海角大神

Mitt Romney and the auto bailout have a complicated history.

Mitt Romney鈥檚 dad was the governor of Michigan. Mitt won the Michigan primary in 2008 talking about how helping the auto industry would be one of his most important themes in his first 100 days in office.

Then Mitt wrote a New York Times op-ed titled 鈥淟et Detroit Go Bankrupt鈥� during discussions around the auto bailout, begun by President Bush with a $15 billion injection and continued by President Obama with a $55 billion cash infusion.

On Tuesday, Romney wrote another op-ed, this time in the Detroit News, sticking by his commitment in the previous New York Times op-ed and writing that the Obama administration used the bailout as a way to help its 鈥渃ronies鈥� in the labor movement.

Back in 2008, however, Romney was singing a different tune when he campaigned for the state鈥檚 Republican presidential primary.

Let鈥檚 set the stage: Arizona Sen. John McCain, leading Romney in the polls in Romney鈥檚 home state at the time, says 鈥渢he jobs that are leaving the state of Michigan have left and are not coming back. We鈥檙e going to try to create new jobs.鈥�

This gives Team Romney some serious ammunition: They won鈥檛 quit on the auto industry and Michigan.

So, who did Romney point to as the culprit for Detroit鈥檚 malaise? Yes, he frequently knocks unions. But there鈥檚 another villain in this story: the federal government not doing enough to help the auto industry. A January 13, 2008 piece in The New York Times - published two days before the Michigan primary - reads:

What are Romney鈥檚 proposed solutions? How will he fix the pensions and healthcare liabilities at auto companies which he says add $2,000 to the cost of every car? The New York Times summarizes thus:

鈥淲here鈥檚 Washington鈥� and its aid is not just a far cry from 鈥淟et Detroit Go Bankrupt,鈥� the title of his New York Times op-ed. It鈥檚 diametrically opposed.

But let鈥檚 forget about the past for a second, shall we. What does Romney hope to accomplish today? Perhaps the most painfully egregious part of Romney鈥檚 2012 piece is what the former head of Bain Capital proposes should happen to the government鈥檚 investment in GM:

This, America, is ignorant of the current reality around the US government鈥檚 stake in GM. The reason the Obama administration hasn鈥檛 sold its investment (currently 32 percent of the company鈥檚 shares) in GM is simple: It would be taking an $25.5 billion loss for the American taxpayer.

American taxpayers already recouped some of their investment during GM鈥檚 IPO in 2011. Yet the stock, currently trading at roughly $25, needs to hit $51 for American taxpayers to break even on the $25.5 billion balance still outstanding from the government鈥檚 initial investment. What Mitt Romney is proposing is a guaranteed loss for the American taxpayer on their investment in GM.

Why would Romney propose such a thing? Your answers are welcome on this one.

This isn鈥檛 lost on some Michiganders. LZ Granderson, writing on CNN, says:

In article after article from 2008, Mitt Romney uses some variation of this line:

None other than President Bush appears to agree with the 2008 Mitt Romney, the 鈥渨here is Washington?鈥� Mitt Romney, saying recently of the auto bailouts:

The 2012 Mitt Romney? Well, that鈥檚 a different story.

Like your politics unscrambled? Check out DCDecoder.com