Now that the Senate has shot down the first $15 billion auto bailout package, members of Congress are busy pitching new ideas all over the place in the hopes of selling a more palatable plan to America than just throwing money at the problem. After seeing the banks take our money and run, Congress thinks it has wised up to the foolishness of freely handing out money to people who have a decidedly poor record of fiscal wisdom. So despite willfully blinding itself to that economic reality, Congress now labors under the delusion that it has figured out its own idiocy.

Not wanting to get burned twice, these geniuses in Congress believe that the best way to protect the federal purse-strings is to tell the Big Three how they ought to structure their companies as a condition of receiving our tax dollars. While some of the ideas being floated around may sound like good policies, as a general matter, they are giving me a tremendously bitter taste. I have grave misgivings with the idea of the federal government lending money to these companies under any circumstances whatsoever.

I’m no fan of the UAW’s extortionate and pork-laden contracts, and I do not endorse the idea of freely giving handouts. But this currently trending notion toward providing management advice is a dangerous idea for a number of reasons, and those reasons can be condensed into four main objections.

First, if Congress does not trust these companies with cash, it needs to ask itself why. In other words, if the management of these companies does not know already how to operate their concerns without huge losses, then is it really wise for Congress to help these companies spend themselves out of this current crisis under any condition? Further, to make any loan conditions meaningful, what is the recourse? When all the money is gone and the companies go under—despite all the conditions—how does Congress exact its pound of flesh? Oh, there is no real recourse, is there? We are simply putting brain-dead companies on life-support.

Second, by placing conditions on how these companies will operate, Congress is injecting itself into the micromanagement of these nominally private enterprises, which brings us one step closer to the nationalization of private industry. It is one thing to tell all companies that they must provide healthcare and a minimum wage. It is another thing to tell specific companies exactly how and what to provide as compensation and benefits, how much to compensate their executives, and how to structure their retirement packages. For the sake of our economy, I would not want the Big Three to fail. But socialism is a price I am unwilling to pay even in—or rather, especially in—this climate. We cannot delude ourselves that a move in this direction will be “temporary” or “extraordinary.” Once the precedent is set, we have taken a large step toward that destination. It cannot be undone, and the next step, or the next time, will be all that much easier and less painful. Desperation and disaster are precisely the circumstances under which the leftists have justified a move toward socialism.

Third, regarding the conditions imposed: whom, exactly, does Congress think it is kidding? Sure, we can agree that reducing labor costs is one, or even the most, significant problem that needs to be addressed by these companies in order to bring them back to life, but to assume that this will somehow cure all the ills that are ailing these companies is naïve beyond measure. Call me crazy, but I daresay not a single Congressmember has the faintest idea how to run an efficient multi-billion-dollar operation, let alone one that is intended to make a profit, and it is nothing short of ludicrous for these jokers to solemnly nod at one another and pat each other’s backs under the misconception that meeting a shopping list of conditions is going to somehow fix what has become broken. These companies are in serious trouble from the ground up. To my mind, it is far from reassuring that these charlatans in Congress have suddenly gotten the idea that it might be fun to play CEO and act like they understand what must be done. Armchair quarterbacking can be fun; it is quite another thing to be put on the field. Congressmembers won’t be the ones that get sacked when reality comes charging; we will.

Which brings me to the fourth item. Any bailout will simply compound the real problem, because it will allow Congress to get yet another pass. When will Congress—or better yet, the American public—finally confront Congress’ significant share of culpability for the failure of the Big Three? For years, Congress and its partners in crime—the behemoth Frankensteinian federal agencies they created—have sought to regulate every aspect of these companies’ operations. Every single one of those regulations was calculated to make it more costly for any company in America to manufacture anything; consequently, they add a significant federal markup to the costs of American products that places them beyond the ability to compete.

For years, American industry has seen jobs go overseas, because it is simply too expensive to manufacture in the U.S. compared to other countries. We have become a net importer, rather than an exporter, because we cannot compete with the low labor and overhead costs of foreign companies. The wealth that could have been created by our own workforce has disappeared; much of our economy is service-based (or, worse, vapor-based, as we found with fog-backed securities). Fewer and fewer companies in America are utilizing our vast resources of raw materials and adding value to them through human labor. Indeed, we do not even produce the raw materials we are capable of producing, since Congress has worked relentlessly to shut down our access to our own cheap oil, cheap minerals, cheap lumber, and cheap textile resources. America is not producing wealth, it is squelching or squandering it: thanks largely to government policy. Lots of Americans think regulations are benign, but when the Small Business Administration tells you that 19 cents of every dollar spent by small businesses is on regulatory compliance, and that larger businesses spend $5,000 per employee on regulatory compliance, you had better be prepared for the consequences. Yet these same Americans still want to be able to buy everything at Wal-Mart prices.

Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t Congress actually do something that it has the power to do, if not the guts: instead of just handing out more of the cash we taxpayers have busted our asses earning, pass legislation that will protect the Big Three, and create a regulatory environment that would both enable them and force them to fix themselves. Better yet, exempt the Big Three from some of the nonsense legislation that has handcuffed them, and allow them the opportunity to bootstrap themselves out of this problem . . . or sink in the attempt.

For decades now, the modus operandi of the United States government has been to try to solve problems not by actually solving them, but running around them: instead of taking measures that would actually educate or train minorities, they gave us affirmative action; instead of providing a tax structure that allows mothers the choice or opportunity to stay at home to raise their own children, they funneled all the federal benefits into daycare programs; instead of encouraging through favorable legislation a steady supply of housing to keep pace with demand, they encouraged sub-prime loans on overpriced property. The results of these policies have been both predictable and disastrous. Now, with the Big Three, we are going to get another dose of this same brand of foolishness: “Let’s not actually confront the source of the problem, let’s just kludge up a band-aid out of greenbacks and spit.”

So here we are again, letting Congress “solve” a problem without actually solving it. Until Congress finds the courage to make some difficult and necessary choices because that is the right thing to do, instead of pandering to noisy, open-handed, know-nothing lobbyists and special interest groups by avoiding problems, putting them off until tomorrow, or covering the symptoms with billion-dollar cortisone injections, we’re heading for disaster.

I don’t know how many ways I can say it: the problem with the Big Three is not that the free market has failed them, it is that they have not operated within the free market. So long as workers are able to dictate the value of labor without reference to what the market can support, so long as Congress creates an economic environment that handicaps the ability of American companies to manufacture goods that can be sold competitively throughout the world’s markets, the problems confronted by the Big Three will simply be exacerbated, and replicate themselves throughout our economy.

It is dismaying, to say the least, that many so-called conservatives are demanding accountability milestones as a condition of a federal bailout, as though this is a panacea for the problems confronted by the Big Three. They need to revisit a few economic truths about how businesses ought to operate, and display the courage of their convictions—if only for the sake of holding their heads up when the future consequences of this present desperation comes crashing in on America.

There is a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Add to that spinelessness, ignorance, and hubris, and you have defined the path staked out by Congress to America’s future.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Workers wages the straw that broke the automakers’ backs
• DOW opens down sharply, President reconsiders tapping TARP funds

No related posts.

Well, isn’t it a relief that everyone has now woken up to the fact that our irresponsible government is being . . . irresponsible. Our lovely Uncle Sam, that freeloading sponge of a relative absconded with our national credit card and gave $700 billion to failed banks that loaned money to people whom anyone with sense would not have loaned a dime in order for them to purchase properties for which anyone with sense would not have paid that much. (Okay, it is a little more complicated than that . . . but that’s the bottom line, isn’t it?)

That bit of legislative mischief was rammed through like lightning, when all of us taxpayers were still reeling from the fact that our retirement funds suddenly took on the appearance of a Christmas club account. In our shock, few Americans were able to completely digest the full idiocy of the government’s assurances that such a step was “necessary” to shore up our ailing economy.

With this track record, it is no wonder the heads of GM, Ford, and Chrysler decided to try their luck at bellying up to the public trough. In round one, the Big Three came to Congress with their expectant hats out, asking for a measly $25 billion. Of course, we might ask: why come to Congress? Just borrow some money from AIG and Citibank! However, round one did not go their way, so they have now jumped into the ring for round two. This time, apparently, they are actually presenting a plan to Congress for what they are going to do with the money—what a concept!

But of course, the cat is out of the bag now. America has thrown a handful of cold water on its face and slapped itself on the cheek a few times and wants some answers. So those same Senators and Congressmen who handed out our children’s soon-to-be hard-earned cash to a slew of failed banks with nary a second thought are now behaving as though they are incensed . . . outraged . . . shocked . . . that these irresponsible companies have been . . . irresponsible. Amazingly, Congress has suddenly become very tightfisted with our money.

