What the GM bailout really cost American taxpayers


H/T Let Freedom Ring

By: Curt Levey

By Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist

Each time you hear Obama utter the deceitful words GM has paid back its TARP Funds, remember who is saying it and file it with the rest of his lies.  GM will never pay the tax payer back fully in many of our life times as the facts below clearly show.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

While President Obama campaigns on “tax fairness” – eliminating loopholes for the wealthiest one percent, the oil companies and other big corporations — his favorite corporate giant is enjoying an unprecedented, under-the-table multi-billion dollar tax break.

In addition to the more than $50 billion given to General Motors in the bailout, the Obama administration quietly snuck in a special tax break for GM, which allows the company to write off approximately $45 billion in post-bankruptcy losses against post-bankruptcy profits.

The result? In 2011, GM paid nothing in federal income taxes despite claiming record profits of $7.6 billion, the “highest profits in the 100 year history of that company” according to President Obama.

In fact, that’s not quite right. GM paid a tax rate of negative 1.5% on its record profits – less than nothing.

That’s right, while you were paying your income taxes last month, the IRS was sending General Motors a check for $110 million. And GM’s tax break is a gift that will keep on giving every year at tax time.

It’s good for twenty years.

As with the original $50-plus billion bailout of General Motors – and the $7,500 Chevy Volt tax credit that goes to people with an average income of $170,000 a year – this multi-billion dollar tax gift comes at the expense of ordinary taxpayers who lack GM’s close connections to the White House.

How did this blatant example of crony capitalism come about?

GM’s tax break arises from the Obama administration’s distortion of legitimate tax provisions which allow companies to use prior-year losses – of which the Old GM had plenty – and certain other costs to reduce their current-year federal income taxes. In Section 382 of the tax code, Congress limited these “net operating loss” (NOL) carry-forwards to discourage the buying and selling of tax deductions.

As a result, New GM could not have written off the Old GM losses that were discharged in the bankruptcy. However, as Harvard Law School Professor J. Mark Ramseyer and Indiana University’s Dalton Professor of Business Eric Rasmusen explain, the Obama Treasury Department “‘solved’ this problem by issuing a series of ‘Notices’ in which it announced that [Sec. 382] did not apply [here].”

Because companies like GM that file for fast-track bankruptcy without affording due process protections to creditors don’t normally get to preserve NOLs, Treasury’s unprecedented Notices allowed GM “to retain the cake while eating it,” notes Duke Law Professor Jeffrey Coyne.

Though the Treasury Department “had no legal or economic justification for these Notices,” according to Professors Ramseyer and Rasmusen, a GM spokesman tried to justify the company’s negative income tax rate by noting that GM pays “other taxes,” including “taxes around the world.”

Are we supposed to be reassured by knowing that GM only stiffs American taxpayers?

The truth is General Motors and the Obama administration didn’t need a justification, because they counted on this unprecedented tax break being too arcane for reporters to understand or write about.

So far, they’ve been right.

GM’s sweetheart tax deal has largely slipped under the radar screen, allowing Obama to both rail against tax loopholes and claim the auto bailout cost taxpayers far less than it actually has.– If GM’s tax gift were counted, the official cost of the bailout would double from $22 billion to $40 billion.

Polling indicates that public perception of the auto bailout “grows a lot more negative when the actual price tag is attached.” Add to that the public’s revulsion at crony capitalism and it’s no surprise that General Motors, the Obama administration, and their cheerleaders in the news media don’t want you to know the real cost to taxpayers of the auto bailout.

Curt Levey is an attorney and the Executive Director of the Committee for Justice in Washington, DC. He can be reached at @Curt_Levey on Twitter.

Original Article: Fox News

Written By: Curt Levey

What the GM bailout really cost American taxpayers

May 22, 2012

While President Obama campaigns on “tax fairness” – eliminating loopholes for the wealthiest one percent, the oil companies and other big corporations — his favorite corporate giant is enjoying an unprecedented, under-the-table multi-billion dollar tax break.

In addition to the more than $50 billion given to General Motors in the bailout, the Obama administration quietly snuck in a special tax break for GM, which allows the company to write off approximately $45 billion in post-bankruptcy losses against post-bankruptcy profits.

