The government has seen fit to subsidize two automobile manufacturers with billions of dollars of our (and our children’s) tax money. If one is the recipient of “free” money from the government I’m sure there is reason to celebrate, but what of those who are not receiving government largesse?
By way of example, let’s pretend Henry County has three hamburger stands. One of these hamburger stands has been fiscally responsible, kept their customers happy and is therefore able to survive without government aid. The other two hamburger stands have been fiscally irresponsible and need government aid to survive. The hamburger stands receiving government aid (and they’re also in bankruptcy so they don’t have to pay their bills) now have quite an advantage over the establishment that did everything right. If you owned, or worked, at the only profitable hamburger stand, wouldn’t you be a bit angry that the government was using your tax dollars to subsidize your failing competitors? Would you be a bit angry that they could charge lower prices because of all that government money?
Economics is a tough business. I have personally experienced two large companies folding under me. It’s not fun, but life goes on and we find other jobs. The consumer, the surviving companies, and our economic system, are all stronger because of it; failure should not be rewarded. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics subsidized and operated subpar businesses for decades; we all know how that experiment turned out.
Ford, who refused the government bailout (because who wants politicians running their business?), is being penalized for doing things right. Chrysler and GM (now aka “Government Motors”) are being rewarded for failure. Whose car will you buy next?