Consider yourself warned. Two Republicans in the House yesterday warned the Obama administration that Congress cannot bailout the Financial Housing Administration. Rep. Darrell Issa and Rep. Spencer Bachus released a letter warning that if Washington does not take swift action to address the problems of the FHA, it may result in another massive taxpayer-funded bailout, which we cannot afford.

I pointed this crisis out to you in the beginning of October. First it was Fannie and Freddie. The next big shoe to drop is the FHA. One quarter of all home loans made this year were through the FHA, and 80% of those loans were to first-time home buyers. But the FHA may be in need of a bailout after suffering losses of $54 billion. And how does this happen? By making loans to people who can't afford to pay them.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

When in trouble ... appease the people by playing into their wealth envy. Right now, the liberals are upset with Obama and the Democrats for not being liberal ENOUGH. Republicans are upset about the impending government takeover of healthcare. But if there is one issue on which the two spheres may ... and that's a big "may" ... overlap, it is the issue of wealth envy. And so it has been since the dawn of civilized man. Thousands of years ago nomadic camel herders harbored seething envy over individuals or tribes with more stuff than they had. As you know, in ObamaLand everyone should have an equal amount of stuff.

So after weeks of focusing and floundering on healthcare and global warming; and ignoring the needs of our troops in Afghanistan, suddenly we get this announcement from Washington: we are going to cut top executive pay at the biggest corporations that took bailout money. Of course many Americans are now rejoicing! "Great! These evil rich people are getting exactly what they deserve!"

Then, the very next day we see the White House pulling away from bearing any reasonability on the issue. Officials in the administration say that they didn't have much to do with the decision at all. It all came from one man: Kenneth Feinberg. The Pay Czar. This Obama appointee (without any sort of Congressional approval), single-handedly decided to cut CEO pay for these executives. Is Obama going to take responsibility for ANYTHING that comes out of his White House?

So now the question is ... how far will this go? Just the other day, Obama also announced plans to increase lending to small businesses and give them access to rescue funds. Will Kenneth Feinberg eventually have the "authority" to slash salaries of top executives at these small businesses that take bailout funds?

Let's take a closer look at this Kenneth Feinberg fellow ... how did he come to have so much "authority" that he is able to cut salaries at private corporations in this country? If you'll remember months ago, Congress decided that it wanted to crack down on millions of dollars in AIG bonuses. There was only one slight, teeny-tiny little problem - Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to do so. Maybe you've heard of a little something called the "Bill of Attainder"? This basically limits Congress from passing legislation that would single out or punish specific people or groups (or companies).

Then magically, Obama creates a new czar in his administration. This man would be a "special master on compensation." Ta-da! Now if the government wants to punish certain companies, all it has to do is call on its compensation czar.

Pretty clever, huh? And we're supposed to think that The Community Organizer is oblivious to all of this.

Let's say that you have invested a pant-load of money in some business. The business is failing. You want it to succeed. You want the best executive talent you can find to step in and save the business ... and your investment. Now just how helpful do you think it would be if you told the search committee looking for a new CEO that you were going to appoint some political hack to make sure that the new boss doesn't make too much money? Can you see that any extraordinarily qualified candidate for the job would tell you to take it and shove it where even the TSA couldn't find it?

Do you ever sit around and just wonder at the type of idiots we have running the show right now?

The day after our special master on compensation decided to slash executive pay, the Obama administration decided that it would be a good idea to clamp down on banks while we are at it. The Federal Reserve decided to curb executive pay packages "that encouraged bankers and other executives to take the kinds of reckless risks that contributed to the housing bubble."

The housing bubble came from Washington, not from bank board rooms. It was Washington that told these banks that their future growth would be halted or curtailed if they didn't make sure that pretty much anyone with a pulse that wanted a home loan could get one. It was Washington that set up these extraordinary systems whereby banks could make the loans and then pass of the liability to the American taxpayers. It was WASHINGTON, not the banks, that took the reckless risks.

Of course we need a thread to talk about the pay caps for TARP fund recipients, right?

This story From Bloomberg seems to be creating a bit of a stir today:

Some of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's closest aides, none of whom faced Senate confirmation, earned millions of dollars a year working for Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other Wall Street firms, according to financial disclosure forms.

