During the 2008 campaign I was asked how, as an Independent, would I be able to work with the two major parties and compromise to get legislation passed.  This is very simple, I don’t believe in compromise to pass legislation for two very important reasons.

1.  The success of a legislative body cannot be measured by the volume of bills passed, but rather on the quality of bills passed, which leads to the second reason.

2.  Compromise and cooperation are not the same things, unlike what we have been led to believe for decades.

I oppose political compromise because it leads to wasteful spending, uncontrolled growth of government, and erosion of the checks and balances that should exist within government to protect our rights and liberties.  Political compromise can be described as the art of one political faction agreeing to vote for it’s opponents wasteful and illegitimate bill only if they are allowed to make it worse for personal gain.  To equate what our elected officials do to that of a typical family scenario, it would be as if a couple were barely able to pay their bills and the wife informs her husband that she wants a new car.  Knowing full well there is no way they can afford a new car, the husband still consents to a new car if he is allowed to buy a new boat.  Both parties know it is wrong and know there is no way they can afford either purchase, but they both support it since they each get something out of the deal.  Political compromise is essentially sanctioned bribery that we have been told by politicians for decades is essential to passing any legislation.

Rather than bribing legislators to support wasteful spending bills and job killing policies full of pork barrel projects aimed at certain lawmakers’ districts, we should, across party lines and within each party, demand negotiations to reach a bill that all applicable parties can agree to fully without adding bribes such as the “Bridge To Nowhere” or the individual allowances we saw in the Healthcare debate designed to sway votes.  We should no longer allow our representatives to accept and vote in favor of wasteful bills simply because they think the benefits of certain paragraphs of the bill offset other sections of the bill.  In order to vote in favor of and support a bill, our representatives must support each and every part of a bill.  If there is one single section of the bill that is unacceptable, they must vote against that bill.

Within our private lives we can, for only a short time, endure the explosive spending that compromise promotes before we are unable to pay our bills.  Businesses would soon be bankrupt and no longer exist if they conducted business through this type of political compromise, so why should we expect that our government and our country be any different?

            Most people in this country and in our state identify themselves as either Republican or Democrat.  For decades we have been encouraged to support these parties faithfully, that voting for anyone else is a vote for the other side.  As far as the parties and the party leadership are concerned, they don’t really care who the candidate is or what they stand for, only how much money can they raise and if they are electable. 

            We have been led to think in terms of left and right rather than up or down, in terms of Democrat or Republican rather than relying on our own personal ideals and beliefs.  Over the years we have allowed party leadership to select their candidate rather than let the party membership elect their candidate.  As a result, we are left with candidates that don’t represent the people, we have our choice of candidates whose loyalties lie with the party leadership that selected them and provided the funding for their campaign. 

            As many voters are starting to realize, it really doesn’t matter which party is in power, the direction of government is the same.  The Progressive movement started around 100 years ago and began to fundamentally transform our government and lives.  The essence of Progressivism is that society should be controlled and designed, that when people are left to make their own decisions life is messy, inefficient, and problems arise.  Progressivism increases the size and role of government to control the lives of the people and thus attempt to create a more harmonious society.  In order to create the perfect society, Progressivism redistributes wealth so that everyone can earn a national minimum salary; Progressivism seeks to provide for all needs through the government, and seeks to protect us from ourselves through strict regulation even if it means surrendering our rights. 

            The Progressive movement has pervaded both the Republican and Democratic parties to the point that there are very few differences between the parties at all.  The previous 2 Ohio governors were both Republicans with Republican legislatures.  Yet there were no major tax cuts, no reduction in the size of government, actually under each governor state spending increased, new programs were instituted, and the state government became more intrusive in our lives.  Under the progressive ideology of both parties, we have tried to eliminate failure.  We no longer allow people to make their own decisions and take risks.  Instead, we use tax payer dollars to bailout failed business plans, but then enact broad brush regulation that restricts everyone’s behavior, even those that did no wrong.  It’s as if one person messed in their pants, so we make everyone wear a diaper. 

            Our state is in dire financial straits, if nothing is done to address our current deficit spending, it may soon be too late.  Can we trust either party to make the difficult choices to balance our budget and create an economic environment that will attract businesses to our communities?  It was Progressive ideology by both parties that has gotten us into the situation we find ourselves in today; does it make sense to expect those same parties with the same Progressive ideology to get us out of this situation?  We as tax payers and voters must return to our ideologies, we must make our choices based on the character of the individual, not their party affiliation.  We must no longer allow the mirage of big government to blind us from the reality of big government.  The choices our elected officials will need to make will be difficult and unpopular at best.  We have become accustomed to our nanny state government protecting us and providing for our needs, albeit at the cost of preventing success, weaning our society from the government trough will be painful in the near term, but is essential for the survival of our state.

