John Kasich opposed the federal bailout of GM, saying on the O’Reilly Factor on Fox News at the time:

“Americans will say we don’t mind helping them if they’re going to be viable. If they’re not going to be viable, we shouldn’t throw go money after bad. And so I think the public’s even going to put pressure on them.”

Except that the auto bailouts totally worked.  They saved the domestic auto industry in the Midwest and the tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of jobs that go along with it.  For the first time since 2006, GM has reported a quarterly profit ($2 billion, to be exact.)

John Kasich has a documented history of being, well, horrible at making economic forecasts.  In addition to his habit of suggesting the wrong States are doing economically well, Kasich famously said that if the 1993 Clinton budget didn’t send the economy into a deep recession and expand the federal deficit, he’d become a Democrat.  To the delight of Democrats everywhere, Kasich welched on his bet.

But today, John Kasich headed to Toledo to join “Government Motors” in the announcement of 400 new jobs as it is expanding its production capacity to meet higher demand.

How much you want to bet John Kasich admitted he was wrong about the GM bailout and Barack Obama was right?  Or that the media will call him out on his hypocritical posturing today to get in the spotlight on something that actually involves job creation in Ohio?

Meanwhile, ODP took today’s news as an opportunity to attack… Ken Blackwell?!? (Apparently, they think he’s more of a serious threat to win the GOP nomination over Josh Mandel than I imagined):

But if Ken Blackwell had his way, these jobs wouldn’t exist –and Toledo’s Powertrain plant (as well as many other plants across Ohio) –would be firing, not hiring workers. Ken Blackwell not only opposed help for the auto-industry, he actually went as far as describing the crucial assistance that helped save Ohio’s auto-industry as “illegal.”

That’s right, in Ken Blackwell’s Ohio, 400 new jobs in Toledo are illegal.

“Apparently Ken Blackwell believes that the actions that created 400 new Ohio jobs — helping auto-makers hire sooner than expected and strengthening Ohio’s economy – represent criminal activity,” said Justin Barasky, press secretary for the Ohio Democratic Party.  “These jobs help hundreds of Ohio families put food on the table, pay their bills, and get the peace of mind that they’ve been waiting for. It’s a good thing we have a Senator like Sherrod Brown who made the tough decision to support investing in the auto industry job creation, rather than criminalizing it.”

Being a Republican means never having to say you were wrong.

Evangelize!
  • Print
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Walbridge Rocks

    I’m sure kasich will try and take all the credit!!!! After all isn’t he the job creator? This jerk off makes me throw up a little bit in my mouth everytime I hear his voice.

  • Anonymous

    It’s no surprise that pumping tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into GM would rescue it from the dustbin, at least for a while. But there is no denying that bailing out GM, Detroit in general, or the banks for that matter, takes resources from other valuable uses. Can you recognize that other valuable uses were sacrificed by the GM bailout? Can you offer any evidence that the value of saving GM exceeds the value of what WASN’T done with that money? Can you legitimately claim that the bailout “worked” without any evidence that its value was greater than what was sacrificed?

    Not only that, but the precedent this sets (not that the government hasn’t done this many other times – see S&L crisis) is horrible. It rewards the “To Big To Fail” by, indeed, never ever letting them fail! And what really has changed? A miniscule percentage of managers at the top? Some reshuffling of parts? Yet the vast majority of GM’s “DNA” still exists, including all the traits and characteristics that caused it to fail in the first place.

    It would have been better to let GM die, and let the assets that were truly productive, whether capital or labor, become freed from GM’s control and find their way to better, higher, more efficient uses. In addition, the resources that were poured into the morass could have been left to do the same. It may have been painful at first, but in the long run the benefits to society far outweigh the costs.

  • Anonymous

    You’re talking about opportunity costs which would be difficult to project. The reality is that the action, as you later concede, was hardly unprecedented. Regardless, given the financial meltdown that was already occurring, allowing the United States auto industry to fail would have sent the country into a depression.

    What else could the U.S. make this kind of investment, save the number of jobs it did immediately, and get a return on its investment? Because in case you haven’t noticed, the U.S. taxpayer is, at worst, breaking even on this deal. I’d be hard pressed to think how the Adminsitration in bailing out the auto industry could have had a more immediate effect in saving jobs.

    And GM isn’t emerging as the same. It’s actually profitable again and is become the leading car manufacturer again.

  • Anonymous

    You’re talking about opportunity costs which would be difficult to project. The reality is that the action, as you later concede, was hardly unprecedented. Regardless, given the financial meltdown that was already occurring, allowing the United States auto industry to fail would have sent the country into a depression.

    What else could the U.S. make this kind of investment, save the number of jobs it did immediately, and get a return on its investment? Because in case you haven’t noticed, the U.S. taxpayer is, at worst, breaking even on this deal. I’d be hard pressed to think how the Adminsitration in bailing out the auto industry could have had a more immediate effect in saving jobs.

    And GM isn’t emerging as the same. It’s actually profitable again and is become the leading car manufacturer again.