The advisers include Gene Sperling, who last year took in $887,727 from Goldman Sachs and $158,000 for speeches mostly to financial companies, including the firm run by accused Ponzi scheme mastermind R. Allen Stanford. Another top aide, Lee Sachs, reported more than $3 million in salary and partnership income from Mariner Investment Group, a New York hedge fund.

As part of Geithner's kitchen cabinet, Sperling and Sachs wield influence behind the scenes at the Treasury Department, where they help oversee the $700 billion banking rescue and craft executive pay rules and the revamp of financial regulations. Yet they haven't faced the public scrutiny given to Senate-confirmed appointees, nor are they compelled to testify in Congress to defend or explain the Treasury's policies.

Boortz take? Is there any charge or any evidence that any of these dollars earned by these Geithner aides were earned illegally? Are we talking criminal activity here? Or are we just demonizing some people who made a lot of money. If there's fraud or other criminal activity then go get 'em. If not, quit the whining.

What makes all of this all the more absurd is that it is Geithner that we should be focusing on, not his workers. He's the tax cheat. He's the willful, intentional, pre-medicated, conscious tax cheat who is now in charge of the cabinet department that runs the IRS. Somehow I have a bit of a problem with that.

Stolen from fark.com and used with love whenever TARP comes up. -ww

A few details to note from the report. We are coming to find that these nine financial institutions -- Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, State Street and the Bank of New York Mellon - were chosen not because they needed money, but because of their size and involvement in the financial system. They were big players, and the government wanted control

This is also where Hank Paulson got into some trouble. Recent news articles have reported that Paulson lied to the American public. Okay ... let's first nail down the definition of a lie. A person lies only when they utter a statement that they know to be untrue. Now, Hank Paulson assured us last year that these nine institutions receiving bailout money were healthy and that they were only taking the money for the good of the economy. However, it turns out that this was untrue and federal officials (including Paulson) knew it. The report says, "Senior government officials had affirmative concerns at the time the nine institutions were selected about the health of at least some of those institutions ... The Federal Reserve had concerns over the financial condition of several of these institutions individually and for all of them collectively absent some governmental action. And former Secretary Paulson noted concerns about the outright failure of one of the institutions."

Then the government comes along and tells these institutions that took bailout money ... under the threat of government retribution ... that they must submit to executive compensation restrictions. Restrictions that will only grow and expand with Democrats in charge.

Nice. Bureaucrats don't like what the executives of certain financial institutions are making. The institutions are healthy .. at least healthy enough to weather the downturn. But this doesn't matter to the bureaucrat class. They want something done about the money these people are making. So they gin up some rather dire threats and force these institutions to take government bailout money. Besides, the more people who accept the bailout, the more involved the government seems to be in rescuing the country from financial collapse. Then, as soon as the money is in hand the bureaucrats start setting executive compensation rates. Yeah ... that's the way it's supposed to work, right?

People who purchased cars recently under this cash for clunkers program may find out a little something they weren't expecting: that $4,500 rebate from the government taxpayers is taxable.

Not only are you taxed once, but this blogger points out that depending on which state you live in, you could be taxed twice on clunker rebates. "Specifically, you pay sales tax on the full vehicle price (effectively paying sales tax on the $4,500!) and what's worse those states that tax income (that would be most of them!) might wind up counting this as income for state income tax purposes too, effectively taxing you twice."

Even when the government tries to kiss you, it is just a prelude to a good screwing.

It was only a matter of time before we saw more programs like this cash for clunkers. So next up on the list ... home appliances! Yep, the government has a $300 million federal program to boost the sales of energy-efficient home appliances. The program begins late this fall. It will offer rebates ranging from $50 to $200 to purchase household appliances. This program will actually vary state by state and consumers will not have to trade in old appliances for their new purchases.

Well ... let's see if these ace businessmen can pull this one off without looking as bad as they did with Cash-for-clunkers. CFC, in case you don't know, ended last night. Dealers have until noon today to turn in all of their paperwork. We should point out that there is no deadline for government to get the money back to the dealers.

For those of you who, due to some cranial parasite or similar medical or emotional tragedy, still believe that government can do a good job of handling our health care, here are a few reminders of how the government handled CFC. Now remember, CFC was a simple automobile trade-in deal. This is something that car salesmen with nothing more than a high school education have been doing with absolute ease for decades. To handle one CFC deal the dealer had to generate 69 pages of paperwork. A medical textbook can tell you how to do heart bypass surgery in fewer pages.

