Of all the issues broached in the presidential campaign this year, the auto-industry rescue of 2008-09 stands out as an example of the triumph of spin over facts.
Keying off the New York Times's headline for Mitt Romney's 2008 op-ed, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," President Obama has argued that the only alternative to his "bold" rescue of General Motors and Chrysler would have been a disorderly liquidation of the entire U.S. auto industry. Yet a close reading of Mr. Romney's op-ed reveals that his proposal was actually quite similar to the course of action the president took, right down to government funding of the bankruptcy reorganization process and warranty backstops.
So if the auto bailout is not simply the choice between government intervention and the collapse of an entire industry, what is the difference between the two candidates' positions?
Read Full Article »