COLUMBUS, OHIO – After refusing to directly state his opposition to the auto rescue for more than a year, even after calling Sherrod Brown “un-American” for leading the charge to pass the auto rescue package, Josh Mandel admitted during the first debate that he would have voted against the auto rescue had he been a U.S. Senator.
During the third debate, when asked if, under any circumstance, he would have supported intervention to rescue the auto industry and protect 850,000 Ohio jobs, Josh Mandel shockingly said:
“Back then I would have followed a different process. I would have allowed the private sector process to take hold like every day in America, that happens. And I believe, if we would have done that, these auto companies would have come out even stronger, and these blue-collar men and women who work for the auto companies would have come out more, would have come out stronger.”
WATCH: Josh Mandel Triples Down On Opposition To The Auto Rescue.
Despite the fact that General Motors, Chrysler, Ford and virtually every newspaper in America have stated repeatedly that there was no private financing available to allow GM and Chrysler to restructure, this is now Josh Mandel’s argument – that doing nothing would have better protected 850,000 Ohio jobs… which were protected as a result of the auto rescue.
“Josh Mandel is more than happy to defend the jobs of the unqualified political cronies staffing his Treasurer’s office, but when it came down to the auto industry, Josh would have voted to let it die without a single care for the 850,000 Ohio workers whose jobs it helped to protect,” said Ohio Democratic Party spokesman Andrew Zucker. “Josh Mandel knows full well that no private financing was available to extend to General Motors and Chrysler, and his ideological opposition to the auto rescue is the starkest example yet that he’s unfit to represent Ohio and can’t be trusted to fight for Ohio jobs.”
Former GM Vice Chairman: “The Banks Were Even More Broke Than We Were. Who Had The Money?” In February 2012,The Detroit Free Press wrote “Former General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz on Friday sharply criticized Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, defending the rescue of GM and Chrysler as a ‘necessary government intervention.’ ‘He thinks we didn’t try’ to borrow money from the banks, Lutz said. ‘The banks were even more broke than we were. Who had the money?’” [Detroit Free Press,2/18/12]
Bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel: Private Financing Was Not Available For General Motors And Chrysler In 2008. In October 2012, The Los Angeles Times wrote “The bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel, the government-appointed watchdog for the $700-billion Troubled Asset Relief Program … said in a January 2011 report that private financing was not available for General Motors and Chrysler in late 2008. The panel said ‘the circumstances in the global credit markets in November and December 2008 were unlike any the financial markets had seen in decades. U.S. domestic credit markets were frozen in the wake of the Lehman bankruptcy, and international sources of funding were extremely limited.’” [Los Angeles Times, ellipses added, 10/22/12]
Without Government Financing, Chrysler And GM Would Have Been Forced To Cease Production, Close Their Doors And Lay Off Virtually All Workers. In a February 2012 op-ed published in The New York Times, longtime Wall Street Executive and lead adviser on the Obama administration’s auto task force, Steven Rattner, wrote “In late 2008 and early 2009, when G.M. and Chrysler had exhausted their liquidity, every scrap of private capital had fled to the sidelines. I know this because the administration’s auto task force, for which I was the lead adviser, spoke diligently to all conceivable providers of funds, and not one had the slightest interest in financing those companies on any terms. If Mr. Romney disagrees, he should come forward with specific names of willing investors in place of empty rhetoric. I predict that he won’t be able to, because there aren’t any. Without government financing — initiated by President George W. Bush in December 2008 — the two companies would not have been able to pursue Chapter 11 reorganization. Instead they would have been forced to cease production, close their doors and lay off virtually all workers once their coffers ran dry.” [New York Times, op-ed, 2/24/12]