CBS Smacks Romney on Auto Industry Bailout; Goes Easier on DNC Chair
CBS's Erica Hill hounded newly-announced Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Friday's Early Show about his 2008 proposal to allow the Big Three auto companies to go into bankruptcy proceedings instead of bailing them out: "Based on what we've seen in the auto industry, weren't you wrong in this case?" By contrast, her co-anchor, Chris Wragge, went easier on DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Hill interviewed Romney just after the top of the 8 am Eastern hour. After an initial question about his 2008 Republican primary loss to Senator John McCain, the CBS anchor raised the former Massachusetts governor's two-plus-year-old proposal and, like her colleague Dean Reynolds did earlier in the broadcast, touted the apparent success of the Obama administration's bailout of Detroit:
HILL: In 2008, you said, and I'm quoting, 'We should let Detroit go bankrupt.' Today, though, the industry is clearly on the rebound- 115,000 jobs added. Money is being paid back. The President, of course, is in Ohio today highlighting Chrysler. You also accuse the President yesterday of making the recession worse. But based on what we've seen in the auto industry, weren't you wrong in this case? Wasn't it right for both the auto industry and for the American economy to help that industry?
Once Romney gave his initial answer, explaining what he meant in his New York Times opinion piece, Hill pressed him in an attempt to concede his supposed error:
HILL: The companies actually had to go through bankruptcy- but sir, the companies actually had to go through bankruptcy before that bailout.
ROMNEY: Yeah, that's exactly what I said. The headline you read, which said, 'let Detroit go bankrupt,' points out that those companies needed to go through bankruptcy to shed those costs, and the federal government put in, I think, $17 billion into those companies before they finally recognized, yeah, they need to go bankrupt, go through that process, so that they're able to get rid of their excess costs.
HILL: So then- just to be clear, so then are you saying the President took your plan? I'm just- I'm trying to follow here because they did actually go through bankruptcy in 2009. You called the whole process, of everything that was happening, tragic. You said it was a sad circumstance for the country. But yet, it's turned out fairly positive, a lot of folks would say, especially in Detroit.
ROMNEY: Erica, I think you're misunderstanding. What I wrote early on was absolutely right. I said these companies shouldn't be given money up-front by the federal government, like they were by the way, both by President Bush and by President Obama. Instead, they should go through a bankruptcy process, and if they did, they could come out stronger and well. And that's precisely what ultimately happened. So I'm very proud of the fact that, in fact, we called it like it was and that is these companies needed to go through a bankruptcy process, come out through bankruptcy, go back to work, get jobs for the people who had would otherwise have lost jobs, if these companies just trailed on down. And, by the way, we could have saved billions of dollars had we moved to bankruptcy from the very beginning.
Wragge's interview of Rep. Wasserman Schultz immediately followed the Romney segment. The CBS personality first simply asked her for a response to the would-be Republican presidential candidate:
WRAGGE: You just heard the Republican front-runner, Mitt Romney, speaking with Erica [Hill] moments ago, and earlier in the broadcast, said that President Obama has failed America and there he was just kind of going off on a bit of a tangent of- the President putting America on the road to ruin. What are your thoughts and your response to that?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, Mr. Romney seems to have a puzzling definition of failure. If you look at the track record of President Obama, he has taken this economy from the precipice of disaster and turned things around. And now, we've had 14 straight months of private sector job growth. The manufacturing industry has had job growth for 14 straight months. We were literally bleeding 750,000 jobs a month before he took office. And because of the Recovery Act, because of the investment that we made in the auto industry- I mean, we're going through some revisionist history here that Mr. Romney seems to have, because it was the investments that we made and the bankruptcy combined- and I think the auto industry executives would say that they couldn't have gotten through to the other side and been profitable without both....Fifty percent of the Recovery Act was tax cuts. We've given 17 tax- different tax cuts to small businesses, because that's the engine of job growth, and we continue to move the economy in the right direction. So, I think the American people are going to continue to be responsive to that....
The anchor then actually pressed the DNC chair a bit about whether Mr. Obama should actually be held responsible for the economy at this point in his presidency:
WRAGGE: Also, let me ask you this then: two-and-a-half years into his first term, is this now President Obama's economy in both good and bad terms? Because even you mentioned there the last 14 months of seeing all this growth and whatnot, and I know the party line for a number of months has been, we inherited this, the Bush administration did this. So is now the Bush administration now off the books, and now, can you sit there and say that this is now all the responsibility of this president, both good and bad?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, there's no question that President Obama inherited, you know, the worst economic disaster of any president in generations. But his policies have continued to- I mean, literally, have helped the economy do a 180, and now, we have continued for 14 straight months to create private sector jobs. We continue to be on the right track, and we need to make sure that we focus on deficit reduction and cutting spending, but do it in a way that makes sure that people engage in shared sacrifice, so that we're not slashing and burning education; so that we're not limiting our ability to out-educate and out-innovate and out-build our competitors; and so that we can make sure that we can really have some prosperity for the long term.
