<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>thelobbyist &#187; General Motors</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/tag/general-motors/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thelobbyist.net</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Dec 2011 16:20:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Didn’t Ya Know!?  The Government SAVED Ford Motors!</title>
		<link>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/3772</link>
		<comments>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/3772#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:44:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>rj caster</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Shorts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bailouts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FORD Motors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Motors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harry Reid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hegel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nevada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PPP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rasmussen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sharron Angle]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thelobbyist.net/?p=3772</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, from the lips of (hopefully) soon-to-be-retired Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s lips, to your ears.  Senator Reid describes how Ford Motor Company, along with Chrysler (sold off) and General Motors, was saved by our wonderful Hegelian-God state (government is from whom you gain salvation, didn’t you know?).  Unfortunately, we find it necessary to remind [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, from the lips of (hopefully) soon-to-be-retired Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s lips, to your ears.  <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/07/21/harry_reid_auto_bailout_probably_saved_ford.html">Senator Reid describes how Ford Motor Company, along with Chrysler (sold off) and General Motors, was <em>saved</em></a> by our wonderful Hegelian-God state (government is from whom you gain salvation, didn’t you know?).  Unfortunately, we find it necessary to remind Senator Reid that such is not the case.  As a matter of fact, <a href="http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/1989">we dedicated an entire article</a> to it when Ford first pulled themselves up by the boot-straps! </p>
<p>…it seems to me that Ford isn’t the only thing “F’d On Race Day,” as <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/nevada/election_2010_nevada_senate">it appears Senator Reid will have the same problem this November</a>.  (And before anyone gives me a hard time for citing the <em>Rasmussen </em>Poll instead of the newer <em>PPP</em> Poll, I say it’s because <em>PPP</em> hasn’t be considered the <a href="http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090824010728AARPoGC">most accurate pollster like <em>Rasmussen</em></a> has…)</p>
<p>-rj</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/3772/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>To Fox News: Job Well Done</title>
		<link>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/2761</link>
		<comments>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/2761#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:47:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dustin Siggins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics and Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[collusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Motors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vincent Checch]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thelobbyist.net/?p=2761</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Since November 5, 2008, I have criticized Fox News for jumping off the deep end in its criticisms of the Obama administration and for going from relatively &#8220;Fair &#38; Balanced&#8221; to unprofessional, over-the-top and reactionary. However, I must now applaud Fox for nailing the Obama administration on its recent no-bid contract with a Democratic campaign [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since November 5, 2008, I have criticized Fox News for jumping off the deep end in its criticisms of the Obama administration and for going from relatively &#8220;Fair &amp; Balanced&#8221; to <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/14/stewart-fox-gay-march/">unprofessional</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/glenn-beck-slams-scott-br_n_429939.html">over-the-top</a> and reactionary. However, I must now applaud Fox for <a href="http://race42008.com/2010/01/25/still-waiting-for-hopenchange/">nailing</a> the Obama administration on its <a href="http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/2726">recent no-bid contract</a> with a <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25/obama-administration-steers-lucrative-bid-contract-afghan-work-dem-donor/">Democratic campaign contributor</a>. Why? Because the administration has decided to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/30/cancels-bid-contract-afghan-work-democractic-donor/?test=latestnews">cancel its contract</a> with the donor&#8217;s company, and put the contract out to bid. Kudos to Fox for being the first major news network to call out the administration on this- after all, President Obama criticized no-bid contracts <a href="http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/30/end-no-bid-contracts-above-25000/">on the campaign trail</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/04/obama-federal-contracts-n_n_171811.html">after being elected as President</a>- but also, most importantly, because such contracts are another symbol of the collusion between government and business that happens far too much in Washington. It was wrong under President Bush, and it is wrong under Obama. As a news source, Fox did its job. Furthermore, as a watchdog of the government (which all press should be), Fox also did its job.</p>
