Nader, Moore, Others Respond To GM News

4904291This story was written by Prerana Swami and Anna Aulova.

Although GM announced less than 24 hours ago that it would file for bankruptcy, the debate over governmental involvement in one of America's largest auto companies has long been raging online.

As far back as November 2008, NYU Law Professor Michael E. Levine was calling for bankruptcy for the company in the Wall Street Journal, stating that it was the best option for the auto giant.

"GM as it is cannot survive without long-term government life support. If it gets that support, it can't change enough and won't change fast enough," Levine wrote."It's the only option that merits public support and actually has a chance at succeeding."

After the announcement Monday, many took to the blogs to express their views and their hopes for the auto giant.

In an editorial for the Huffington Post, the Michigan-born filmmaker Michael Moore bid a farewell to GM 20 years after his documentary "Roger And Me," which detailed Moore's efforts to confront then-GM CEO Roger Smith about the closure of a plant in Flint, Michigan, was released.

Moore states that GM filing for bankruptcy allows the company to finally go green and make cars that work to consumer expectations. But he believes that restructuring the company may not have any benefit in the long run.

"The only way to save GM is to kill GM," Moore writes. "Please, please, please don't save GM so that a smaller version of it will simply do nothing more than build Chevys or Cadillacs. This is not a long-term solution. Don't throw bad money into a company whose tailpipe is malfunctioning, causing a strange odor to fill the car."

Calling the government involvement in GM a dream come true, Alan M. Webber, cofounder of Fast Company Magazine, offers a plan for restructuring the company in The Huffington Post.

"My aim as co-CEO [would] be to create transportation products and services that are in touch with the times and in search of the future," Webber said. "This is the perfect time to take big risks and to tackle iconic projects. My GM is going to learn the hard lessons of our fall from grace--and embrace the opportunity to rebound to new heights."

In The Guardian, Dan Roberts argued that bankruptcy may just get GM through the next recession.

"Amid the inevitable angst today about the future of the US automotive industry, it is worth remembering that Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection is the great second chance in American capitalism," Roberts writes. "The protection of the court gives one of the world's most important companies a chance to reinvent itself. There will be howls of protest from bondholders and other creditors forced to share the pain but at last there is a chance to move beyond immediate survival and think about creating a transportation company strong enough to weather the next recession."

Mr. Obama's says that GM will benefit from the bankruptcy and emerge as a better company, but not everyone accepts that argument. Alex Taylor III of Fortune Magazine writes in an article posted on CNNMoney.com that the government will be "put in the driver's seat" and influence the decision-making of the company.

"Although the bureaucrats disclaim any interest in micromanaging the automaker, it isn't hard to imagine them nudging and guiding decisions in directions they would like them to go," Taylor writes. "V-8 engines? Inefficient. Leather seating? Bad for the environment. Multiple options and trim levels? Wasteful. We could all wind up driving some variation of a minivan."

Ralph Nader shares some of the negative views on the bankruptcy filing here. "The bankruptcy and the GM restructuring plan are the product of a secretive, unaccountable, Wall Street-minded government task force that assumed power because of a Congressional abdication of historic magnitude," he writes. "By all rights, the restructuring plan should have been submitted to Congress for deliberative review and decision."

RNC Chairman Michael Steele also has some harsh words for the Obama administration, as Politico reports. "No matter how much the President spins GM's bankruptcy as good for the economy, it is nothing more than another government grab of a private company and another handout to the union cronies who helped bankroll his presidential campaign," Steele states. "[The taxpayers will] get stuck with up to $50 billion tab for the taxpayer dollars Obama is using to pay for his takeover of GM. Americans shouldn't be fooled."

Phil Kerpen, Director of Americans for Prosperity, writes in an article posted on FoxNews.com that he had been rooting for today's announcement.

"… I was hopeful that it would represent an end to political manipulation of the company and a chance to get a clean balance sheet and a new shot as a private company," writes Kerpen. "I couldn't have been more wrong. Instead GM heads to bankruptcy court with a prepackaged deal that almost completely politicizes the company, with the U.S. government the new majority shareholder."

Mickey Kaus of Slate doubts that the government has finished bailing the company out.

"That official isn't saying 'We gave them $50 billion. If that's not enough they're on their own. Maybe the UAW will even have to take a wage cut,'" Kaus writes."The official is saying "We gave them fifty billion but if that's not enough to let them compete with Honda then 'they will need more money.'"

The Wall Street Journal is not enthusiastic about GM's prospects under governmental supervision.

"Every decision the feds have made since December suggests that nonpolitical management will be impossible," an editorial reads."Mr. Obama likes to say he's a pragmatist who only prefers a government solution when it will work. But in resurrecting an industrial auto policy that even the French long ago abandoned, the President has made himself GM's de facto CEO. Our guess is that he'll come to regret it as much as taxpayers will."

As for the future, some are offering advice to the administration on how to handle GM after bankruptcy.

The New York Times, in an editorial Friday, called on Mr. Obama to give a detailed plan of governmental involvement in GM's restructuring.

"We agree that if taxpayers' interests as shareholders are to be protected, G.M. cannot be micromanaged from Washington," the editorial says. "Neither the Treasury nor members of Congress should decide which plants or dealerships are to be closed, how many workers are to be laid off or hired, what specific designs G.M. adopts and where it should make them. If the objective is to turn G.M. into a profitable carmaker as soon as possible so it can be sold back into private hands, it is a sound decision to let professionals run the company"

And Ion Mihai Pacepa, the former Car Czar of Romania, stated in the Wall Street Journal that he hopes GM will not end up like French car companies Renault and Citroen.

"They say history repeats itself. If you are like me and have lived two lives, you have a good chance of seeing the re-enactment with your own eyes," Pacepa writes. "Automobile manufacturing and government were never a good mix in any socialist/communist country… Automobile manufacturing and government do not mix in capitalist countries either."