<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/06/the_new_gm_five_political_challenges.php" />
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://business.theatlantic.com/atom.xml" />
	<id>tag:business.theatlantic.com,2009://3/tag:business.theatlantic.com,2009://3.18550-</id>
	<updated></updated>
	<title>Comments for The New GM: Five Political Challenges</title>
	
	<generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.24-en</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>tag:business.theatlantic.com,2009://3.18550</id>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/06/the_new_gm_five_political_challenges.php" />
		<link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://business.theatlantic.com/mt-42/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=3/entry_id=18550" title="The New GM: Five Political Challenges" />
		<published>2009-06-01T13:19:31Z</published>
		<updated>2009-06-01T15:04:04Z</updated>
		<title>The New GM: Five Political Challenges</title>
		<summary>Five big questions for Obama.</summary>
		<author>
			<name>Marc Ambinder</name>
			
		</author>
		
		<category term="Featured" />
		
		<category term="Promo" />
		
		<content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://business.theatlantic.com/">
			<![CDATA[The economists and business writers will evaluate the GM restructuring with authority. From our vantage point, here are five political questions that the administration will no doubt be challenged by over the next few months.<br /><br />1. Convincing the country that this restructuring -- and they'll call it a "restructuring" -- is an inevitable consequence of a process that began during the Bush administration. So far, the public seems to believe this, but the longer the government fiddles with the industry, the more Obama will be seen as the fiddler.<br /> 

]]>
			<![CDATA[<br />2. There is "an inevitable tension" between taxpayer protection and the
length of the government's ownership, an administration official told
reporters last night. Put plainly: the longer the government owns GM,
the better the chance that taxpayers will see the money put in GM
recouped.&nbsp; (BTW: Bankruptcy is scheduled for "60 to 90 days."&nbsp; It will
most certainly take longer, perhaps even into 2010.)<br /><br />3. In big
companies with unions, it's not possible, really, to go through an
orderly bankruptcy without involving the unions. The challenge for the
administration: explain to Americans why the unions deserve the
concessions they're getting and sell the concept that UAW has already
given up a lot.&nbsp; So far, the public, in an anti-corporate mood, is OK,
but I suspect that since this issue still hasn't forced itself to the
forefront of the public attention span, the public hasn't been given
the chance to evaluate the deal on fairness terms.&nbsp; <br /><br />4. How
hands-on will the government be? In theory, it'll leave all but the
corporate governance decisions up to GM -- the nameplates to end, the
dealerships to close, the shops to keep open etc -- but in practice,
the government will have veto power, and will have the ability to help
appoint a corporate board that reflects Obama's view of the economy. <br /><br />5.
What's happening to my warranty? No doubt that GM car owners will want
to know the answer. The media will help by giving the government's
answer:&nbsp; nothing. It's still valid.&nbsp; But there are lots of other
consumer questions, like -- when GM closes dealerships and service
centers and when associated manufacturers shut down, will it take
longer -- and cost more -- to fix my car?&nbsp; The answer is: yes.&nbsp; (Here's
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-05-31-gm-bankruptcy-warranty-questions_N.htm">a great Q and A</a> on this subject.)<br />]]>
		</content>
	</entry>

</feed>