The title of a recently released MSNBC article is "US 'unlikely' to recoup auto outlay, panel finds". Translation: the government bailed out GM and Chrysler and it is highly unlikely that they will get ANY of that money back.

The sub-title is: "Congressional oversight panel urges more transparency from the Treasury", but seriously, when was the last time any government did anything quickly? Partisan bickering and snags are inevitable.

Specifically, this report says that "Although taxpayers MAY recover SOME PORTION of their investment in Chrysler and GM IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THEY WILL RECOVER THE ENTIRE AMOUNT". This is hardly a surprise.

"Preserving portions of Chrysler and GM might have resulted in savings for the government in other ways". This is a very tentative statement ("might have resulted in") and is hardly reassuring. Also, these "other ways" are not specified.

As for GM, they released the following statement as if to say 'We are on our way to recovery and therefore, the government should keep bailing us out until that happens: "We are confident that we will repay our nation's support because we are a company with less debt, a stronger balance sheet, a winning product portfolio and the right size to match today's market realities". OK, let's analyze "less debt", "a stronger balance sheet" "and the right size to match today's market realities". GM has "less debt" because of government bailouts, GM has "a stronger balance sheet" because of government bailouts "and the right size to match today's market realities" because they were forced to restructure BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. The next question is: once all government support is removed (and this will happen, sooner or later), can they remain profitable on their own? This is certainly not a guarantee.

The Congressional Oversight Panel report continues: "Academics and practitioners with whom the Panel's staff have spoken seem to believe that IT IS BOTH TOO EARLY and, given the number of variables, PERHAPS NOT POSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER as to what effects the government's involvement in the Chrysler bankruptcy will have on credit markets going forward". Translation: Even though the government is pumping all these billions of dollars into GM and Chrysler THE FINANCES OF THESE 2 COMPANIES MAY STILL BE SHAKY,as incredulous as that seems.

"BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL bankruptcy for multi-billion dollar companies, IT IS DIFFICULT TO CATEGORIZE the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies as being either typical or atypical". That's why we shouldn't generalize and jump to conclusions.

Texas Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling is the only Congressman to vote against this panel's findings, arguing that the Obama administration used the auto bailout, which began under Bush (it's funny how hard Mr. Obama tries to distance himself from his predecessor and yet, he is never able to fully do this) "to orchestrate (i.e. initiate/cause)the bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM so as to promote its economic, social and political agenda". Bush accused Democrats of playing politics. Now HENSARLING is accusing OBAMA of playing politics. This is sure to be a hot topic in the coming days, weeks and perhaps months.

Hensarling's final comment: "By making such an unprecedented investment in Chrysler and GM, THE ADMINISTRATION BY DEFINITION CHOSE NOT TO ASSIST OTHER AMERICANS THAT ARE IN NEED". This is a pretty drastic charge. "With the economic suffering Americans have endured DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS (Hensarling seems to be a Bush supporter who is now trying to imitate/mimic/mock Obama's rhetoric of "the last 8 years" under Bush), one wonders why Chrysler and GM merited such generosity to the exclusion of other taxpayers". This is a very thorny issue/sticky situation. Yes GM and Chrysler are not yet financially viable which means that they have to be propped by government funds which come from taxpayers, BUT GM AND CHRYSLER ARE DETROIT'S LIFELINE AND AN ENTIRE CITY SIMPLY CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO FAIL.

We've said this before, but it bears repeating: as long as GM and Chrysler are not financially viable/are on shaky financial footing, the US economy will be teetering. And as long as the US is teetering the world economy, INCLUDING CHINA, will continue to be weak (no matter how much Donald Tsang preaches "Mainland Pride").