Did Those Automaker Bailouts Work?
Nearly three years later and a majority (51 percent) of Americans remain unconvinced that the bailout money given to General Motors and Chrysler was meritorious. In contrast 31 percent believe the bailouts were good and 17 percent were unsure, according to a recent Rasmussen survey.
Interestingly, perceptions of bailout efficacy vary substantially with partisan identification. A majority (55 percent) of Democrats approve of the automaker bailouts, whereas 72 percent of Republicans disapprove. A majority (55 percent) among Independents and "other" Americans also disapprove.
The variation in perception of bailout efficacy across partisan identification is clearly troubling. This question did not ask about what people expect to result from the policy, but rather their perception of an actual policy outcome. When different political groups consider the same facts and information and come to widely different conclusions, it calls into question how meaningful compromise can be achieved in the political process.
It is also true that most Americans don't set aside the time to keep tabs on the automakers. These results suggest that the media should devote more effort to discussing the actual benefits and costs associated with the automaker bailouts. Consequently, more Americans would understand the facts rather than merely the intentions of these policies and hopefully would close the perception gap between political groups.
Looking back, was it a good idea or a bad idea for the federal government to provide bailout funding for General Motors and Chrysler?
Republican | Democrat | Other | Total | |
Good Idea | 15% | 55% | 22% | 31% |
Bad Idea | 72% | 28% | 55% | 51% |
Not Sure | 13% | 17% | 23% | 17% |
Source: Rasmussen Reports, October 3, 2011 http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/federal_bailout/september_2011/51_still_say_bailouts_of_gm_and_chrysler_were_a_bad_idea
Rasmussen Methodology: The national survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on September 25-26, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC . See methodology.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"These results suggest that the media should devote their more effort to discussing the actual benefits and costs associated with the automaker bailouts."
Ha ha ha!
When have they ever done that about any government program or intiative?
The MSM is little more than a steno pool for liberal Democrats
Don't worry; what you don't understand about partisan hackery, is that there are no fixed principals. Those democrats who "approve" of the bailouts would have been screaming bloody murder if GW had done the exact same thing, and ditto why the republicans are so against it (it was a policy promoted by He Who Shall Not Be Named...aka Barrack Obama. Oops, I named him.).
But GW did do the exact same thing! Trying to distinguish between the two phases of the bailout is casuistry.
Actually, the INTENTION is the most important thing. Stealing people's money to benefit other people can't "work," on principle.
We cannot really discuss the benefits of the bailouts because there is no way to know what would have happened had there been no bailouts. Those supporting the bailouts said that there would be "carmageddon" -- a meltdown in the car industry that would spread to the car industry in general.
But they also said that bankruptcy of GM or Chrysler would be fatal (which was not true), and that no car company could survive if significantly lower annual sales levels continued (also not true). So there is no reason to think that they were right about carmageddon.
My own belief is that both President Bush and President Obama should have taken a very limited role in the car industry. To do otherwise was, I think, good for one industry (and indeed for certain companies within that industry) at the expense of all taxpayers. Certainly the nationalizing of General Motors was a breathtaking departure from anything ever done before in this country.
In other words, I think it was the kind of favoritism that we condemn in countries like Afghanistan, yet do not see in ourselves.
Oops. I said "a meltdown in the car industry that would spread to the car industry in general."
I meant to say "a meltdown in the car industry that would spread to the economy in general."
$22 (roughly) per share.
Suckers!
31% of America is suffering from some form of severe cognitive disability.
17% are borderline.
Now, what percentage of this 48% is employed by government?
It didn't ask about the outcome, either. It asked about the idea. Even if a government takeover of GM was effective (and a fleet of unsold Chevy Volts suggest it wasn't), that doesn't make Government meddling in the economy a good idea for a host of other reasons: Moral Hazard, trashing the rule of (bankruptcy) law, unequal treatment under the law in favor of Obama's suppporters (Unions vs Secured Debt Holders), continued poor use of resources making crappy cars that could go into making better ones, etc.
It's that "seen and unseen" problem again.