            Are you happy with how government is functioning?  Are you in favor of a progressive, totalitarian government that determines what is best for the people even when it violates the rights of the individual?  Do you value individual achievement and individual accountability?  What do you want government to be? 

Our government is of course a republic, but for far too many years now, our government has been controlled by two political parties whose differences are far fewer than their similarities.  Political parties that resemble exclusive private clubs whose elitist members are expected to vote the party line and promote the progressive agenda of both parties.  These individual members are selected not for their ideals or values, but instead for their devotion and dedication to the club, be it the Republican or Democratic Party.  As long as these members are willing to support the agenda of the party, no matter what the cost and even to the detriment of their constituents, they are rewarded through the support of special interest groups and their political party.  This incestuous relationship has left Americans with little choice at the voting booth.  The progressive agenda of both parties is creating a larger, more invasive government that forces those agendas upon us without regard to our rights.  Meanwhile, Americans blindly argue which party’s progressive path is better, not seeing that the destination is the same for both parties.  Both parties have shown a fondness for large, invasive government at all levels.  The Democrats openly admit that more government is needed to control the economy, education, health care, manufacturing, and every other aspect of our lives.  The Republicans are not as up front about their desire for the growth of government, but the signs are there if you look.  When Democrats are in power, Republicans cry out for reduced spending, they shout from mountain tops for all to hear how Americans are losing their freedoms, how the Democrats are increasing spending and raising taxes.  The less power the Republicans have, the louder and more conservative they become.  The problem comes when the Republicans are in power and have the ability to enact these conservative principles; they fail to propose or to act on them.  Right now at the federal and state levels, Republicans are criticizing the Democrat’s agenda and they are proposing conservative alternatives; but where were these ideas and solutions when they were the party in power and could have gotten a conservative agenda passed?  I believe that the Republicans are using the Democrats as useful idiots, letting them grow government but being careful not to position themselves to be blamed.  The current example of this in Ohio is the budget.  The governor and Democrats want to use the lure of gambling revenue to help balance the budget and eliminate the need for a serious look of cutting the size of government.  They want the Republicans to support slot machines so that Democrats will not bear all of the blame.  Republicans claim that if the governor wants to put slot machines at race tracks he can unilaterally approve it without the support of the Republicans, thereby putting all political risk at the feet of the governor and Democrats.  The Republicans are now saying to put it on the ballot and let the voters decide.  This is a back door way for the Republicans to get slot machines into Ohio without any culpability to the Republican Party.  Neither party is willing to do what is necessary to balance the budget and get Ohio’s economy growing.  Neither party is willing to redesign or right size government in Ohio.  Ohioans have been bombarded with threats of draconian cuts to all state and local services.  Politicians on both sides know that many voters are so accustomed to our nanny state government that they are willing to accept anything if it will avoid service cuts, so allowing the voters to decide on the slots is a viable way for Republicans to allow the slots without subjecting the party to the scrutiny of true conservatives.

 If you are satisfied with your government, with increased government control of our industries; if you believe that government should protect us from ourselves because the government experts have spoken so there is no reason for debate or discussion; if you believe that the government should be our provider, then continue to faithfully support the two party system, continue to vote for those candidates that put the Party’s priorities above yours.  Continue to elect candidates that tell you what you want to hear, only to vote the Party line when elected, if that is what you want from your government.

 If on the other hand you believe in a limited government, that rugged individualism, personal choice and accountability are what allowed this nation to become great, that we the people know what is best for ourselves and our communities then use your vote to support the candidates that believe as you do.  Vote based upon your beliefs, not some elitist club disguised as a political party.  Seek out those candidates that share your values and ideals, candidates that are willing to stand by their convictions, and in the light of truth to be held accountable for their choices and actions. 

If you are happy with how government is working in Ohio and across the nation, then continue doing what you are doing.  However, if you think that government is out of control, that government no longer works for the people, then it is time to stand up and vote your convictions.  It is still our government, they still work for us, and we have no one to blame but ourselves if we continue to support politicians and candidates that lie to us, steal from us and our children, and generally act like royalty that is above the law.

