Cronyism: Did the Obama administration stiff a group of non-union workers and pay off a political ally in the 2009 auto bailout? Yes, it did, says the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
When the administration turned General Motors into Government Motors in 2009's M&A of the automaker, it made sure that retirees from Delphi Corp. who were members of the United Auto Workers didn't lose a dime from their pensions.
The White House, though, was not as generous with the nonunion retirees from GM's parts supplier.
Roughly 22,000 Delphi retirees who were salaried employees and not members of a union were stripped of up to two-thirds of their pensions during the bailout.
They weren't even invited to negotiations by the administration, while the politically favored UAW was asked to sit at the table with GM.
The White House has long rejected charges that there was political manipulation from the administration. It claims that it was in no way involved in the decision and sent officials to Capitol Hill to testify that there was no manipulation from Obama's circle.
But Rep. Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, one of three congressional panels probing the pension question, says he has found evidence to the contrary.
After reviewing documents provided by Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., the federal agency that was tasked with sorting out the pensions during the bailout, Camp concluded that "top officials at Treasury were heavily involved in the" decision as to how the pension issue would be worked out.
"Treasury," he said, "was clearly in the center of the decision to terminate the pensions of Delphi's salaried workers."
Camp says "Treasury has repeatedly denied involvement in the Delphi pension decision," but as he tells it, "limited documents already provided to the committee do not support Treasury's claim of noninvolvement."
The appearance of an ugly cover-up by the White House, which has not directly responded to Camp's requests for documents related to Delphi, gets stronger almost by the day, as does the appearance of a payoff to the union. Why else would the nonunion retirees be cheated if not to leave more money for the union?
Maybe a reasonable explanation exists, but it seems unlikely.Punishing enemies and paying off friends are in this administration's DNA.