Enabling an Addict

I can’t help but cringe when watching government bailout after government bailout. Technically, this is supposed to be an “intervention”, isn’t it? Well, one can’t help but draw a few parallels between watching the government enabling failure and someone coddling a junkie. Typically, during an “intervention”, the family of the addict is asked to love and support the addict; however, they are discouraged from doing anything to enable the junkie to continue in his or her bad habits. So, why are we prolonging this “disease”, when we need to focus on the causes, address them, break the bad habit, and move on? Instead we choose to give the Detroit CEO’s Methadone while taking the Union to go see their drug dealer.

Sometimes hitting rock bottom is the only way to lift yourself back up. Yes, there will be jobs lost, but we’re losing them anyway, and we are simply staving off the inevitable. We’ve seen the huge salaries that the American car companies are forced to pay its workers due to the strong arming of the United Auto Workers Union. Detroit auto workers receive DOUBLE the salary of their foreign owned counterparts and HUGE pensions after only 30 years of employment. Obviously, this cost is passed down to the consumer who already has a tough time buying American.

Instead, the government is going to increase the power of the Unions by enacting “card check”. Before, companies were visited by Unions to ask if the workers would like to join. Generally, there is a secret vote, and the employees decide anonymously if they would like for the union to represent them. The Democrats are going to pass legislation where the employees will have to provide their name along with their vote to the Union. Is this not a creepy precedent? Why in the hell would a Union thug need to know MY name, unless it was to put a little added “pressure” on me?

And, at the same time, the government is dumping billions back into the car companies. Does this make any sense? So, they are essentially enabling the junkie while increasing the dosage….well, one day the junkie is going to die!

I can certainly appreciate the value of Unions during the late 1800’s….the employers were ruthless, conditions were appalling, and government oversight was abysmal. I think we’ve come to the point where most employees will be working in a safe environment, and if the companies follow the laws, then there shouldn’t be many problems that can't be addressed through the help of our legal system. Salary has since been inflated unnaturally due to Union pressure…..and we all see where that has taken us. Once again, artificially “propping up” something and then expecting it to stay. We need a natural ebb and flow when it comes to wages and not $52/hr to sweep floors in Detroit.

I say with all this talk of “regulation” these days, why don’t we place stricter regulations on the Unions, which seem to be a complete cancer on our manufacturing industries? I completely agree with the workers’ right to assemble, but I also believe in company’s right to operate freely. If we are going to come down on the companies with huge taxes and strict regulations, why don’t we keep a tighter lock on Union control.....? It only seems logical.

Unfortunately, no one is willing to make the tough calls on their watch. I mean, we’re playing with Monopoly money anyway, so the President will be able to throw cash at the car companies as a “band-aid”, gain valuable union support, and preserve his legacy for the near future. When this practice leads to soaring inflation in 3, 5, or 10 years, very few voters will have the common sense to attribute it to the president’s actions. It’ll be Bush’s fault!