<p>Regarding the cancellation of the contract, though, I have a couple of questions. First, should the administration have canceled this particular contract after signing it? Whether it&#8217;s good, ethical business or not, conservatives have rightly gone after the Obama administration<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/25/AR2009052502135.html"> for not honoring</a> the rule of law and<a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/09/gm-auto-industry-personal-finance-guru-insight-obama-bankruptcy.html"> contracts with General Motors investors</a>. In this case, the contract was already signed. It was unethical for the administration to assign a no-bid contract to this contractor, but it wasn&#8217;t illegal. Additionally, the donor and company owner, Vincent V. Checch, told Fox that he did now know it was a no-bid contract until after it was awarded to his company. Since we have no evidence to corroborate or contradict Checch&#8217;s statement on the matter, can we assume he did nothing wrong? Or is that naive, considering that sweetheart deals are given as easily as candy in Washington, DC?</p>
<p>Longer-term, what solutions should conservatives offer to prevent no-bid contracts, especially as tit-for-tat campaign and donor trade-offs? Should we allow this breach of ethics this one time, and then try to  pass a law limiting how contracts can be handled? Or, better yet, pass a  constitutional amendment banning no-bid government contracts? Or,  perhaps, shrink the size of government (by getting out of Iraq, for one)  so that fewer contracts are signed <em>while </em>passing a  constitutional amendment or law banning no-bid government contracts? After all, laws are well and good, but taking away the <em>opportunity</em> for corruption and ethics violations- through transparency and lessening the size and scope of government- would be even more effective.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/2761/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Punishing the Guilty- Unless We Don&#8217;t</title>
		<link>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/2691</link>
		<comments>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/2691#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:57:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dustin Siggins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Shorts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AIG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arianna Huffington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fannie Mae]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freddie Mac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Motors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Heritage Foundation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Howard Dean]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Markos Moulitas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morning Bell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TARP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white house]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thelobbyist.net/?p=2691</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Heritage Foundation nailed it in their Morning Bell yesterday: The TARP program has so far distributed $247 billion to more than 700 banks. Of that, $162 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest and dividends have already been repaid. Except for AIG, almost all banks that received taxpayer money are expected to pay [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Heritage Foundation <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/15/morning-bell-bank-tax-misses-the-real-bailout-deadbeats-in-detroit-and-dc/?utm_source=Newsletter&amp;utm_medium=Email&amp;utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell">nailed it in their Morning Bell yesterday</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>The TARP program has so far distributed $247 billion to more than 700 banks. Of that, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/onthenews/?q=ZDI5MGYyYjFmMjdkZjgyZGQ5ZmUzOTBiYWNjNzI5ZDE=">$162 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest and dividends</a> have already been repaid. Except for AIG, almost all banks that received taxpayer money are expected to pay back the American taxpayers in full. As <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/us/15tax.html">The New York Times</a> reports: “The losses from the bailout fund are expected from money paid to rescue Chrysler and General Motors and the insurance giant American International Group, and from a program to help homeowners avert foreclosures.”</p>
<p>So the real deadbeats that are not giving us “our money back” are not the banks, but the union-backed car companies and failed government mortgage modification programs. But guess what? The White House has chosen <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&amp;sid=auzqsRLscCSY">not to include the car companies among the institutions that will pay this so called “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee.”</a> <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&amp;sid=auzqsRLscCSY">Also exempted are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac</a>, the government-sponsored entities that <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/bg2331.cfm">helped create the crisis</a>.</p></blockquote>
<p>It&#8217;s time we told our elected officials <a href="http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/2297">to stop picking winners and losers</a>, and voted in people who are <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/DeMint-Coburn-Hutchinson-intro-term-limits-constitutional-amendment-69675487.html">in favor of term limits</a> and <a href="http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/11927">in favor of a separation of business from government</a>. Beyond liberal or conservative, these are the issues that are so important to America. After all, when <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/kill-the-bill-some-progre_n_392436.html">Howard Dean, Markos Moulitas</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-senate-health-care-bi_b_400006.html">Arianna Huffington</a> agree with <a href="http://foundry.heritage.org/2009/12/16/morning-bell-howard-dean-is-right-this-is-not-health-care-reform/">The Heritage Foundation</a>&#8230;perhaps it&#8217;s time for- and I dislike using this word- change to how our system works. Of course, it&#8217;s up to us, the voters and citizens of America, to make said change.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thelobbyist.net/lobby/archives/2691/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

