Imagine a time of economic downturn; people out of work, businesses closing, people losing their homes. In response to these extraordinary circumstances, the Federal government takes unprecedented steps to get the economy working again.

Ultimately, the corporations created serve two masters: The politicians with their political agendas, and the business people with their profit motive.

As long as the economy is booming, there is no problem, but when another slow-down hits it is clear the two “bottom lines” are incompatible.

An unrealistic scenario? Can you say “Fannie Mae” or “Freddie Mac”?

Well, you better be able to say Gennie Mae – the Federal government now owns 60% of GM.

When the political agenda and business agenda of GM come into conflict, what do you think will happen?

So let’s give GM to the real owners, not the politicians in Washington, give it to the people who paid for the 60% ownership - the American taxpayer.

If by using taxpayer money the Obama administration has the government owning 60% of GM, I want my stock.

Take everyone who paid Federal income tax for 2008 and divide up the GM stock proportionally.

Send me my GM stock.

According to Bloomberg:

General Motors Corp. may be more likely to end up in bankruptcy based on the Obama administration’s willingness to place Chrysler LLC into court protection to safeguard union health-care benefits.

GM bondholders proposed April 30 they get a 58 percent ownership stake in the Detroit-based automaker in exchange for their $27 billion in unsecured claims. Bondholders are objecting to GM’s proposal they get a 10 percent share of GM equity while a union health fund would get $10 billion in cash and as much as a 39 percent stake for $20 billion in unsecured claims.

Now the math is pretty simple. If the union health fund would get $10 billion in cash and as much as a 39 percent stake for $20 billion in unsecured claims and bondholders have $27 billion in unsecured claims, using the same formula the bondholders should get $13.5 billion in cash and a 53 percent stake.

CEO apparent of GM, Barrack Obama, has said that the Federal government would back up warrantees on all GM and Chrysler cars. 

This must mean that Mr. Obama also intends to control the details of those warrantees. Surely, the Obama administration would not let GM and Chrysler offer warrantees without first approving the fine print. 

Imagine this: The warrantee on your 2010 GM or Chrysler car not only provides for the standard items, but includes a buy-back at purchase price if you lose your job, or perhaps a guarantee to give you 80% of the purchase price if you trade your 2010 in for a new car within five years. Remember, it is all backed by your tax dollars.

Wonder how Ford, Toyota, etc. would feel about that?

“He Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune.” Rick Wagoner, CEO of GM, learned the hard way the truth of this idiom. GM took a huge bailout from Uncle Sam, GM apparently wanted more, and the Obama administration wanted Wagoner out. If I were the largest stockholder in GM and I was dissatisfied with Mr. Wagoner as CEO, I might want him out also. However, there is a very big difference between stockholders and the Federal government.

Stockholders first and often only priority is to make money. The same cannot be said of the Federal government – it does not need to “make money” because it can actually make money. It can also tax you and me whenever it wants to spend more. If Mr. Wagoner had that ability he would still be in charge of GM.

For a moment assume that Mr. Wagoner’s resignation is necessary to “save” GM. Now what? Does the Obama administration get to appoint the new CEO? Does it have veto power over the selection? Does anyone believe that a Federal administration, Democratic or Republican, would appoint the CEO of a major corporation without any political consideration?

Now, imagine that the new CEO of GM decides the company needs to build a new automotive assembly plant. Does the Obama administration sit idly by while the new CEO of GM decides to build the plant in Mississippi, a non-union, Republican leaning state? Hardly. Either the administration appointed CEO knows better, or one way or another is pressured to build the plant in a Democratic union state. 

How far down the corporate ladder does the Obama administration reach in directly or indirectly appointing people? How about the presidents of GM’s divisions? Vice-presidents? Managers?

Then there is the issue of product control. Will the left-wing, liberal Obama administration decide that the gas guzzling Corvette is environmentally unfriendly and thus should be discontinued?

I do not have any poll numbers, but I would guess that more Republicans and conservatives own pick-up trucks than Democrats and liberals. How long before there are no pick-up trucks?

Certainly, what is “good” for GM is good for the banks. Will Mr. Geitner now be asking for the resignation of bank CEOs?

It is about time Americans started calling the bailouts and stimulus packages what they are: socialism.

We are back to Tammany Hall politics, where those in political power can blatantly hand out jobs in return for votes.

The United States Treasury will purchase a $5 billion stake in GMAC and lend $1 billion to GM so GM can help with GMAC’s reorganization as a bank holding company.

According to The Liberal New York Times, “GMAC lowered its credit score for financing to 621, which is one point above what is generally considered a subprime loan.” The median credit score for Americans is in the 720-740 range.

GMAC has no plans to offer loans to those with credit ratings at 620 or below. Too risky, I guess – but 621 is okay. Well, you have to draw a line somewhere.

Strange though, two months ago before our tax dollars went to GMAC, GMAC set its loan level at 700. 

GMAC lowered its requirements for loans so GM could sell more cards to people who may not be able to afford them.

So, buy a house you cannot afford and get a government bailout; then buy a car you cannot afford from a partially government owned company and no doubt when you cannot make the payments get a government bailout.

GM and Chrysler are getting a $13.4 billion loan to keep going; AIG $150 billion; then there is Fannie and Freddie; the financial industry gets a $700 billion bailout; and the Democrats may be talking about as much as a $1 trillion economic stimulus package over the next two years.

But wait, The Liberal New York Times in an editorial on December 21, 2008 called for:

• “End production of the Air Force’s F-22…The net annual savings: about $3 billion.”
• “Cancel the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyer…Cutting the last two could save more than $3 billion a year.”
• “Halt production of the Virginia class sub…Net savings: $2.5 billion.”
• “Pull the plug on the Marine Corps’s V-22 Osprey…Net savings: $2 billion to 2.5 billion.”
• “Halt premature deployment of missile defense…for a net savings of nearly $5 billion.”
• “Trim the active-duty Navy and Air Force…Reducing the Navy by one carrier group and the Air Force by two air wings would save about $5 billion a year.”

According to The Times:

“The cuts above could save $20 billion to $25 billion a year, which could be better used as follows:

o       Increase the size of the ground force.

o       Pay for the Navy’s needed littoral combat ships.

o       Resupply the National Guard and the Reserves.”

Now just based on the editorial, some of the suggestions would seem to make sense, except that accepting The Liberal New York Times as a reliable source on military needs and spending is like thinking Saddam Hussein never used WMDs.

Gee, I wonder what is really more important to the future of the country: AIG or national security?

Without debating the merits of the specific suggestions, the most telling comment in the editorial was:

“Halt production of the Virginia class sub…The program is little more than a public works project to keep the Newport News, Va., and Groton, Conn., naval shipyards in business.”

Almost as an aside, one could discuss what the future might hold if we did not have these shipyards to build naval vessels?

What does The Liberal New York Times think is the point of the $1 trillion economic stimulus package? Certainly not public works projects!

I guess the liberal view of the stimulus is that it is to get Americans back to work and improve the Nation’s infrastructure everywhere except in the defense industry.