If you are an owner, an investor, a supplier, or an employee of General Motors Corp., I am willing to bet that you are now sorry GM was not forced into Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings when its dire financial straits first made headlines months ago. You probably regret even more that it accepted tens of billions of dollars in bailout money from the federal government, providing the company with a taxpayer-financed capital infusion that only delayed the inevitable and predictably came with onerous bureaucratic strings attached.
Years of mismanagement, reinforced by lavish compensation for its unionized workforce and by national fuel economy standards that oblige US automakers to produce vehicles that few consumers want to buy as long as gas remains cheap, raised GMs production costs to levels unsustainable in a globally competitive marketplace. Rather than making the tough decisions that could have restored profitability if implemented in time, company executives fiddled while a great American business enterprise burned.
Proving that one should be careful about what one asks for, GMs top management went to Washington with tin cup in hand, first by private jet and then, after a firestorm of popular condemnation, by eco-friendly car. The pitiable spectacle of GM executives begging Congress for financial assistance represented a major reversal of fortune for a company that was once the worlds largest manufacturer. During the 1950s and 1960s, prior to being challenged seriously by foreign competitors and fearing that the U.S. Department of Justice would accuse it of unlawfully monopolizing domestic auto sales, GM purposely kept its prices high and bypassed other profit opportunities to keep its market share from exceeding 55 percent.
GMs management got most of what it asked forand more than it bargained for. In return for temporary loans and other forms of taxpayer investment, such as purchases of preferred stock, the federal government essentially took control of the company and began calling the shots. The first shoe dropped when CEO Rick Wagoner was forced out and replaced by the Obama administrations fair-haired boy, Fritz Henderson. In so doing, bureaucrats assumed responsibility for a business decision that should have been delegated to GMs board of directors. Washington has also imposed limits on executive compensation at the new General Motors, a function that in privately owned companies likewise falls, by majority vote, on the shoulders of the members of the board.
More recently we have learned that President Obamas car czar, Steven Rattner, has proposed micromanaging GMs product line. Arguing that the companys Chevrolet division markets the very same vehicles, Mr. Rattner may substitute his judgment for that of consumers by ordering that GM stop producing SUVs and trucks carrying the GMC nameplate.
Not too surprisingly, following the embarrassments associated with revelations of income tax avoidance by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and former Health and Human Services Secretary designee Tom Daschle, the car czar himself may be implicated in the Quadrangle Groups pay-to-play kickback schemes, currently under investigation by New Yorks attorney general.
An investor in a privately owned company who thinks that management means taking the business in a direction that will compromise its long-term profitability can sell out, even if at a capital loss, and avoid further reductions in wealth. The taxpayers who now own General Motors have no such option. They are stuck with the consequences of federal government control. Perhaps the car czaror his successorcan resurrect GM and create a leaner company able to compete effectively in a brave new automobile world that survives the current economic downturn.
But any American who visited a post office recently and dealt with the long lines, rising postage, threat of reduced delivery, and overall poor service will not be so naive. It would have been far better to reconfigure GM under an orderly bankruptcy process, subject to the rule of law, than to hand its administration to bureaucrats, whose discretionary powers are more vulnerable to political influence than to the wishes of either consumers or the companys many stakeholders.
In the operation of a robust private economy, the freedom to fail is just as important as the freedom to succeed. If GM cannot survive without handouts, painful as it might be, it should hit the road.
|William F. Shughart II is Research Director and Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute, J. Fish Smith Professor in Public Choice in the Jon M. Huntsman School of Business at Utah State University, and editor of the Independent Institute book, Taxing Choice: The Predatory Politics of Fiscal Discrimination.|
TAXING CHOICE: The Predatory Politics of Fiscal Discrimination
So-called sin taxesthe taxing of certain products, like alcohol and tobacco, that are deemed to be politically incorrecthave long been a favorite way for politicians to fund programs benefiting special interest groups. But this concept has been applied to such sinful products as soft drinks, margarine, telephone calls, airline tickets, and even fishing gear. What is the true record of this selective, often punitive, approach to taxation?