Let’s Give Cerberus Money
January 4, 2009
The government recently gave GMAC, which gives financing for car loans for GM cars and trucks, $6 billion, with another $11.4 slated to go to GM and Chrysler in the coming weeks. What many people don’t know, however, is that GMAC and Chrysler are NOT publicly traded companies. They are privately owned. And they are privately owned by the same entity.
Cerberus Capital Management is the majority shareholder in both GMAC and Chysler. Despite, owning 80% of Chrysler and 51% of GMAC, Cerebrus, which has holdings worth $24 billion, has refused to inject their own capital into the failing companies, opting instead to lobby for government bailouts. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, however, since the chairman of Cerberus is John Snow, George W. Bush’s former Treasury Secretary. For those who don’t remember, Snow resigned in 2006 after a Treasury ethics lawyer found that his ownership of $10 million of debt in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not represent a conflict of interest but had the potential to do so in the future.
This is of course, the perfect ending to the Bush administration: a former crony who resigned for questionable ethics receives $17 billion after poorly managing one of the largest private equity firms in the US.
The nightmare will be over in 16 days. Then I hope to God that the following people end up in jail (in order): Dick Cheney, John Yoo, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, Condaleeza Rice, John Snow, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Christopher Cox, and Henry Paulson. Although I’m sure some of my readers would indict these people in a different order.
[...] Andrew Sparrow posts two entries in a row on the auto industry bailout, I Want A Bailout Too and Let’s Give Cerberus Money. He’s not a fan. Cerberus Capital Management is the majority shareholder in both GMAC and [...]
Andy, interesting research. I’m going to play devils advocate as I ever so always do on this page. Snow, I got it, he’s a dirtbag. However, Republicans by and large opposed the bailouts for the auto industry and a Democratic controlled Congress went ahead and authorized it. To say that the reckless Bush administration policies will end in 16 days is misleading because it is Bush’s opponents who decided to give out billions to his “crony.” Will reckless politics end with Bush or just get blamed on a new name? You’ve been blogging about politics long enough to know the answer.
Blagojevic turned out to be a turd sandwich, Spitzer turned giant douche; politicians with questionable ethics are not separated by party lines.
I do have a few questions for you and Teresa and for you too Patrick, my most favorite of commenters.
What do you think of the Obama decisions thus far? The cabinet selections, the warning of trillion dollar deficits, the proposed tax cuts, etc. I have to say I’m pretty pleased thus far. The higher deficit spending of course concerns me, and while I understand “there can be only one President at a time,” I really wish he’d give more guidance on his plan for Israel.
What do you think his immediate challenges are? Do you think he has to solve them sequentially as was suggested back during the debates (second debate if memory serves) or best to tackle all at the same time (as McCain was later criticized for)?
You all were so excited about the man, but there really hasn’t been much about him as of late.
Finally Patrick, I have completed my exhaustive research project of finding out when you claimed to be a health care massing-redistributing wealth-and other liberal stereotype person. To my frustration and embarrassment, I found that you never claimed to be any, my apologies. I regularly poke fun at lazy people who think slander is a valid technique, furthermore I am no longer 7 years old and I should be more mature than to resort to name calling and stereotypes.
I’m not going to let up that easy though, and must ask that since you don’t fit (or claim to fit) standard liberal views, what do you stand for? I didn’t see anything to indicate you promote health care expansion, tax increases, union labor, etc. I certainly got the impression you wanted Obama to win, but why? What’s important to you?
So far I am disappointed with a lot of Obama’s positions. Like Bush, he supports TARP, the auto bailout, and seems to believe that deficits are make believe. I have not been a fan of many of his picks so far. I definitely am not a fan of either Gates, Geitner or Warren. He appears to have no interest in the issues that I’m most concerned with: reducing the national debt, support for gay rights, a large gas tax, ending FISA, and prosecuting Bush/Cheney/Yoo et. al. for violating the Geneva Convention.
However, he does appear to view things rationality, is opposed to torture (even if he doesn’t want to imprison those who did it), and is willing to raise taxes at least a little bit on at least some people. That puts him leaps and bounds ahead of the competition, I’m afraid.
Not only does this babble lack any facts, it is completely off base. The writer should check his numbers, as well as his dates. I don’t know what kind of people believe this mindless dribble.
What are you talking about? You can check my facts off Wikipedia, or cerberus’s own website.
http://www.cerberuscapital.com/news_press_release_07112007.html
http://www.cerberuscapital.com/downloads/DaimlerChrysler%20Sale%20Release%2005%2014%2007.pdf
No facts??: I included the following facts in my post, all of which can be verified by clicking through the links in my post as well as the additional links I put here but chose not to put in the post because it seemed like an excessive amount of verification.
Cerberus has majority ownership of GMAC and Chrysler. They have between 24 and 26 billion dollars under management. Their CEO is John Snow, who used to be Secretary of Treasury under Bush. $10 million of his money was invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s debt. He later resigned in 2006 after this became public. In 2006 he became CEO of Cerberus.
Which of my facts should I be checking? They all came from either Wikipedia or Cerberus’s own site.
If you are going to obnoxiously criticize my post, as least make sure your babble has specific references and challenges specific point, facts, or contentions. Otherwise your comment just comes across as mindless dribble;)