Over at The American Thinker, Jerome Schmitt asks the kind of question I wish I’d thought of:
Will Solyndra’s creditors be treated the same way Chrysler’s were?
Remember, in the bailouts of Chrysler and GM, the normal bankruptcy laws were circumvented (that silly little “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States” from Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution being properly ignored) and the Obama administration got to dictate who got preference in the restructuring. The bond holders, who normally would be first in line, instead got boned. And the United Auto Workers, whose contracts would have been set aside and renegotiated, had their existing contracts continued — and granted an ownership stake.
Now, with Solyndra, there’s a bit over half a billion dollars in loans they defaulted on that were guaranteed by you and me. (Ain’t Obama generous with our money?) In theory, that means we’re on the hook for that. But with the auto bailout precedent, who the hell knows?
One of the most important duties of a government is to assure stability. To establish laws and policies and procedures — and then uphold them. That is something that the Obama administration doesn’t seem to grasp.
At this point, if you have any investments in any company that has drawn the interest of the Obama administration, in any way, get the hell out of it while you can. Because under current circumstances, whatever guarantees or laws you’re depending on — forget it.