More CFC goodies? Sure! I got 'em!

I played golf with the owner of several auto dealerships over the weekend. The federal government owes him $1.4 million for the clunkers he's taken in. He's received less than $10,000.

Dealers are suffering with a massive rejection percentage of clunker deals due to paperwork errors. One dealer received a letter from the government telling him that a specific CFC deal was being rejected "for reasons stated below." At the bottom of the form letter in the section for reasons for rejection the words "no reasons given" appeared.

After seeing the disaster that was cash-for-clunkers, one can only imagine why industries or consumers would continue to trust the government to do things efficiently.

Besides the healthcare debate, Washington is also figuring out how to handle large executive salaries at companies that received bailout money. Not only do we have our pay czar Kenneth Feinberg; but Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs decided to chime into the debate. Baby Huey says, "I don't think the American people begrudge that people make big salaries, as long as they're not jeopardizing the good will of the public in doing so."

Oh, isn't that just so sweet! It's OK with the American people if private companies pay their executives big salaries ... but they need to make sure that they keep the good will of the public along the way. Fine .. so how do we determine whether or not a particular company still enjoys the public's good will? Does some political hack figure that out for us and let us know? Hardly. The public votes with their pocketbooks. If they feel good about the company, they become customers. If they don't, they don't. It is not for the government to decide.

Well, say AMF to the cash for clunkers. As of Monday the program is history. Unfortunately for Barack Obama and the Democrats, it has left a pretty bad taste in people's mouths. This coincides with a debate over government running our healthcare system. Maybe the administration should have thought about the implications of this program not being a boondoggle, considering its push to run healthcare. Here are just a few of the problems with the cash for clunkers:

--Congress--relying on auto industry forecasts that the program wouldn't have a major effect on moribund sales--deeply underestimated how many people would be lured to dealerships by rebates of up to $4,500. Initially, lawmakers committed just $1 billion, an amount that was burned through in just a few weeks.

--Transportation Department officials, presented with just 30 days to get the program up and running, didn't set aside enough staff or resources and were overwhelmed by the heavy response from consumers. Systems set up to handle and reimburse dealer claims were swamped.

--Government rules to prevent fraud created paperwork requirements that many dealers didn't fully understand.

--Hungry for sales, dealers made Cash for Clunkers deals weeks in advance even though they were advised against it. This created a big backlog the moment the program officially began. And many are still filing bad paperwork that is holding up their claims, despite repeated government attempts to clear up the confusion.

Long story short? The government was ill-prepared and it has little incentive to achieve anything in a timely manner. Take New Mexico, for example. The federal government owes dealers around the state more than $3.6 million. Guess how much it has actually paid? The federal government has only sent three checks totally $14,000. Who knows when or if those dealers will get the money.

Yeah ... and you trust these people to manage your health care.

Well look at what we have here .. a government program that couldn't be properly executed. I'm sure you've been following the giant "oops" that is this "cash for clunkers" deal. The first sign that things were going bad happened when the EPA decided to change which cars were eligible for the program AFTER it had already started. Then the $1 billion allotted to the program quickly disappeared. Then we have government computers that couldn't handle the work. Finally cash-for-clunkers became the clunker.

So what's the logical next step? Let's ask for more money! So the House voted on Friday to give the program another $2 billion. Now it is on to the Senate where it may not be as easy to pass. If it doesn't pass in the Senate, Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood says that the government would probably then kill the program. Meanwhile, car dealerships are left to figure out what to do.

Are you paying attention to this? The whole cash-for-clunkers bit shut down last week because of government bureaucracy and a little problem about running out of money. For generations car salesmen in every corner of this country have been handling the paperwork required to trade in an old car for a new one with ease. After all, how many of you have ever visited a car dealer wanting to trade in a clunker on a new car, only to be told to go away because they just can't process your paperwork.

But ... put government into the equation and what happens? All hell breaks loose, that's what happens. The Imperial Federal Government of the United States interposed federal red tape into the middle of the buyer-used car salesman transaction and everything ground to a screaming halt. How much paper and red tape? Try 130 pages of regulations for a start. How many car salesmen do you think have to deal with a 130-page rule book when they take a car in on trade for a new one.

