Of course they do!

The story on CNN today has the headline: GM, Chrysler ask for $21.6 billion more! Is anyone really surprised by this? I mean, really. It was obvious in December that these companies were in trouble and the government came out and basically declared that these companies are too big to fail (this is never true) and therefore needed to be given money. Now, if these companies did fail, it would be a huge cost to taxpayers, not just shareholders and labor. So, I fully expect that they will get more money from us. However, I was appalled by what I read in this article. These are some of the statements quoted in the article:

"The most important issue is not what the automakers are going to do to cut costs, but rather what the government is going to do to stimulate car sales,"--Jeremy Anwyl, CEO of car sales tracker Edmunds.com

"When consumers refuse to buy your product, that's the economy telling you you're bankrupt,"--Rich Yamarone, director of research at Argus Research

"it may make sense to give them the money they need, even if it's good money after bad, because the battered U.S. economy can't weather the halt of operations at GM and Chrysler right now"--Rich Yamarone, director of research at Argus Research

So, how the heck is the government supposed to "stimulate" auto sales. They can give money to these companies all day but the only thing that will stimulate sales is making a product people want to buy, dumping money losing products and reducing overhead. None of these can be done by the government. I suppose our government could provide some sort of tax credit or deduction for buying an American made car, but wait, Toyotas and Hondas are made in the USA, just for a heck of a lot less than the overbloated unionized shops in Detroit. So of course the issue is what can they do to cut costs. That's how a company survives tough times. The government can't do much of anything.

Mr. Yamarone get even more priceless. He admits that consumers refusing to buy your product means you are bankrupt whether you've had to declare it or not, but that somehow, again with the too big to fail concept, the government needs to throw good money at the bad here in order to keep these companies afloat. Detroit would probably go out of business as a city if these two companies failed, I admit. It would be a tragic day in America, but to continue to throw money at something that has proven it isn't working is like sticking your hand into a fish tank full of piranha, getting bitten and then repeatedly putting your hand in again until you have no fingers. This isn't smart policy or smart fiscal policy. The Republicans derailed the legislation to help these companies back in December even though the Democrats really could have voted it through in the House anyway because they knew it was a bad idea at the time. That of course put the ball into G.W. Bush's court. Since he showed extremely poor judgment economically, especially in the last two years of his Presidency, that wasn't a wise course of action either. In addition, he was being heavily pressured to "do something" and so he gave them bailout funds. The Democrats love this because they can blame Republicans even though it was the Republicans who derailed the legislation in the first place. However, I'll say this just once. G.W. Bush, or Bush II, is no conservative. He increased government spending, he increased the size of government, he increased the government's debt, he espoused protectionist rather than free market ideas, he supported a bailout of the financial sector and he gave the automakers a bailout as well. This makes him a liberal who is against abortion, not a conservative. At any rate, this is going to happen. If Congress doesn't give these companies more money, Obama will. In exchange for all of this, we will slide even further down that slippery slope that ends even more badly than the bad economy alone could ever produce. Yes, I'm gonna say it! Socialism!