The result? In 2011, GM paid nothing in federal income taxes despite claiming record profits of $7.6 billion, the “highest profits in the 100 year history of that company” according to President Obama.

In fact, that’s not quite right. GM paid a tax rate of negative 1.5% on its record profits – less than nothing.

That’s right, while you were paying your income taxes last month, the IRS was sending General Motors a check for $110 million. And GM’s tax break is a gift that will keep on giving every year at tax time.

It’s good for twenty years.

As with the original $50-plus billion bailout of General Motors – and the $7,500 Chevy Volt tax credit that goes to people with an average income of $170,000 a year – this multi-billion dollar tax gift comes at the expense of ordinary taxpayers who lack GM’s close connections to the White House.

How did this blatant example of crony capitalism come about?

GM’s tax break arises from the Obama administration’s distortion of legitimate tax provisions which allow companies to use prior-year losses – of which the Old GM had plenty – and certain other costs to reduce their current-year federal income taxes. In Section 382 of the tax code, Congress limited these “net operating loss” (NOL) carry-forwards to discourage the buying and selling of tax deductions.

As a result, New GM could not have written off the Old GM losses that were discharged in the bankruptcy. However, as Harvard Law School Professor J. Mark Ramseyer and Indiana University’s Dalton Professor of Business Eric Rasmusen explain, the Obama Treasury Department “‘solved’ this problem by issuing a series of ‘Notices’ in which it announced that [Sec. 382] did not apply [here].”

Because companies like GM that file for fast-track bankruptcy without affording due process protections to creditors don’t normally get to preserve NOLs, Treasury’s unprecedented Notices allowed GM “to retain the cake while eating it,” notes Duke Law Professor Jeffrey Coyne.

Though the Treasury Department “had no legal or economic justification for these Notices,” according to Professors Ramseyer and Rasmusen, a GM spokesman tried to justify the company’s negative income tax rate by noting that GM pays “other taxes,” including “taxes around the world.”

Are we supposed to be reassured by knowing that GM only stiffs American taxpayers?

The truth is General Motors and the Obama administration didn’t need a justification, because they counted on this unprecedented tax break being too arcane for reporters to understand or write about.

So far, they’ve been right.

GM’s sweetheart tax deal has largely slipped under the radar screen, allowing Obama to both rail against tax loopholes and claim the auto bailout cost taxpayers far less than it actually has.– If GM’s tax gift were counted, the official cost of the bailout would double from $22 billion to $40 billion.

Polling indicates that public perception of the auto bailout “grows a lot more negative when the actual price tag is attached.” Add to that the public’s revulsion at crony capitalism and it’s no surprise that General Motors, the Obama administration, and their cheerleaders in the news media don’t want you to know the real cost to taxpayers of the auto bailout.

Curt Levey is an attorney and the Executive Director of the Committee for Justice in Washington, DC. He can be reached at @Curt_Levey on Twitter.

Original Article: Fox News

Written By: Curt Levey

 

About these ads

4 responses to “What the GM bailout really cost American taxpayers

  1. Regina McGlashen

    WELL, ONE THING TO BE SAID FOR OBAMA..HE FALLS RIGHT INTO LINE WITH MANY DECEITFUL LYING POLITICIANS. A very dangerous proposition exists that his lies are not designed solely to benefit his party and U.S Government affiliated groups, but outside foreign sources that are counter productive to our systems and will lead to communism and total desecration of our constitution and freedoms.

  2. My last vehicle was a Ford, my current vehicle is a Ford and my next vehicle will be a Ford. No taxpayer ripoff GM or Chryler crap will find its way into my garage. Ford Man and proud of it!

  3. Well, let’s see now. Chrysler took the bailout and as far as I know, the loan was payed back through increased sales (of better quality cars) and through foreign investors, mainly Fiat. I might be wrong that they have completely paid back their loans but they did not get special Obama treatment.

    Ford took no bailout but financed themselves to solvency. In fact they have the strongest credit rating now.

    On the other hand, GM (Government Motors) will always be a loser now. They have modeled themselves after the US Postal Service and will always be a burden to the tax payer. There should have been no bailout at all for the auto industry. The strong would have survived and the taxpayer and the American economy as a whole would have been better off.

  4. What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.
    The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.
    Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.
    By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s