            For the past five months each week has been a surprise, each week we see our federal government get larger and more invasive.  Are we on the right path?  This discussion is not about left and right, republican or democrat, this discussion should be about up and down.  Are our actions and the actions of our elected representatives elevating our society to the ultimate freedoms our founding fathers envisioned, or are we being dragged down under an ever more controlling government toward totalitarianism? 

            In the past few weeks we have witnessed government take control of our banking industry, our insurance industry, the automobile manufacturing industry, and the credit card industry.  Proposals have been made to artificially and intentionally greatly increase the cost of energy for the express purpose of making our current way of life unaffordable to the majority of Americans, thereby changing behaviors and giving the illusion that alternative energy sources are more affordable.  The president announced new draconian CAFÉ standards for all American manufactured automobiles.  This legislation serves to force the auto industry to limit the type of cars they make to very small, very dangerous econo-boxes that Americans would not otherwise purchase.  Once again taking away our ability to choose how we want to live our lives.  Now we are facing another assault on our health care system.  An assault that, if successful, will cost trillions of dollars and destroy the best health care system that currently exists anywhere.

            Currently there are 6 million people in this country collecting unemployment benefits.  While they are collecting those benefits, they are purchasing goods and services and paying their bills.  What will happen when those benefits run out?  As the benefits expire, fewer goods and services will be purchased, more homes will be foreclosed on, and more bankruptcies will be filed.  Meanwhile we are adding 600,000 new jobless Americans to that list each month.  Our economy is just in the beginning stages of spinning out of control.  As fewer people are spending fewer dollars, more and more layoffs will occur as the cycle feeds on itself.  Lately the media and economists have been trying to tell us that while the economy is still bad and getting worse, it is getting worse at a slower rate, so therefore things are getting better.  Our weekly jobless numbers remain dismal, unemployment rates for the nation and individual states are continuing to worsen, so why are we being told not to worry?  These economists point to the number of Americans collecting unemployment and how that trend is starting to flatten, implying that it means fewer Americans are unemployed.  Actually, we are seeing people that no longer qualify for unemployment fall out of this statistic. 

            The solution to our current plight will not be easy.  We as Americans must demand from our politicians that they stop spending our money wastefully.  We must demand that they stop nationalizing our industries.  As a nation, we must stop borrowing money from around the world, stop printing new money at unprecedented rates, and learn to live within our means.  Taxes must be lowered to allow people to keep what they earn so that we the people can have the ability to rejuvenate our economy. 

            Government does not create wealth.  By taking wealth from those who earn it and redistributing that wealth, we are reducing people’s and businesses ability to grow and create the wealth that is required to grow our economy.

            We are living in historic times.  In the past months we have been witness to the largest government takeover of private industry ever seen.  AIG, Citibank, GM, and Chrysler have all been taken over by our government.  To get a glimpse of what this will mean to our citizenry, we need look no further than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

            Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created the housing bubble that has led to one of the greatest losses of global wealth in history.  Rather than using standard risk management models to determine eligibility of a loan or assessing the ability of the potential borrower to pay back the loan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were politicized and used to promote a social agenda whereby loans were given based upon minority status.  When the individual could not put any money down on the property, zero down loans were created.  If the payments were too high, short term adjustable rate mortgages and interest only loans were created.  In order to compete, other banks were encouraged and in some cases forced to offer similarly risky loans.  All of this easy credit led to excessive inflation in home values.  What we see now is that many of the people that were supposed to have been helped through the social agenda based loan policies are now the ones that have lost their homes, declared bankruptcy, and in many cases lost their jobs through the economic collapse caused by the housing bubble burst.

            To apply these same political processes to our financial, insurance, and manufacturing industries will be devastating to our nation, our freedoms, and our very way of life.  Even those companies that have been fiscally responsible will be affected.  As GM and Chrysler move forward, they will be forced by the government to produce alternative energy and sub-compact vehicles, vehicles that the majority of Americans have rejected through free choice.  Earning a profit will no longer be a prime motive for determining what vehicles are produced since the government now owns a majority stake in these companies.  Without a profit motive, these companies have no reason to improve services or seek innovation to produce better vehicles.  As the companies lose billions of dollars annually, the federal government will subsidize them in the same way is has subsidized Amtrak for the past 37 years.  Other auto manufactures will be unable to compete simply because they are not receiving government subsidies.  Just as Amtrak has prevented any other passenger rail service companies from being able to compete, GM and Chrysler will eventually spell the demise for automobile manufacturing in the U.S. 

