Local blogger Nick Schweitzer wonders - well actually he's pretty sure - about GM bankruptcy and the rule of law. One of his points is the manner in which the proposed reorganization crams down senior creditors in favor of junior ones, e.g., the UAW. Whether a similar move (accomplished through a sale to Fiat which is not itself free of legal uncertainty) violates the Constitution's Taking Clause will be addressed in a law suit brought by the Indiana pension fund. Whether it will be successful is unclear. This fellow says no, although, over at Prawfs, Rick Hills suggests that it may not be so clear.
My point is not to wend through the legal niceties. I am not a bankruptcy guy. But it does seem to me that Indiana Governor's Mitch Daniel's reference to Barack Obama's "shock and awe" statism is apt.
Let's acknowledge that the President came into office facing a recession. So did Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We should concede that the federal government's fiscal situation was a mess.
But here's what's happened. Obama has criticized the Bush debt and then made the Bush fiscal record look like something from debt hawk Suze Orman. He has decided to hang on to financial institutions that made the mistake of taking TARP funds like a golden retriever with a soup bone. He has taken the Bush administration's ill advised bailout of GM and Chrysler and used it as a vehicle to nationalize the American auto industry. And we haven't even gotten to cap and trade or federal health care. We have no idea how the Obama administration proposes to handle our looming entitlement crisis.
Is this socialism, corporatism or just a bull rush to the left ? Whatever your answer, the President certainly decided that he wouldn't let a good crisis go to waste. But he may have created a greater one.