And what the Republicans want to do is end Medicare as we know it, which Governor Romney supports; pile all the hurt on the backs of people who can least afford it in the middle class; and continue to give tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. That's just unacceptable....
Instead of pursuing her on this answer, Wragge returned to issue of Romney's candidacy and asked whether his explanation about the Massachusetts proto-ObamaCare law which passed under his term as governor passed muster: "Let me ask you this: his argument is, you know what? This is what the people of my state needed at the time, and it was good for the state of Massachusetts at the time. But now, he feels that's not necessarily the best case for the nation...[W]hat's wrong with that? What's wrong with it being good for one state, but not good for the entire country?"
The CBS anchor concluded the interview by raising the Rep. Anthony Weiner controversy. Wragge did repeat his question twice, after the Florida Democrat stated "I think it's a personal matter and that's where it should be left," but probably because his time was up, didn't pursue the matter further other than interjecting, "It's a public matter, though, too."
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
The taxpayers are being paid back?
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 2:28pm.
As I recall, this week, the WH acknowledged that we will lose $14 billion on GM.
I believe this is a lie.
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:55pm.
I think there is much more debt GM is carrying that is government insured and will never be repaid.
The announcement a some months back that GM had already paid back its bailout funds was also a lie, as evidenced by this new announcement.
Chrysler and GM should have been allowed to go TU financially
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 3:33pm.
They most likely would have emerged from bankruptcy leaner and meaner entities.
They might could even have gotten rid of the union goons who have been helping to drive them into the dirt for decades.
As it stands now, they are still the clumsily-run behemoths they have always been, and we hapless taxpayer saps are out at least $14 billion, although I suspect the actual amount is much higher.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Honestly, I'm not a huge Romney fan, BUT...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 3:33pm.
...he was absolutely right about the auto industry. Look at Ford. They got their act together, turned things around WITHOUT gov't help, and they're doing great. Compare that to the epic socialist/worker's party trainwreck in action that is Government Motors. Recalls galore. Product quality has ACTUALLY GOTTEN WORSE. Government sucks at doing business. Instead of trying to prop up or take over private companies, they should simply let them sink or swim on their own. Of course, Obama couldn't resist STEALING stocks from retirees and shareholders who rightfully owned them and giving them to union buddies.
Debbie Waterhead Schultz is easily the single most reality-challenged human being on the planet. She's definitely 'special'. Apparently, she's only capable of speaking in BS Democrat talking points. Shows you how much of a severe deficit in honesty and ethics there is in the DNC.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
"Obama couldn't resist
Submitted by Injest on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 7:51pm.
"Obama couldn't resist STEALING stocks from retirees and shareholders who rightfully owned them and giving them to union buddies."
Hey that's unfair!
Those noontime 40 oz's and blunts don't come cheap ya know!
→ Injest
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 8:01pm.
I can't tell if you're agreeing that it happened or denying it. Please clarify.
Demo line...
Submitted by iveseenitall on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 4:31pm.
What about using the Democratic line..."You don't know what might have happened if we DIDN'T do it". Ford did just fine without a bailout--maybe the others would have too. Moreover, this bailout business is a crock of corruption. It's anti-American. Who got our money? Do you know? I don't. Funny, now the bailed-out banks can charge 20% on credit cards, but I can't get even 1% on a CD. Socialism/Communism always ends the same way---the few get rich while the many continue to suffer under the yoke of government crooks and dictators (read Orwell's "Animal Farm"). Something stinks here. [Never,Never trust a "liberal" ( progressive ) ]
Both Ways
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 10:47am.
You can't complain about a bank that offers loans at 20% and CDs at 1%, which is totally based on the free market, and then start a rant against socialism and communism. If you want state owned banks that offer low interest rate loans and high interest rate CDs, then just come out and say so. But that would be communism, now, wouldn't it?
The reason that banks only need to pay 1%, (if you're lucky), for a CD is because the federal government is keeping short term rates artificially low. The banks can borrow all the money they need from the fed or other banks at close to zero, so they don't need to compete for private funding. That's a federal government driven problem to your low CD rate, not a bank created "problem".
