Taxpayers Shouldn’t Have to Give their Money to Companies whose Products They Choose Not to Buy

As we all know, America is in a recession and has been for a year. There’s something that responsible people do in tough economic times: Spend less money, especially borrowed money, particularly on expensive items, like cars.

The Detroit Three CEOs are back on Capitol Hill today, requesting, most recently, around $34 Billion of taxpayers’ money. Pointing to slow sales, they claim that the economic crunch is threatening to drive them out of business. Now, regular readers know that this blogger considers the recession only one factor in what ails the Detroit Three. The others include excessive regulation, ridiculous union contracts, and the companies’ own failure to anticipate changes in consumer demand.

But let’s allow that the economic downturn is a significant factor, particularly in the immediacy of the Big Three’s plight. So what? That doesn’t mean that bilking the taxpayers is either just or prudent.

Americans are cutting back on their spending. The federal government, allergic to responsibility, is trying hard to not to let us get away with such prudence. The government has already got hard-working taxpayers, and their children, and their grand-children on the hook for two bail-outs, which, by the way, don’t seem to be working very well. Now they’re contemplating picking our pockets for a third bail-out, this one for auto companies, forcing Americans to hand their hard-earned money over anyway to businesses whose products they’ve decided not to buy.

This is dangerous. By slowing down their spending, by relying less on credit, Americans are doing what’s necessary to get back on the road to economic recovery. They’re not buying cars because they’re not sure they can afford them. Instead of saddling them with more unaffordable debt, Congress would do well to learn from the taxpayers’ example.

Thank you for visiting! Sign up for the Sancerres at Sunset newsletter!
  Like to see a sample first?  Click here!

7 thoughts on “Taxpayers Shouldn’t Have to Give their Money to Companies whose Products They Choose Not to Buy

  1. It does not matter what taxpayers want. After all, government is sold out to the highest corporate bidder. When the gov’t needs illegal wire-taps, Verizon allows them secret rooms to listen in on calls. When Haliburton (and KBR) need more revenue, the gov’t hands out no-bid contracts. When the gov’t dislikes literature, Amazon, Wikipedia and Facebook ban the book America Deceived. When the Big 3 want more money, the gov’t hands it out. The corporations own our government, not the people.

  2. The anonymous before me a) has lots of trouble spelling common words, and b) thinks that if the Big Three suck a bunch of money out of the economy, that they WON’T lay off lots of workers and shut down factories anyway.

    Since Washington does not pay attention to the will of its constituency, as noted by Mr. White, and as such will bail these obsolete companies out. Then you will see that I am right, and the other Anonymous will hopefully pick up a book an begin his or her education on the subject of fractional reserve lending. THAT is the reason we’re in this mess. The corruption in Washington is making the looting easier for the insiders, but it would have happened anyway.

  3. This piece is the most myopic bunch of whooey I’ve read yet on the subject. Guess what, genious? You didn’t want to buy Goldman Saks products either, but you did, didn’t you? You paid and paid and paid- as will your children and grand children. The difference is that the only “product” the banking interests and their ilk produce is debt slavery, impertuity. So where is the tax outrage now? The fact is, your UAW neighbor is not the one that herded you to this unthinkable juncture. Consider that carefully. Buy or drive whatever car you prefer, but remember: your neighbor’s auto maker job supports 6 other neighbor’s jobs, one of which may be your son’s or daughter’s. Good luck.

  4. ALL of these bailouts just absolutely infuriate me beyond words.

    If the decisions on these expenditures were left to the “popular” vote, I wonder how they would come out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.