Apparently, in the Brave New Obama World™, if one is the recipient of some Federal largess (read taxpayer money) one is accountable to Obama, personally. Obama may demand the resignation of a CEO of a company that has received handfuls of cash (read taxpayer money) from Obama (personally, it seems).
However, if you are the CEO of a bank or insurance company that has received dumpsters full of money at the behest of Obama, you are immune from penalty.
Let’s get this straight. If you are a CEO of a bank that’s losing gobs of money, the government will bail you out repeatedly and let you keep your job.
But if you’re Rick Wagoner, the CEO of General Motors (GM, Fortune 500), you are forced to fall on your sword, or piston as the case may be. And that’s after you have had to spend months trying to prove that you have a viable business plan.
No doubt about it, there seems to be a strange double-standard going on.
On the one hand, financial companies seem to have no problem getting more bailout money.
All it takes is for the stocks of big banks like Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) to plunge to multi-year lows for the government to come running. Citi and BofA have each received $45 billion in assistance and hundreds of billions of dollars more in loan guarantees.
The difference? One would only point out that Obama took in more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from AIG alone. (Money he has not given back, incidentally.) One would love to see how much the various Wall Street firms gave in protection money campaign contributions versus what GM and Chrysler were able to come up with.
Welcome to the Brave New Obama World™.
Hows that Hope and Change, America? Is this what you voted for?