iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Mitt Romney Insists He 'Was Frankly Right' On Auto Bailout Stance

First Posted: 11/08/11 08:39 PM ET Updated: 11/09/11 01:13 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney has made a very simple argument about his controversial stance regarding the auto bailouts of 2008 and 2009: He was right all along.

As Democrats pounded him Tuesday for an op-ed he wrote in 2008 with the headline, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," Romney insisted in an interview with ABC News and Yahoo that the course he recommended in that New York Times opinion piece was, ultimately, the path that President Obama chose to take.

"I was frankly right. They had to go through managed bankruptcy," Romney said. "They finally went through bankruptcy. That was what was necessary in order to get rid of the excess costs and for them to be able to get on their feet."

Romney was correct that he advised managed bankruptcy as a way to sustain the Big Three automakers, and that he was not recommending their dissolution. But Romney's gripe over the initial $17 billion bailout is with former President George W. Bush, not Obama. Romney acknowledged as much during his interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

"My criticism was not directed toward just President Obama. It was also President Bush. I said don't write checks. They need to go through bankruptcy. And that's finally what happened," Romney said.

But Bush said at the time that allowing the automakers to fail was "not a responsible course of action." Further, the point man for Bush in the White House at the time has subsequently said that General Motors and Chrysler would have been "liquidated" if forced to go through bankruptcy in December 2008.

"In the last week of December, GM and Chrysler told us they would file under Chapter 11 in early January if they did not get loans from the [Troubled Asset Relief Program]. They also told us, as did countless outside experts, that they were not ready for such a filing, and that Chapter 11 would lead to near-immediate liquidation. We estimated that about 1.1 million jobs would be lost if this happened," wrote Keith Hennessey, the former director of the National Economic Council in the Bush White House, on June 7, 2009.

"Confronted with a choice between loaning TARP funds to GM and Chrysler, and allowing both to liquidate in the weeks before his successor took office, President Bush authorized loans from the TARP to GM and Chrysler," Hennessey said.

It's this argument, essentially, that Democrats are using in their attacks on Romney, which will continue Wednesday as he heads to Detroit for the ninth debate of the Republican presidential primary.

"If Mitt Romney was president, there would not be an American auto industry. Industry experts have been clear: Our auto companies would have faced liquidation if Mitt Romney had his way and more than 1 million Americans would have lost their jobs," said Ben LaBolt, the spokesman for Obama's reelection campaign. "Mitt Romney must explain to Michigan voters this week why he would have let Detroit go bankrupt."

As to whether the Obama administration came around to Romney's argument that there should be a managed bankruptcy after initial resistance, there is some evidence that the White House was not sold on that approach early in 2009.

"Is Obama willing to go the bankruptcy route? He might be, if he thinks it's the best way to save the most jobs, but we don't know yet," a senior administration official told The New York Times in March.

Romney's position now is one that appears designed to capitalize on the intense and widespread hatred for bailouts of any kind. However, Romney's position is not a 100 percent condemnation of taxpayer-funded assistance to struggling industries. Romney said "support that came" after the auto companies entered the managed bankruptcy phase "was appropriate."

However, the biggest chunk of more than $80 billion in government funds that went to GM and Chrysler was a $30 billion payment to GM in June 2009, after it declared bankruptcy.

The Romney campaign did not answer questions about whether Romney favored that particular payout.

And when Stephanopoulos pressed Romney on whether he had any beef with Obama's approach, Romney switched gears somewhat to the complaint that the United Auto Workers were favored too much in negotiations over which stakeholders took the biggest haircuts during the bankruptcy process.

Romney, in fact, applauded Obama on March 31, 2009, when the president rejected the initial restructuring plans from GM and Chrysler.

"I think a lot of people expected the president just to cave and to write a big check and hope for the better," Romney said on CNN. "I'm glad that he's expressing some backbone on this and saying to those guys, 'You have to get your house in order or you guys are gone, you'll have to go to bankruptcy."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney has made a very simple argument about his controversial stance regarding the auto bailouts of 2008 and 2009: He was right all along. As Democrats pounded him Tuesday for a...
WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney has made a very simple argument about his controversial stance regarding the auto bailouts of 2008 and 2009: He was right all along. As Democrats pounded him Tuesday for a...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 305
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (12 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:59 PM on 11/11/2011
The Radical Right opposed the bail out in part because they wanted Pres O's figures on job loss to go up more.
09:47 AM on 11/11/2011
He was right, businesses should file bankrupty through the court system, not using government bailout, in which the government detrimines the winner and losers.

Of course in the case of GM the tax payers are still on the hook.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kinogod
word farmer
11:22 AM on 11/11/2011
We are not still on the hook for any but a teensy weensy portion of all the bail out funds combined, which have lost all been paid back but the ones pushed forward with "no rules or regulations" by bush jr. Get your facts straight. Let me ask you -- shouldn't the banks, the whole economic system been allowed to crash into a 30's style depression -- no help for banks or insurance companies which hold people's investments and securities?
11:52 AM on 11/11/2011
On March 18, 2010, the government's nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected the government will end up losing $34 billion in TARP funds extended to the automotive industry. The CBO didn't break out how much of that is tied to GM, but it's fair to say most of it.