            As I have written before, we can resolve these problems through conservative principles of limited government and the free market system.  I wrote months ago that both GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to enter bankruptcy protection instead of accepting bailout money.  Through the principles of allowing failure and rewarding success, we will reverse the ineptitudes of government that is epitomized by Amtrak, the Postal system, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.  There is nothing that the government does better, more efficiently, or more effectively than the private sector.  As our government continues to nationalize key industries, we lose the competitive drive, rugged Americanism, and entrepreneurship that has made this country the most successful in the world and made her the envy of all others.  Rather than apologize for our success, rather than make our states beholden to the federal government through acceptance of so called stimulus funds, our elected officials need to look toward the conservative values that allowed us to become the world’s greatest nation.

I have been amazed when listening to political speeches over the last 10 to 12 years, to hear how the emphasis has changed from that of freedom to security.  I understand our basic desire for security; we are more comfortable when we perceive our jobs, our income, as well as our physical being as being secure.  We may openly want security, but what we crave is freedom.  Security is the vehicle that has allowed socialism to gain footholds and to expand in governments around the world.  Socialism promises to provide a safety net, it promises that no one will fall through the cracks of life.  Socialism promises to level the playing field, to provide for all of our needs, that no one will go hungry, no one will be in need of medical care, no one will be in need of a place to live, and no one will fail.  Freedom is risky, it allows failure, and it promotes constant growth and change.  If you do not constantly grow and change, you may find yourself or your business falling behind.  Because freedom allows for failure, it also allows for success.  Our freedoms allow us to try, allow us to make mistakes, allow us to fail, and allow us to continue trying until we have reached our greatest potential.  As a free people, our success is only limited by our desire to achieve.  The lure of financial security and job security is one of the greatest attractions to unionism.  As we have witnessed over and over, the promises of increased pay, the guarantee of a job and promotion are really only perceived securities.  When a business begins to fail, all of those promises are either thrown out the window or the business collapses under the weight of these securities.  Either way, the promises evaporate.  Our current two party political system is fed by a desire for security.  We choose a party that we think will look out for our interests.  Once we have aligned with that party, we never hold the party accountable.  When it is time to vote, we rarely stray from our party loyalty, it is safer that way.  It is risky to vote outside our party lines because our vote may be “wasted”, or it may help to elect a person from the other party.  As voters, we don’t look to see what the individual stands for, we don’t want to see what their past actions have been, and we feel secure in voting along party lines.  That perceived security is a hollow promise, the parties themselves don’t look to see what the candidates stand for or what their past actions have been, the parties’ only concern is whether the candidate is electable.

            After 9/11 many citizens felt that one of the president’s primary jobs was to keep this country and its citizens safe.  It made everyone feel better about the world around them to know that there was someone responsible for their security.  It is not the president’s or any politician’s job to keep us safe.  The oath of office that they promise to uphold says they will protect the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  It is not the office of the president or any other politician that protects us; it is our freedoms that are guaranteed to us by our constitution and given to us by God that keep us safe.  Our security, real security, is provided to us by our freedoms.  Our government, just like the union bosses, cannot provide true security.  They can and do make promises that sound like they will keep us safe.  They will use the earnings that they take from us to create more jobs, to provide universal health care, to stop global warming and climate change, to eliminate guns and violence, and to end all wars.  Just like the union bosses, they cannot deliver on those promises.  When our economy has collapsed, when our currency has become worthless, and when the people no longer trust their government, all of those promises will also collapse and become worthless.

            Elections have consequences, we have elected our representatives and they are going about the business of running our country.  Just because the election is over does not mean that our responsibilities as citizens are finished.  We as voters and citizens need to turn the volume down, stop listening to what our representatives are telling us and start looking at what they are doing.  Are they expanding our freedoms, allowing us to provide for our own security through those freedoms, or are they taking away our freedoms and an opportunity for true security under the guise of government provided security.  As we then approach another election campaign season, we must decide if we are going to vote for freedom or if we are going to vote for the empty promises of perceived security. 

