On Dec. 10, the U.S. Treasury Department sold off its last shares of General Motors’ stock (NYSE: GM). Both President Obama and the Treasury Secretary Jack Lew touted the company bailouts — Chrysler was also bailed out — as a success. Let’s do a quick review to understand what “success” means in Washington doublespeak.

President Obama said the federal government had to step in to keep both companies from “going bankrupt.” To the uninitiated, that meant going out of business. If so, then how did American Airlines just come out of bankruptcy and merge with US Airways. Clearly, bankruptcy doesn’t always mean ceasing operations.

Our president repeatedly told us that the private sector had no interest in rescuing GM unless Uncle Sam stepped in. How do we know that, since his administration short-circuited the process? GM clearly had outsized liabilities, because management couldn’t say no to the unions and the corporate culture was sclerotic. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t demand for the product and assets in the form of capital investments, a dealer network, loyal customers, and skilled workers.

The president further argued that the industry would collapse if GM went bankrupt. Funny thing, the government took the company through the bankruptcy process anyway while propping up GM with taxpayer money. In the process, the political appointees in charge of the process stuck it to the bond- and stock-holders, while protecting the interests of some unions.

In GM’s case, President Obama and Secretary Lew both admitted that the taxpayers took it on the nose for $10 billion (another $1 billion was lost in the Chrysler bailout); that’s called success inside the Beltway. Neither man mentioned that Chrysler is now majority-owned by Fiat and that each GM job “saved” cost more than six figures.

The U.S. government’s final argument for stepping in was the collapse of the auto manufacturers’ supplier network. That presumes the feds were the only savior. Since the Obama Administration has no problem rescuing banks, they could have politely suggested that these financial institutions lend money to those suppliers in need.

Our sitting president may be slapping himself on the back for the government’s role in the auto bailouts, but what he really did was to circumvent an established process and decide which interest group would benefit, all at the expense of the public.

The bailouts were just another form of corporate cronyism. Only in Washington would the bailouts be called a success.

Norman Poltenson is publisher of The Central New York Business Journal. Contact him at npoltenson@cnybj.com

It is widely understood that New York is a high-tax state. New York state citizens are acutely aware of this fact. It is hardly surprising then that the governor, being the politician that he is, has appointed not one, but two, commissions to examine how to reform the Empire State’s tax system. The first commission he appointed, with the Orwellian name, “New York State Tax Reform and Fairness Commission,” released its report last month. Notwithstanding its name, the report contains some good ideas on how New York should reform its tax structure.

The report begins by acknowledging that we are a high-tax state. In the 2012-13 fiscal year, state and local governments levied about $146 billion in taxes. Of that $146 billion, $64 billion is attributable to state taxes and the remaining $82 billion came from local tax collections. Of the $82 billion raised in local taxes, $49 billion was raised through property taxes. Although the report raises the issue of local taxes, the majority of its suggested changes deal with reforming our state’s tax system, not our local tax systems.

First, the report acknowledges that New York’s use and sales tax system is antiquated and needs to be modernized. I agree with this conclusion. At the very least, we need to simplify the system. I have heard from many small businesses about how difficult it is for them to understand and determine the products on which they need to collect sales tax. For example, if you sell bagels, you do not charge sales tax on the bagels, but if you toast the bagels, slice them, and put butter on top, then you must charge sales tax.

There are all sorts of inane examples along these lines that businesses encounter on a regular basis. The commission report states that the structure is “unduly complex” and makes “voluntary compliance more difficult, increasing the cost of doing business in the state and creates financial risk for vendors who ‘get it wrong’ and adds to the government’s tax administration costs.”

If nothing else, in the upcoming legislative session, we should make revenue-neutral changes to our sales-tax system to take out much of the complexity that has arisen over the years.

Second, the report also acknowledges that our state’s estate tax has not kept pace with changes that have made to federal estate-tax laws. As characteristic of our high-tax reputation, New York is one of only 17 states that has an estate tax. Moreover, only two states have estate-tax exemption amounts lower than New York’s $1 million sum.

I was pleased that the report notes New York’s estate tax may be a factor in taxpayer migration from New York to states without an estate tax. In Central New York, we have seen many area residents change their residency to Florida, a state without an estate tax, in an effort to avoid New York’s estate tax.

It is hard enough competing with Florida on the basis of the weather. We shouldn’t also be giving people an economic incentive to move there. To try to alleviate this problem, the commission recommends in its report to raise New York’s estate-tax exemption from $1 million to $3 million. This is a start. However, I would rather see us eliminate our estate tax entirely or, at the very least, match the exemption amount to the federal amount, which is $5.25 million.

Third, the commission recommends an accelerated phase out of the 18-a surcharge. This surcharge is a 2 percent assessment on electric, gas, water, and steam utilities. Like all taxes on businesses, these levies are passed on to the consumers. This surcharge is no different. It places an additional burden on New York families and businesses because we already pay high utility bills notwithstanding our taxes.

In last year’s budget, the state legislature and governor agreed to phase out this charge over a three and one-half year period. As mentioned, the commission recommends phasing this out more quickly because it has such a detrimental effect, particularly on businesses. I agree and indeed sponsor legislation to fully repeal this surcharge.

The commission also recommends many other changes to our state’s tax code. Some of their other recommendations I agree with, some I do not. However, I am pleased that at least there is some focus being brought to what is a primary economic problem in our state.

As mentioned above, the governor also has appointed a second commission to look at our state’s tax system. Apparently, this second commission is supposed to focus on coming up with proposals to relieve New Yorkers from our high property-tax burden. I look forward to seeing its proposals and hope that the ideas will be broad-based. Solutions will have to get at the reasons why we have high property taxes in this state and not simply shift the burden of our taxes from one group of citizens to another. I will provide an update once this second commission’s report becomes available.

William (Will) A. Barclay is the Republican representative of the 120th New York Assembly District, which encompasses most of Oswego County, including the cities of Oswego and Fulton, as well as the town of Lysander in Onondaga County and town of Ellisburg in Jefferson County. Contact him at barclaw@assembly.state.ny.us, or (315) 598-5185.