in the world came crawling to Obama on the brink of mismanaging itself into bankruptcy.

    You should be thanking Obama for making one of our largest companies solvent again and turning the auto industry around in the right direction.

    The alternatives to cutting pensions was liquidating the company, so you decide which is a more beneficial result for the country.

  • In reply to Crowned:

    I "thank" our communist in chief for nothing. He should have let GM fail.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Why would GM failing and thousands losing their jobs have been better? Out of principle?

  • In reply to Jimmy Greenfield:

    First of all, I doubt it would have failed. I don't believe in "too big to fail." Govt's job is not to float failing companies. (So, I guess that is a "yes" out of principle)

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    I guess the question then is if you could have been certain GM would have failed would you have wanted the government to step in and do what it could to turnaround.

    I know it's a big "what if" but from what I've read it was a certainty that it was going under.

  • In reply to Jimmy Greenfield:

    Very possible. But it just isn't the role of the people to pay companies to stay in business. It is simply bad policy as it gives every other company no reason to practice good business policies.

Leave a comment