When the price for a barrel of oil was nearing $150 and setting new records on a nearly daily basis, we heard a public outcry for congress to investigate oil speculators. Some of our citizens felt it somehow unfair that those who make their living taking risk in speculating the oil market were earning a profit at the apparent expense of consumers. Now that oil prices have subsided dramatically, no one seems to see the need to investigate the speculators now. As I said this past summer, rather than blame the speculators, we should pay attention to what they are telling us so that we as a nation can make informed decisions regarding our energy plan. The message the speculators are now sending has never been more important.

Why have oil prices dropped to nearly one fourth of their value in just a few short months? The equation I gave last summer has not changed. Speculators buy and sell oil futures based upon anticipated future demand and forecast supply. Clearly in the last six months the forecast supply has not been dramatically increased, therefore the anticipated future demand has been greatly decreased. Inflating our tires, getting tune-ups, and parking our SUVs are not responsible for this decreased demand. What has changed is the anticipated demand in developing nations. This demand has decreased so much so that even when OPEC met and agreed to decrease production levels, the price of oil continued to decrease unabated.

Essentially, the speculators believe that the global recession has stunted growth and development to the point that even at current prices, developing nations will be unable to afford oil. It is no coincidence that as oil prices were hitting record highs, food prices were also reaching record highs. Just as the price of oil has plummeted, so has the price of commodities to farmers although consumers have not seen the level of relief in food prices as we have in gasoline. This is driven by the same economic predictions and scenario, that nations will not have money to purchase food let alone oil in the very near future.

When prices continue to drop despite reduced production of commodities, it paints a very bleak picture for not just our economy, but for the global economy as well.

Aside from the Biennium Budget, one of the hottest issues in our State House is the Pay Day Lending industry and how to close the apparent loop hole they have found. Personally, I cannot understand why this is such an issue. Opponents of these loans state interest rates of over 350% as the prime reason to shut them down and claim that these are predatory loans. A $100 two week loan will cost $15, which opponents claim is excessive and predatory. Yet, if it were not for these institutions being available to make these short term loans and a person wrote a check that subsequently bounced, the bank will charge them a $30 fee, the business that they wrote the check to will charge them a $25 fee, and they still owe the original $100. Which is worse, paying the $15 interest to a Pay Day lender or the $55 penalty fees for bouncing a check? No one is going to mortgage a home through a Pay Day lender, but this industry provides a needed service at a reasonable price that is not available anywhere else.

If the Legislature is successful in its bid to eliminate the Pay Day loan industry, where will the people who have been using their services go to borrow money? Banks and Credit Unions will not make these short term loans so the individuals that have been utilizing these short term loans will now be left out in the cold. They will not be able to purchase parts to repair their car to get to work so now they lose their jobs. I am sure that they will be thankful that the Legislature was looking out for their best interest as they lose their job and walk to the unemployment office.

            On both the state and federal level the current focus is on the economy and how to stimulate its growth.  As the details of both plans become known, it becomes apparent that these plans are really little more than thinly veiled plans to grow the size of government, increase our dependence on government, and further remove our economy from capitalism towards socialism.  In fact, whether we look at either the federal or state plan, there is very little in either plan that will actually stimulate the economy.

            As President Obama tries to pressure the Senate to quickly pass the stimulus plan before the public discovers the truth, he has tried to minimize the outcry regarding the cost and amount of spending by saying that the very basis of a stimulus plan is spending.  While it is true that an effective stimulus plan will involve some spending, not all spending will actually stimulate the economy or create jobs.  Japan tried to spend its way out of a very similar situation in the 90’s.  Japan’s problems started much the same as ours, with a mortgage bubble where property values were elevated above sustainable levels.  Japan spent trillions of dollars over 10 years trying to support property values and create jobs with no real success.  The same will happen here.  We are spending billions of dollars and in the end the only thing we will have accomplished is accumulating billions of dollars of additional debt or create massive inflation.

            Both the president and the senate majority leader have said that this stimulus bill will create 4 million jobs in the next 2 years.  They fail to mention how many additional jobs will be lost because of this bill.  As government moves corporate America from capitalism toward socialism and dictates what products industries are allowed to produce, there will be massive job losses in the industries that government has determined should go away, such as the coal and petroleum industries, conventional electrical power companies, conventional automobile manufacturing, and the airline industry.  At a cost of nearly 800 billion dollars, that equates to a $200,000 cost for every job they hope to create.  If interest is included, the cost to create one job balloons to nearly $400,000.  I fail to see how this is cost effective and I think it is very optimistic to assume that 4 million additional jobs will be created in the next 4 years much less in the next 2.