Now John McCain is likely to filibuster any proposal in the Senate for new money. The Republicans are playing this one up as just another example of government's inability to run anything efficiently. Considering the current healthcare debate, this does not bode well for the Obama administration that wants the government to be in charge of your healthcare. Jim DeMint is one of those Senators who are drawing the comparison. He says, "The federal government went bankrupt in one week in the used-car business, and now they want to run our health care system ... This is crazy to try to rush this thing through again while they're trying to rush through health care, and they want to get on to cap-and-trade electricity tax. We've got to slow this thing down."

OK ... so the government screwed things up royally when politicians inserted government into car sales. Just what in the hell do you think is going to happen when we insert even more government into your relationship with your doctor? If government bureaucracy screws up a car sale, think of what it is going to do for a treatment plan for your cancer.

If you don't understand the trouble that's coming ... please burn your voter registration card.

In case you were worried about the United Auto Workers union lately, you needn't be. It looks like they will be taken care of just fine. As for other workers in the auto industry, they may not be so lucky. Take a look at the latest from the Wall Street Journal.

It's hard to keep up, but this week the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation took over the pension liabilities of Delphi, the auto-parts spinoff of GM that has been working its way through Chapter 11 since 2005. As with the previous taxpayer rescues, this one includes a special favor for the United Auto Workers.

Under the agreement, the PBGC will assume some $6.2 billion in pension liabilities from Delphi, including both hourly and salaried employees ... As Delphi's former parent, GM had agreed to take responsibility for billions of dollars of Delphi's pension obligations to its hourly employees.

It will be months before Delphi employees know what percentage of their expected pension they'll receive, but not all pensioners are created equal in this arrangement. UAW employees will have their pensions made whole by GM, which insists it is merely fulfilling its end of a deal made with the UAW in 1999 (when it spun off Delphi) to cover any future pension shortfall ... Less fortunate are smaller unions and Delphi's salaried employees, whose pensions may see drastic reductions and who already lost their health care and life insurance plans on April 1.

There are two groups that Obama and the Democrats are sure to protect as their big-government agenda progresses: Unions and trial lawyers. You didn't happen to see any medical malpractice reform in the government health plans, did you?

General Motors just emerged from bankruptcy after receiving billions of dollars in bailout funds. What does it want to do now? Sell perfume. GM will launch the Cadillac fragrance for men this fall to mark its 100th anniversary. The fragrance license is held by a cosmetics company based in Dubai. Retail price will cost you $73 a bottle. Now apparently this isn't the first time GM has licensed fragrances. There are also smells for Hummer, Chevrolet and Corvette. A Beauty Contact director says, "Cadillac, the new fragrance for men is part of the recent Cadillac renaissance: Hot new products and redesigns that capture the mantra of life, liberty and the pursuit."

We're in an economic crisis, and GM is going to sell smelly for $73 a bottle? You let AIG entertain top sales agents and all hell breaks loose. Let some one pay a bonus to an executive for a job well done ... Armageddon. But the government-owned auto company is going to stink up Cadillac drivers and all is fine.

Just for fun, describe what you think the scents for Cadillac, Hummer, Chevrolet and Corvette should be like.Try to keep it clean, mmmkay? --ww 

If it were up to the Democrats, financial institutions receiving bailout money should be chastised for making a profit. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't we be rooting and cheering for companies like Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan to succeed? Barack Obama's National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers wants to make real sure that these financial institutions know who to thank for making a profit. He says, "Prudent financial institutions will recognize that the profits they're enjoying are in part a reflection of the commitment government and the broader society have made to the financial system that has enabled them to enjoy those profits." That's right .. you companies better enjoy those profits and remember that if it wasn't for the government you would be nothing!

All hail the Imperial Federal Government of the United States! Whatever you become in life you own to your beneficent government!

But he's not the only one commenting on the evil profits of these financial companies. The lamestream media is doing a pretty darn good job of it as well. Even our own president! Meredith Vieira on the "Today" Show interviewed Barack Obama. She asked him about these profits: "You know I wanted to ask you about Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan reporting these big profits in the second quarter ... And they're talking about bonuses for their employees. People hear that, taxpayers, and they're very frustrated." Oh yeah .. there's nothing quite so frustrating to the taxpayers than the thought of a company making a profit. Just pisses me off no end. Talk about playing up the wealth envy, Meredith. If these employees were able to turn these companies from the verge of bankruptcy to turning a profit, why shouldn't they receive bonuses? What is so terrible about rewarding people for hard work? Then Meredith Vieira asks, "Should taxpayers get a cut of those bonuses? Yeah ... here's an idea. Let's remove all the financial incentives from the executives and employees of any company that received bailout money or any help from the government. No matter how successful those companies may become, the people who brought them back to profitability should not be allowed to benefit.

