Somebody, Bail ME Out, Please!

Congress is as good at managing private business as . . . well, as Tony Romo is in picking a girlfriend. Congress should stay out of the rescuing business and instead pick Romo's girlfriends for him. (Seriously, could Congress do worse than Jessica Simpson?)

Back to the rant. What is wrong with letting GM, Ford and Chrysler go into bankruptcy? The president of GM said if Congress does not bail them out there will be 3 million autoworkers unemployed. I object!

Let's do a little comparison - the cost of a worker at GM and Ford is $1500 to $1600 per car. At Toyota's American plants the cost of a worker per car is $300. Why the difference? Because the Detroit automakers are held hostage by the United Autoworkers Union. They've been held hostage for decades, but it only started hurting when Americans started driving superior Japanese autos. It took another couple of decades to get to the point of bankruptcy, but they continued to give in to the demands of the UAW. Over the past few years the UAW has given them a few concessions here and there, but $1500 in pay, benefits and pensions is breaking the companies. And Congress wants to bail them out, but really they would be bailing out the autoworkers union. Doesn't that infuriate you? Congress is so beholden to unions that they would rather give them what they want than solve the real problem.

If the 3 Detroit automakers go into bankruptcy all their contracts with the UAW are voided and would have to be renegotiated. That's a good thing, right? Not to the unions. If union contracts can be renegotiated to more reasonable pay and benefits, Detroit will be on its way to profitability. And the claim that 3 millions jobs would be lost is false because if Detroit is making cars with a lower cost per car, then people will be employed. And Detroit would be making more money with which to pay them.

And if Congress ends up not bailing them out, they can bail me out! I could really use some of that $700 billion.

Cement-Head

This morning Rush Limbaugh related a story about Eagles' quarterback, Donovan McNabb, not knowing that an NFL game can end in a tie. Some sportscaster called him a "cement-head" and another sportscaster, defending McNabb, said that calling McNabb a "cement-head" must have stood for something else. I am assuming that person thought it was a racial invective. Are you KIDDING me?

I am reminded of Joe Biden's comment about Obama early in the nomination process. About Obama, Biden noted that he was articulate. Black leaders took it to mean - "He's articulate - for a black guy."

Now it's just fine to say some white person is a cement-head when appropriate. Like Tony Romo is a cement-head for dating Jessica Simpson who IS a cement-head.