  • Anonymous

    You have no way of knowing if this bailout “worked”. Yes, it saved jobs in the auto sector. But $50 billion dollars buys a lot of many things. How many jobs were lost in the travel and leisure industry because these resources weren’t available to be spent there? Or the sports industry? Or the appliance industry? How many Fords made in Dearborn or Honda’s made in Marysville weren’t bought because of this? There are no equations to tell you this. And speaking of Marysville, I wonder what those Honda employees have to say about their tax dollars being used to bail out the competition? Same for Ford.

    And it’s questionable if GM is really performing as well as they would have you believe. Have you ever heard of “channel stuffing”?

    http://stocksandthings.blogspot.com/2011/04/channel-stuffing-at-gm-hits-record.html

  • Guest

    He’s evil and a liar, more of the same….nothing to see here move along.

  • Anonymous

    Money, money, money, money; give a little, get a little. You clearly have a propensity to save rather than spend. Are there better things to spend scarce resources on than the motor of America’s economy for the last 100 years? Probably. But if that money had not been spent on improving the economy, I suspect it would have been wasted on tax cuts to the wealthy. At least the way Obama did it, we get something back. Kasich will take all of the credit he can squeeze out of it anyway. But it will keep a few more Ohioans in their homes, no thanks to Kasich and the Ohio Gang Of Pirates.

  • Guest

    Bailing out GM….good.
    Bailing out the Wall $treet bank robbers, economic arsonists and extortionists…not so much. They have the best governement that money can buy with their jobs program for the evil radical R’s. Creating jobs for mere mortals like us, not so much.

  • Guest

    Awesome Spitfiremk1
    Ohio Gang of Pirates = GOP. Gotta use that thanks a lot.

  • dlw

    By your own argument, you can’t say that using the money elsewhere would have been any more beneficial. I can’t say I was a huge fan of the plan at the time; but it certainly hasn’t been a meltdown of a failure and there is an argument to be made for helping retain a U.S. industry.

    [I type as I prepare to leave in my foreign car. Oy.......
    ]

  • Anonymous

    You’re correct. And I didn’t say that. But that’s not enough to justify spending $50 billion on an unknowable. There’s no equation that will tell you what the best use of $50 billion of taxpayer money would be. The central planners in D.C. are generally economically illiterate. But the decisions of thousands and thousands consumers of automobiles, who voted with their dollars, was pretty clear – they were not willing to compensate GM for their failure to produce an acceptable product at a price they were willing to pay. As distasteful as it is, firms that fail should have to suffer the consequences of their decisions. And letting GM fail would not have meant the end to the U.S. auto industry, and to say so is simply hogwash. Those assets would likely have been acquired by other automakers that would have put them to better use.

    And it’s perverse that other automakers and their suppliers had to have some of their profits used to keep GM afloat, even after those others out competed GM.

  • Anonymous

    You’re correct. And I didn’t say that. But that’s not enough to justify spending $50 billion on an unknowable. There’s no equation that will tell you what the best use of $50 billion of taxpayer money would be. The central planners in D.C. are generally economically illiterate. But the decisions of thousands and thousands consumers of automobiles, who voted with their dollars, was pretty clear – they were not willing to compensate GM for their failure to produce an acceptable product at a price they were willing to pay. As distasteful as it is, firms that fail should have to suffer the consequences of their decisions. And letting GM fail would not have meant the end to the U.S. auto industry, and to say so is simply hogwash. Those assets would likely have been acquired by other automakers that would have put them to better use.

    And it’s perverse that other automakers and their suppliers had to have some of their profits used to keep GM afloat, even after those others out competed GM.

  • Anonymous

    The money that people save, especially rich people, becomes the capital that ultimately drives economic growth. Just because the cause and effect is not immediate and obvious doesn’t mean it’s not important.

  • Anonymous

    The money that people save, especially rich people, becomes the capital that ultimately drives economic growth. Just because the cause and effect is not immediate and obvious doesn’t mean it’s not important.

  • Anonymous

    No, Tudorman, the money that people save (especially rich people) does not become the capital that creates jobs; the money that people invest is what could create jobs in Ohio, provided that it had been invested in Ohio instead of China, Mexico, etc. I hate to burst your balloon but rich people are not interested in creating jobs for you, me, our families or anyone else, they are interested in creating more wealth for themselves. Since they are the few who enjoy more of society’s privileges, they should be shouldering more of societies burden, in other words, paying more taxes. Otherwise they are just society’s parasites. Let those who benefit the most pay the most, it is capitalism at it’s best.

  • Anonymous

    Feel free to use it as much as you like. It is royalty free, copyright free, public domain to infinity and beyond.

  • Anonymous

    Feel free to use it as much as you like. It is royalty free, copyright free, public domain to infinity and beyond.

  • tyty the guy

     …except on my cursory web search about Kasich + bailout, I can’t find a clear denunciation of the bailout.  His statement about viability is a valid one; if something’s not viable, why throw money at it?  The issue is that since no one can tell the future, he was doing the best he could do.  Don’t get me wrong — I generally vote leftist/democrat — but I can’t see any evidence suggesting he was so vociferously against the bailout which has now benefited his state, so these headlines about hypocrisy seem a bit extreme for me.  As far as I can tell, he was cautious about throwing a shit-ton of money at an industry in a move no one could know whether or not it would be successful.  That’s prudent, not hypocritical.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!