The Obama Administration defends the cost of the auto bailout on economic grounds. The President argues that providing the money was necessary to prevent an economic catastrophe. But even if government intervention for the limited purpose of providing post-bankruptcy financing was deemed necessary due to the illiquidity of credit markets at the time, there was still no rationale for diverting tens of billions of taxpayer dollars (including taxes paid by the employees of the UAW’s lower-paid competitors) to the UAW. The preferences given to the UAW account for the entire net cost of the bailout. The bailout would have cost $26.5 billion less had the UAW been treated like GM’s and Chrysler’s other creditors. Instead, the Administration violated basic principles of bankruptcy law and transferred that money to the UAW—at taxpayer expense.

I'm not going to stick up for the mechanics of the bailout and I am certain I can not make you happy about it. But, I think there are a couple factors missing from the calculations in the article you cite. First, the UAW was a creditor and a huge one. They did get more than other creditors did but, while in theory all creditors are to be treated equally in bankruptcy the reality is that in any bankruptcy, deals are cut and relative negotiating power determines who gets what. The UAW took stock to fund future benefit liabilities so its not exactly a risk free deal for them. The UAW did have a friend in the White House but they also had huge leverage which the general unsecured creditors did not have. It should be pointed out that the UAW and Ford cut a similar deal with no bankruptcy and no White House help.

http://www.heritage.org/...g-union-compensation

I'm having trouble dealing with this with anything except seething rage. Someone take me to a happy place and tell me again why this action by the administration was not corruption and was a good thing.