On Wednesday’s broadcast of “CNN News Central,” Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL) stated that the government getting a 10% stake in Intel is like “when the government took over Chrysler…In the crisis back in ’08, ’09, because they were going to go under” and “Intel is very vital, again, to our national security interests. And sometimes you do that in order to make sure that an industry survives and a particular company survives” but we should “get our money, our investment back and then back out as fast as we can.”
Co-host John Berman asked, “Howard Lutnick, the Secretary of Commerce, floated the idea of the United States buy[ing] into — the government, taking shares, taking partial ownership of defense companies. This comes after the United States took a 10% share in Intel, the chipmaker. How would you feel about the government being a part-owner of some of these defense industries?”
Gimenez answered, “I’m not crazy about the government being owner — being part-owners in private enterprise. There has to be a compelling reason for that. Are they in trouble? Are they in trouble financially? That’s one of the things that we used, I guess, when the government took over Chrysler, right? In the crisis back in ’08, ’09, because they were going to go under, and they’re a vital part of our industry. Also, they’re a vital part to our security. And so, these contractors that are having a problem and we need to somehow shore them up because they are vital to our national security, that’s one thing. But normally being part or taking part of ownership of a company is not something I’m really keen on, unless we’re investing a ton of money in it, and then we should get our money back. And so, again, I’ve got to see the details on that particular transaction.”
Berman then asked, “You have an opinion on the Intel business, 10%?”
Gimenez responded, “I guess it had to do with making sure that Intel stays afloat. Intel is very vital, again, to our national security interests. And sometimes you do that in order to make sure that an industry survives and a particular company survives because they do have — they are a big part of our national security. And so, in those cases, yeah, but that’s in order for us to get our money, our investment back and then back out as fast as we can.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
Read the full article here