While we found a GM official quoted as saying he thinks taxpayers will eventually get all their money back, few industry experts agree.

In an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, Paul Ingrassia, the newspaper's former Detroit bureau chief and author of Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster, wrote: "It won't be easy for an IPO to raise $52 billion for the government shares. That's more than Ford Motor's current market capitalization, some $48 billion. And Ford, the only U.S. car company to avoid bankruptcy, already is profitable, which GM isn't. For GM to show sustained profits means doing business in a new way and breathing new life into long-moribund brands."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:59 PM on 11/11/2011
So I guess Grichde is for Occupy Wall Street then, huh?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:24 AM on 11/11/2011
What is that sound I hear......flip flop flip flop flip flop....
08:01 PM on 11/10/2011
If I remember correctly, the first auto industry bailout was awarded by the Bush admininistration, but the 2009 extension loan had conditions attached to it: both Chrysler and GM agreed to close plants, cut workers, and reduce the number of car models. That's the difference between the bailouts of the auto companies and those of the Wall Street banks. George Bush bailed out both without imposing conditions. Obama imposed conditions on the auto companies when they came back for more money. Under the Obama administration, the auto industry has succeeded.
06:51 PM on 11/09/2011
The issue is that the auto went through bankrupty. Federally controlled bankrupty. Where retired stockholder got sold out to the unions that supported Obama. They could have gone through bankrupty like all other businesses have too. But the unions would have lost out.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chef151
07:08 PM on 11/10/2011
How would the stockholders fared with a near-immediate liquidation of the auto-industry?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:22 AM on 11/11/2011
The WORKERS would have lost out. The Radical Right is so intent on hating unions, but unions are people that just want to earn a wage that they can raise a family on. Why is that bad?
09:42 AM on 11/11/2011
The right is not against workers. Its the union bosses and how they use the hard earned dues workers have to pay. A worker doesn't even have the right to choose which political candidate their dues go to support. Is that fair? If a worker is opposed to the union they don't have the right to opt out. Is it fair someone has to belong to an organization they are opposed to?

Then as we have seen all the corrpution that involves the bosses.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mech126
Science, and government are "NOT" the enemy...
06:23 PM on 11/09/2011
Just remember everyone mitt is right, if you don't believe him, just ask him, he will tell you he is.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SecularJoe
If a belief gives you comfort then it is suspect
04:47 PM on 11/09/2011
Mitt is on both sides of every issue. I've seen people accused of this before, but never someone who really was such a poster-child for flip flopping.
photo
feed the enemy
Tea & Scorn Flakes - the breakfast of TheoCons
04:26 PM on 11/09/2011
Mitt Flop! The only thing you haven't flip flopped on put you on the wrong side. Oops.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jdo1958
04:16 PM on 11/09/2011
Here is what the party of stupid needs to hear. Even though the economy and unemployment is what it is, Obama still beats this guys. With Obama's polls being what they are, the GOP should be able to run a dog catcher; and still win. But, they're not. What does that tell you? It tells me that Americans still blame the GOP and their policies for the mess we're in.
thebigbike
ran away to be a cowboy
04:11 PM on 11/09/2011
Frankly, I'll be totally honest with you, I'll level with you here, whatever I said then has to be looked at in the light of what I said later....
Javalation
Laughing in a Daydream
04:10 PM on 11/09/2011
He should have worn his auto worker clothes to the interview, to emphasize his support.
05:07 PM on 11/09/2011
or the top secret underwear to show his support.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kimhoulian
04:00 PM on 11/09/2011
I love you, no I didn't mean I love you, Ok I'm not in love with you, I care about you,,,,forget it, I'm confuse but please don't hate me.

In the mist of confusion say No to Obstructionist and Romney and.....Vote Obama 2012 and for a Congress who will work with him
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Playlist
Ain't nothing like the real thing
03:58 PM on 11/09/2011
Mitt the Flip flopper flips again...Polls in Michigan and Ohio show Obama winning against Multiple Choice Mitt...the voters remember ...we know he is the GOP nominee and he would have let Ohio and Michigan families suffer even more...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mwoody1955
listen 2 the people
03:13 PM on 11/09/2011
Does he ever not change his mind?
photo
Sorenson
Time for a Revolt of No Confidence
03:50 PM on 11/09/2011
Sure, when it comes to destroying companies to make a quick buck.
photo
mariusvinchi
Saint Lucia is looking better and better every day
03:08 PM on 11/09/2011
Unreal! Has Romney still not realized that EVERY comment he's ever made is recorded for all posterity?
The sad fact is, Romney wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in November of 08' that was in many ways, a brilliant business plan for the auto industries future strength and vitality. A plan he quickly distanced himself from when he opted to slam the Obama administrations decision to intervene. An intervention he supported at the time....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html