I can’t help but marvel at the irony of the whole situation: who is Congress to get uppity and holier-than-though about fiscal irresponsibility, lack of prudence, and squandering of revenues? If ever there was a group that has no call to throw stones, it is Congress! In fact, Congress should be enormously flattered. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the Big Three simply emulated their model: spend more than you bring in, and hope the future takes care of itself! The only problem is that automobile manufacturers must unfortunately depend upon the market for cars to support their companies. Unlike Congress, they don’t have an endless stream of hapless taxpayers being forced to support their lavish habits. At least, not yet.

But there is even irony upon irony, because a good number of these same spend-happy Congressmen and Congresswomen have shamelessly pandered to the autoworker’s union, the UAW, in an effort to harvest their votes and volunteerism. All this time, these legislators have sided with the UAW, supporting through legislation the means by which the union could hold the Big Three management over the barrel, forcing them to meet every demand or face the closing of their factories. “Never mind that there is foreign competition!” “Never mind that sales are down!” “Give us what we want!” And they did: to the tune of over $70 as average hourly compensation. Nice work, if you can get it. To put this in perspective, Toyota’s U.S. workers have an average compensation just over $40 per hour. But Congress not only cheered on the UAW, they aided and abetted them; it was a mutual palm-greasing relationship. It’s no mystery why the Big Three needs Congress to bail them out: these congressmen and congresswomen would not be where they are today without the whole machine in motion. They OWE them.

So the spectacle of our Congress demanding accountability and prudence is frankly sending me into fits– as they say in the text-world, ROFLMAO. Exactly what leg is Congress standing on? What shred of integrity or honor can these legislators draw upon? It is not that I am in favor of an auto industry bailout, mind you, I just want to know: what is the overriding guiding principle that inspires our esteemed Congressmembers? I mean, other than, “Oh, crap, guys. America’s paying attention. I think the jig may be up.”

I anticipate that there would be a tremendous and negative effect on the American economy overall if the Big Three actually go under, and it is certainly not a spectacle I relish witnessing. But as bad as things may get, I cannot help but feel a certain satisfaction that the UAW and the executives who run these U.S. automakers may finally be getting a lesson in basic market economics. Unlike the stockholders who actually owned these companies, the fortunes of these employees did not rise and fall on the performance of the company. No, following the socialist model, they simply united in the mistaken belief that it is possible to establish the value of labor without regard to whether they could sell the cars they were building at a price that would support it.

I truly feel sorry for those who are facing layoffs and unemployment, but had these companies shown the slightest inclination to work within the limits of what the market was dictating, autoworkers and the companies that have paid their extortionate demands would not now be facing a dire future. And now, rather than face the reality they created, they want to cement their erroneous beliefs by having the U.S. taxpayer bail them out—essentially, forcing us all to further subsidize the cost of the cars simply to meet their compensation demands. That, America, is a brand of socialism we must not tolerate. No, it is high time that everyone at the Big Three ran smack dab into reality.

My only regret is that we cannot similarly force Congress to file Chapter 11. After selling out our future to their prep-school pals on Wall Street, they should be hanging their heads in shame, not puffing themselves up and acting as though they are miserly guardians of our well-being. If we really wanted a just world, nearly every member of Congress for the last 30 years would be facing the same fate confronting so many other Americans today: unemployment. How much do we plan to put up with, America?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Democrats Ask Automakers for Way Forward
• UAW Chief: Auto Bailout Is Necessary
• Obama, UAW weigh in on auto industry crisis

No related posts.

Okay, I am still steamed. This whole mess is a sad, dirty joke being perpetrated upon the American people. Here are a few more thoughts.

So Congress put a limit on executive salaries. This is supposed to make me feel better? If I had run my company into the ground, I would not encounter a pay ceiling, I would be out of a job. Come, on, America, these are the MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE, we are talking about: the crème de la crème, the elite. Look, I’m a relatively bright individual—I have a college degree and a law degree (whoopee, for all that’s worth). But even I have a hard time really understanding derivatives and so forth . . . and it turns out that these geniuses didn’t really understand them either, apparently. (I am being nice, and not claiming they are out and out crooks.)