            The whole goal of a state or federal stimulus bill in theory is to create jobs.  Government does not and can not create jobs.  Businesses create jobs, therefore the most effective way to create jobs and stimulate the economy is to allow businesses to be successful and encourage growth here within our borders by reducing the corporate tax rate and eliminating the restrictions that are choking small business growth.  This approach is needed in Ohio as well as at the federal level.  Very few of the jobs that left Ohio went overseas, most were relocated to other, more business friendly states like Texas and Tennessee.  By reducing the state and federal corporate tax rates, we will allow businesses to reinvest in themselves, creating a need for additional employees, which will revitalize our communities and in the end increase potential tax revenues.

As many Americans rightfully express their displeasure with congress for exponentially growing the size of government through bailouts and interference of the free market, we need only to examine government’s role in funding our universities to understand the blueprint for this relationship. 

Our founding fathers understood the importance of an educated populace, realizing that was essential for the survival of the republic.  To that end, government involvement was vital in establishing our system of higher education.  This was a noble and just use of public monies at that time, however, since then our society and our universities have grown beyond this need as universities have become essentially private businesses rather than social entities.  As a result of government involvement, our universities have become increasingly costly and inefficient.  The cost of a college education has dramatically risen despite the billions of tax dollars Ohioans have contributed.  Our university officials defend seven figure salaries for the administrators and coaches because they provide an essential service and bring revenue to the university.  They compare the president to a corporate CEO and justify professor’s salaries because of a need to compete with other universities to get the best talent.  These are all metrics of a private industry business model not of a government entity.  University enrollment is limited by classroom and housing space available, so the numerous qualified applicants must be culled in some manner.  Like any other business, if demand exceeds supply, either supply must be increased or the price must be increased to balance supply and demand.  Why do universities charge so much for a college degree?  Because they can; college administrators are essentially auctioning off college admissions by steadily increasing tuition in an effort to balance supply and demand.  Until applications for enrollment decrease, the price of a college degree will only increase regardless of the amount of tax dollars given.  Instead of making a college degree more affordable, our taxes are merely contributing to the inefficiencies of our universities, much the same as our tax dollars will perpetuate the inefficiencies of the automobile and other industries.

Many pro-government individuals think that the government can override the basic laws of supply and demand.  Just as they ineffectively try to reduce the cost of college, they believe that government can and should prop up failing industries.  We have seen hundreds of billions of our dollars committed to the banking industry, with no apparent positive results.  The latest bailout attempt is to the auto industry.  No one wants to see anyone lose their job; however, the billions of dollars being requested by the auto manufacturers will not save them.  The airline industry went through much the same situation just a few years ago.  The basic problems with the airlines, as with the auto manufacturers, are the legacy costs and the ability to compete with non-legacy companies within that industry.  Aloha, Frontier, US Airways, America West, and ATA all asked for and received infusions of government money.  Other airlines, such as United Airlines, applied but were denied.  As a result, United filed for bankruptcy, reorganized, and became more competitive.  Those carriers that received the government backed “loans”, did not change how they operated and did not become more competitive.  Aloha and ATA dissolved, Frontier is currently in bankruptcy, US Airways went in and out of bankruptcy and only survived by a merger with America West; a merger that was necessary to save both companies.  The important point is that even with a government infusion of cash, the basic laws of the free market will always prevail.  For the auto industry to survive, they must produce a product that the consumer wants to buy and offer that product at a price that the consumer is willing to pay.  There are many strings attached to the proposed bailout money, one of which is that government will dictate what type of vehicles the manufactures will produce.  Essentially government will be designing our automobiles rather than allowing the consumer to dictate the types of vehicles they want to buy.  No matter how many billions of dollars our government provides to the auto industry, if they fail to produce a vehicle that consumers are willing to buy, they will still fail. 

Some refer to the bailout of Chrysler in the eighties as a symbol of success and justification for the current bailout.  The fact that Chrysler not only repaid the government loan with interest, but paid it off early would seem to provide some reassurance for supporting another industry bailout.  However, had the government not bailed out Chrysler in the eighties, the industry may not be in this situation now.  Had Chrysler become leaner and more competitive through reorganization, it would have forced GM and Ford to become more efficient as well, leaving them better positioned for the current economy.

The most effective and practical course of action for the auto industry is bankruptcy protection.  This will allow the manufacturers to reduce long term costs, retool and resize the company to become more efficient and competitive.  The end result will be a stronger auto industry that benefits all Americans.