Those that try to tout the bailouts’ success usually begin with a declaration along the lines of “If the government didn’t step in … then GM and Chrysler would have ‘gone bankrupt.’”

First, going into bankruptcy does not equate to going out of business. American Airlines went into bankruptcy and still kept planes flying in the sky, emerging Monday with even former shareholders getting some shares in the post-bankruptcy entity. So, going through a bankruptcy process would not mean that GM or Chrysler would have had to cease operations.

Second, a common refrain is that there were no private-equity or other firms that expressed interest in taking a stake in either company before the government had to step in. Well, that’s because the bankruptcy process wasn’t allowed to play out. The auto companies had out-of-whack balance sheets that included unreasonable liabilities, including union liabilities. No private-equity firm was going to let the UAW have any type of preferred status (although the government ultimately did, see below). However, by not going directly into a bankruptcy proceeding where these liabilities could be renegotiated, there was never a true process to solicit and evaluate interest from financial or strategic partners. That’s what the bankruptcy process was designed to do, but it never had the chance.

The reality is that GM and Chrysler had significantly valuable brands and other intellectual property, manufacturing equipment, a loyal customer base, a skilled workforce and more. There was substantial demand for their products. These were financial mismanagement bankruptcies stemming from noncompetitive labor costs and liabilities, not ones brought on by a lack of interest in the core businesses. To think that no financial or strategic buyer would ultimately have had an interest in these acquiring the assets of these companies is preposterous. Even if you could make that unreasonable and highly unlikely argument, consumer demand for automobiles would still be in place, which means that other manufacturers, like Ford, would have benefited and grown to absorb that demand, and of course a good portion of the related workforce and ecosystem.

To say that the government was the only white knight here ignores basic market principles. Does anyone really believe that the entire auto industry would have gone away or have any precedent for that happening?

Additionally, both GM and Chrysler did go bankrupt. Yes, the government took both companies through the process, using taxpayer money to sustain the companies while they moved the interests of the major union above that of the other creditors (including those that manage the retirement plans of many Americans) and only once this chicanery had been completed then went through the same process that the companies should have been in to begin with.

However, the outcome was pricey in multiple ways, even beyond the creditors losing preference to the UAW and its various interests.

On Chrysler, the taxpayers lost more than $1 billion and the company ended up in majority control of a non-US company (Fiat, an Italian company) and minority controlled by a trust for the benefit of retired auto workers. An IPO for Chrysler is planned for 2014, but the taxpayers still will record a loss and America also records the loss of ownership of an iconic brand.

On GM, the taxpayers lost more than $10 billion and now have no participation in future upside of that company.

Ultimately, we spent more than six figures per job to “save” them from a mythical end and end up with billions won’t be recouped.

What about the small businesses? Many argue that the bailout was about saving the small suppliers. But if this was about helping small business, there are many ways that they could have been helped directly. Perhaps the banks that were also bailed out by taxpayers could have been asked to extend credit to the small suppliers in the automotive ecosystem.

I have had enough with the bailouts. Our government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers and deciding what companies should receive taxpayer assistance and which shouldn’t. Moreover, they shouldn’t be prioritizing certain groups’ interests over others and shouldn’t be touting successes that aren’t real.

Let’s not pretend that this bailout is more than what it was: A mere wealth transfer that helped the unions at the expense of all taxpayers. When that type of cronyism happens, America loses.

That doesn’t include Yossi Gestetner‘s measures:

• GM sold fewer vehicles in the U.S. in 2014 than in 2008.
• GM had about 17.6% of the U.S. market in 2014, down from about 21.9% in 2008.
• GM bailout had a net loss of $10.4 billion (bank bailouts a net gain of $24.3 billion).
• GM’s 2013 profit was $3.8 billion; Ford, without a bailout, $7.2 billion.

The economy is now 8% larger than late 2007, right before the recession started, but total U.S. auto sales in 2014 were only 1.5% higher than 2007.

The only thing needed to be “saved” in late 2008 was GM (and Chrysler), whose finances had been run into the ground due to union contracts, not the weak economy. The auto industry at large had a rough ride just like everyone else, but the industry came out from the crisis depths without being bailed out. But auto sales growth is still lagging the rest of the economy, and GM is actually a drag on those numbers. Basically, the part of the industry that Obama did not “save” is actually doing better than the part he “saved.”

As for Chrysler … it was sold to an Italian company by the same president who complained in 2012 that Romney’s Bain is betting against America.

Gestetner’s numbers are low. This country lost at least $11.2 billion from the GM bailout. And for what? Thanks to our still crappy economy, millions of Americans will never be able to buy a new car. Ever.