With regards to credit card debt, I hope your not being serious about paying 20%. Nothing you could purchase on a credit card is worth getting saddled with a 20% annual interest rate.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
The Government should have
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 4:52pm.
The Government should have never bailed out the auto industry and interfered with the bankruptcy proceedings. It was done as payback to the Unions.
I was also wondering where Debbie Wheresmybrain Schultz is getting this information? The manufacturing industry has had job growth for 14 straight months. We were literally bleeding 750,000 jobs a month before he took office.
Funny, I was perusing the Bureau of Labor Statistics and looked for the unemployment figures in the Manufacturing Industry and came up with this:
Data extracted on: June 4, 2011 (4:36:25 PM)
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Series Id: LNU03032232
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Unemployment Level - Manufacturing Industry, Private Wage and Salary Workers
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Class of worker: Private wage and salary workers
Labor force experience: Experienced
Industry: Manufacturing (1070-3990)
Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 911 902 954 855 903 956 1054 1023 996 1065 1108 1172 992
2002 1377 1296 1367 1322 1194 1187 1185 1108 1076 1046 1115 1188 1205
2003 1302 1229 1222 1199 1150 1232 1193 1186 1175 1041 1034 1025 1166
2004 1110 1094 1083 1004 966 957 1019 840 852 884 905 872 966
2005 889 889 879 793 743 743 883 767 775 800 823 757 812
2006 778 821 701 745 680 635 736 680 632 618 702 660 699
2007 752 774 742 749 651 653 621 596 673 729 762 772 706
2008 837 820 831 796 879 862 908 960 984 1007 1144 1315 945
2009 1711 1822 1912 1968 2010 2010 1988 1866 1876 1884 1882 1747 1890
2010 1918 1814 1898 1688 1584 1519 1556 1463 1471 1474 1526 1551 1622
2011 1519 1492 1475 1444 1453
Please correct me if I am wrong, but does anyone see anywhere 750,000 jobs being lost a month before Odumbo took office?
Debbie Wheresmybrain Schultz, the gift that keeps on giving.
Edit: I also do not see job growth for the past 14 months, looks like to me that it is up some months and down others.
14 months is cherry picking the data
Submitted by Cowboy on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 12:14am.
If one selects the passage of the 'stimulus' (Feb 2009) until now, the number of employed (both seasonally adjusted and non-seasonally adjusted) has decreased since its passage over two years ago. And job 'growth' over the last year has been far less than what is required to even maintain a stable unemployment rate...
BLS: Employed (seasonally adjusted)
Feb 2009: 140,105 thousand
May 2009: 140,363 thousand
Mar 2010: 137,983 thousand
May 2010: 139,497 thousand
May 2011: 140,028 thousand
BLS: Employed (non-seasonally adjusted)
Feb 2009: 141,687 thousand
May 2009: 140,292 thousand
Mar 2010: 138,952 thousand
May 2010: 139,353 thousand
May 2011: 139,779 thousand
The fact that
Submitted by Injest on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 7:39pm.
"HILL: In 2008, you said, and I'm quoting, 'We should let Detroit go bankrupt.' Today, though, the industry is clearly on the rebound- 115,000 jobs added. Money is being paid back. The President, of course, is in Ohio today highlighting Chrysler. You also accuse the President yesterday of making the recession worse. But based on what we've seen in the auto industry, weren't you wrong in this case? Wasn't it right for both the auto industry and for the American economy to help that industry?"
Ah NO.
The fact that Ford was not part of the "bailout" proves the "bailout" was not needed.
The fact that other companies, manufacturing their cars and trucks here in the USA, proves the "bailout" was not needed.
The fact that GM and Chrysler had to go thru the same "bankrupt" reorganization (modified with tax payers money) proves the "bailout" was not needed.
The fact that some 14 billion (and counting) tax payers dollars have to be forgiven as GM and Chrysler can not pay that back proves the "bailout" was stupid.
The fact that the President includes Ford when talking about the "bailout" proves the President is lying and trying to spin this blunder as a good thing.
The fact that you, CBS are promoting this debacle, blatantly false lies, proves your in the tank for Obama.
Next!
The cost in jobs actually lost is huge
Submitted by Cowboy on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 12:29am.
The money 'loaned' to GM has NOT been paid back. Converting the 'loan' to equity for pennies on the dollar is not 'paying back'. Further share sales need to average $53 a share to make up for the $33 per-share IPO price. Last week's closing price was $29.16
Add to that the fact that the GM bond holders getting the shaft has helped discourage anyone from investing in jobs in an Obama economy. It cannot be trusted.