Obamanomics 101: The Volt experience
The Chevy Volt, federally subsidized with a $7,500 tax credit for buyers, and its manufacturer General Motors, beneficiary of a taxpayer-funded $50 billion bailout, constitute the ideal case study in Obamanomics pitfalls.
The GM bailout “violated normal bankruptcy processes” by protecting United Auto Workers interests at bondholders' expense and bent tax law to cut what GM owed by tens of billions of dollars, reminds National Review. It points out that today, as Democrats claim GM's “thriving,” its shares are worth half what they were in January 2011.
August Volt sales set a record, but only because of discounted lease offers, and still leave 2012's sales pace far short of GM's 40,000-Volt target, Reuters reports.
Reuters estimates GM's losing $49,000 per $40,000 Volt sold. GM disputes the number. But Townhall.com columnist John Ransom quips, “It would be cheaper for the company to quietly ask potential Volt buyers if they would take a $40,000 check just to go away.”
Trying to obscure failure under “greening” cover, the administration has been buying up Volts. Its General Services Administration bought 100. Its Pentagon is buying 1,500.
Perverting the rule of law to benefit political supporters? Touting a losing proposition as a success? Distorting markets? Subsidizing “green” products few want to buy — and spending still more public money as buyer of last resort? Check, check, check and check — earning Obamanomics the “F” grade it so richly deserves.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Thursday wrap
- State of surveillanc: The DEA database
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Open records: Hold the phone?
- The atom smasher
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Shenango shakedown: Public money at risk
- The Arneson firing: Legally dubious
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Those new methane rules: More eco-extremism