This week I had one of "those moments" when I read allegations that the Obama Administration was using political reasons to influence which Chrysler dealers would close. As usual the situation is not that simple: there's been no full statistical analysis, initial claims of persecution seems overblown, and the extent of improper influence appears limited to keeping open "friendly" dealerships that the official criteria would have closed. Some of the most troubling aspects of this story, however, are what it reveals about our current situation:
It's completely plausible. The administration has already used improper tactics to support its political allies in Chrysler (their denial was "there's no proof.")
The Press is mostly silent. Contrast this with their behavior concerning allegations that the previous administration gave special treatment to Halliburton.
A Republican administration would be just as suspect. Politicians do things for political reasons.
These things should not be done behind closed doors. Make the formula and official criteria public.
These things should not be done at all. It's not the government's job to bail out failed businesses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You said it yourself: "Politicians do things for political reasons." The decision that the American auto industry could not be allowed to fail was initiated by the last administration and continued by this one. I agree that this is not the job of the government, but there could be some merit to maintaining the industry as a strategic asset. It good to have the industrial capacity to build thing you might need on short notice - like a tank factory should war break out.
ReplyDeleteMy example of building tanks is perhaps outdated "cold war" thinking, but we could probably find a more current reason.