Lots of Americans—in particular, people with retirement funds—relied on these geniuses to understand all these sophisticated security products, things that us poor benighted fools were too ignorant to bend our minds around. America trusted a bunch of self-aggrandizing politicians and Harvard MBA’s and Wharton grads to protect and invest their money wisely, even conservatively. But no, they are just too smart for the rest of us. And now we’re bailing out these jerks, letting them keep their jobs . . . and trusting them again with $700 billion more! Gosh, there’s no limit to how stupid we are! Burn me once, shame on you, burn me twice, . . . ?

It turns out they were all weaving The Emperor’s New Clothes. Then they turned around and sold them to pensioners, China, Europe, anyone who had a buck. If I had raided my grandmother’s pension, I would be in jail, but the silver-spoon set are running around scot free and getting more money from you and me.

So, what, instead of making $2 million plus, these executives are making $250,000? Don’t kid yourself. I bet it’s not even that low. And are they working somewhere on the Jersey turnpike now, or do they still have swank offices in downtown Manhattan? Expense accounts? First Class airfare? All the nitwits in Congress think that is perfectly reasonable, since they all belong to the same Big Bucks Club. You see, Congressmen and Senators are Masters of the Universe, too. They don’t seem to realize that you and I meet all our families’ expenses at less than half these amounts. But then, we’re just ignorant peons.

These people should get zilch: if they can still afford to eat and keep their homes in the Hamptons or the penthouse on Central Park West, they should get nothing. Their entire compensation packages should be tied to performance. Note to the wary: if you don’t vote your stock proxy according to who owns the biggest piece of the stock pie, you are a fool. Executive fortunes should ride with yours.

And while I am at it: the same is true with all the members of Congress. Heck, make it the whole federal payroll. They should not make a cent unless it is from a budget surplus. Then you might see them be a little more responsible about spending our tax dollars—the way you and I have to be responsible about our own family budgets. In fact, let’s do it department by department, agency by agency: compensation comes out of what they saved from the budget. Then, instead of budgets growing every year, they would shrink, because suddenly everyone would work their asses off being more effective and more efficient, and they would cut the dead weight.

Oh, and thank you, Congress, for revising the bailout bill to increase the amount of federal deposit insurance to $250,000. That sure was a deal breaker. You see, the idea is that this gives people much more confidence in the banking system. Yeah, okay, so when the bank goes bust . . . oh, I get it. You and I, as taxpayers, now get to pay out to people who had a quarter mill in the failed bank. THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH! Never mind that neither I nor anyone else I know has even $100,000 (the former limit) in a bank account anyway . . . I would be happy to insure the wealthy!

HOW STUPID ARE WE? The only source of revenue for the feds to insure these funds is you and me, the taxpayers. Here’s another idea: for every bank that fails, the very first place we should go to for insured funds is the pockets of the Senators and Congressmen who voted for this moronic piece of legislation.

Oh, and that federal deposit insurance sure makes those banks accountable . . . yes, sir . . . now, when they screw up, they don’t even have to pay the piper. You and I do. Why not force insurance onto the private sector? Like lawyers who obtain malpractice insurance. If banks are run well and conservatively, then a private insurer would be happy to collect a hefty premium to cover depositor’s insurance, and the bank has an incentive to run itself well to keep its premiums down. And we can be sure that the insurer would audit the you-know-what out of that bank. And if the bank has no insurance: well, they need to disclose that to depositors, and all bets are off. (Sure . . . yeah, I’d bank there.)

But no, we have a smarter idea. Let the taxpayers insure the depositors, no matter how lousy and lavishly a bank is run and no matter how foolishly they risk depositors’ assets, and trust the government to watch out for our interests by providing adequate oversight for these institutions. Yeah . . . that works for me. Duhhhhhh.

WAKE UP! Yes, the world is in a terrible credit crisis, but this piece of garbage legislation was rammed through by people who don’t know what they are doing. This is the definition of insanity: people who do the same thing over and over and expect different results. I know . . . let’s give a lot more money to the same people who failed before, because THIS time, they’ll get it right. And that trust is based on . . . what, again? I kind of missed that.

These government big wigs and Wall Street whizzes really do think they are the MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE. But I suppose if we were stupid enough to elect the one lot and give our money to the other, maybe they are, because we are so foolish that we gave them our money once, we are giving it to them again, and we still let them take more of our money from us. For whom are we working? I thought the 13th Amendment outlawed involuntary servitude. Hmmm. Must be mistaken.

And let’s all get our minds around that number, America: $700 billion. If you had spent $2 million every day since the year of the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 . . . you would ALMOST have spent $700 billion by now! (You would only have 16 more years left to spend $2 million a day.) Ponder that, America.

It’s time for some leadership. Anyone? Anyone? Because it is not going to come from our next president. They believe that the government not only can, but will, save us. And anyone who really believes that is a certifiable idiot.

Related articles by Zemanta

• No Bailouts for Jobless or Homeless
• Bush appeals to Congress to reverse bail-out rejection
• ‘Wanted: Bank failure specialist.’ Pays $156K

No related posts.

I don’t know why so many Americans keep demanding that the government solve their problems. The United States government doesn’t work. Time and again, American politicians have demonstrated their utter incompetence at even understanding problems, let alone actually solving them.

There are some things a government must do—it is the reason we even consent to be governed. (Pssst . . . it’s in The Declaration of Independence.) But most of the time, when the U.S. government gets a hold of a problem, it’s like asking your dentist to design a house.

Here’s how the U.S. government works: You’re hungry, and you ask for a ham sandwich. Your pig congressman proposes it as the Ham Sandwich Bill. Of course, not wanting it to look like simple pork, he broadens it a bit: it includes Black Forest Ham, Smoked Ham, Honey Ham, and mustard. Terrific. So far, so good. But now, it has to go to the House Lunch Committee.

Now, some other congressman from a cow district wants it to be a roast beef sandwich—or, at the very least, that it includes some roast beef, or maybe corned beef, or pastrami. Then the poultry congressmen have their say. The dairy congressmen demand that it have cheese, and, of course, since you can’t have a sandwich by itself, you also need a glass of milk.

And then the wheat congressmen debate with the rye congressmen what kind of bread it ought to have, and they compromise by deciding that both must be included. And then come all the vegetables and condiments. By then, the nut and fruit congressmen are asking why the bill fails to address nuts and fruits.

Eventually, it comes out of committee, and in the floor debate, members say that there is so much stuff here, that it should not be a sandwich at all, it ought to be a buffet.

But if it is a buffet, it needs to be a matter that is placed within the purview of the United States Buffet Agency. So now, the bill is renamed as an Amendment to the American Buffet Act. It goes to the Senate. They debate even more, and, after a few more changes, everyone is finally happy. They add another $20 billion to the federal budget. The bill is passed, and the President signs it at a press conference with everybody smiling.

Now you ask the U.S. Buffet Agency about your sandwich. But they have just started. They decide that in order to effectively administer this program, they need to enact some regulations. They propose regulations stating that you need a permit. They define the permit requirements, citing to appropriate sections of the American Buffet Act.

Then they solicit comments, and get them from activist groups like Americans Who Hate Sandwiches, the American Society for Vegetarian Sandwiches, and Pork is Murder. The agency considers all of the comments and 90 days latter it issues regulations that incorporate all of the comments into their final regulations.

You then spend hours filling out reams of paperwork applying for your Ham Sandwich permit. The agency gives you a permit, but what you get is a fruit platter, because the Agency concludes that the 2008 Amendment to the American Buffet Act does not include provisions for a ham sandwich, and, besides, the Buffet Agency concluded eight years ago that a ham sandwich is not as healthy as a fruit platter. It costs you $1,200.
The American government is a cumbersome, inefficient body. Most of the time, that’s a good thing, because we would really be in trouble if America’s politicians could exercise their power effectively. You see, they pretty much don’t know anything about anything—that is, anything real. They know how to blather on and spend money, though.

If Americans want something done, if America has a problem that needs to be solved, the last thing Americans should do is to go whining to the U.S. government. Take a look around. Problems are solved by individuals who have an acute need or desire to solve them. Most of the time, it is the government that is getting in the way of a solution, not providing it.

Americans cannot and should not expect problems to be solved by a group of people who have no direct interest in an efficient and useful outcome, especially when they are spending someone else’s money—yours—to accomplish it.

Be an American. It is not someone else’s responsibility; it is yours. And if ever America needed Americans to accept the challenges America faces, it is now.

American Ideals Freedoms | Individual Rights | Customs and Traditions

No related posts.

When is the last time you were impressed with something the American government actually did? I don’t mean the last time they passed a law with a nice-sounding name. I mean, the last time that a law was actually designed to accomplish some important goal efficiently and effectively. Oh, that is, other than to take more of your money away from you.

No related posts.