Hey Meredith, you twit. I'll tell you what the taxpayers deserve. They deserve to get paid back. Trouble is, when they DO pay the government back that money will not be used to reduce the national debt, nor will it be returned to taxpayers. It will simply be spent on more vote-buying.

That leads to her follow up question ... have these financial institutions learned their lesson? Read Barack Obama's response very carefully. He says, "That's the point. That's the point, is what you haven't seen, I think, is a change in culture, a certain humility, where they kind of step back and they say, 'gosh, you know, we really messed things up. And so maybe we should be more focused on the products that we're providing consumers, let's make sure that we're operating in a more secure, safe fashion.'"

Humility? What in the hell does Obama know about humility? How about some humility from Barney Frank, from Christopher Dodd - from the people who protected Fannie and Freddie while this mess was unfolding? How about some humility from Bill Clinton over his grand scheme to make sure that every person in this country who wants one could get a home loan? The blame is shared. But don't expect our hyper-arrogant president to ever drop even the slightest suggestion that government may have been part of the problem.

A report from a federal inspector general says that the new tab to bail out banks .. could be as much as $24 trillion. Now that's a doomsday estimate ... the figure for the worst possible scenario. But it sure is way above the $4.7 trillion that has been spent so far.

Solution? Well .. here's one for you. Nationalization. I absolutely believe that Barack Obama would love to nationalize America's major banks and financial institutions. We were talking to Dick Morris about this yesterday, and he concurs. Just think of the power Obama would have if he controlled banking. He would get to determine who gets loans, and who doesn't. What businesses receive startup financing, and what businesses don't. Control of financial institutions would give Obama and the Democrats the control the direction and operation of our economy in ways you cannot imagine. They don't have to seize control of the means of production. Private industrial concerns, businesses, transportation companies .. all can remain under private ownership. Give politicians power over their financing arrangements and government becomes omnipotent.

Here's another statistic for you. By the end of this fiscal year, Sept. 30, 2009, our federal government will have spent $11 billion every day.

... and you wonder why I am worried about the future of this country.

Let's watch. By the end of the year maybe you'll be able to tell me just how off base I was about all this.

Here's how the story goes ... Chrysler and GM are forced to the brink of collapse due to declining sales and increased union influence on wages and benefits. The federal government decides that these companies are "too big to fail" and decides to give them billions of taxpayer dollars to keep them afloat. They go bankrupt anyway. They are forced to restructure their business plans. Part of that restructuring includes closing down thousands of dealerships across the country.

This is where politics gets involved. Lawmakers in Congress start to get calls from their constituents. These voters are upset that their local dealership is being closed down. So politicians start to go up to bat to save dealerships in their districts or states from closing. Some politicians, like Rep. Steve LaTourette, a Republican from Ohio, go as far as to propose an amendment forcing the auto companies to reinstate these dealerships and franchise agreements. Chrysler and GM get upset, saying that this would "jeopardize the viability" of their new companies and complicate the emergence from bankruptcy.

This is what you get when politics gets involved in the operation of private businesses. The people charged with the responsibility for the survival of these businesses have to do battle with political hacks who have no business experience. These politicians have one interest: POWER. Their power depends on staying in office. That depends on votes. If their constituents get upset because of a bona fide business decision to shut down a dealership, then the politician steps in. Votes over business sense.

Your government at work, folks.

The government has some money left over from the $700 billion bank bailout. There is something like $259 billion in the fund plus another $70 billion that has been repaid by the banks. So now the debate remains ... what should be done with the "extra" money?

Tax cheat Tim Geithner wants to keep money in the program to provide "headroom" for "additional flexibility to Treasury in its efforts to stabilize the economy and build the foundation for long-term economic growth." Politicians, like Barney Frank, are just itching to get their hands on the money to be used for entitlement program. Slobbering Barney, for example, wants to use the dividends earned through interest owed by banks to go toward affordable housing programs .. read: welfare.

But the answer here should be really simple, folks. Give the money back to the taxpayers. This is not the government's money. It is not money that was willingly donated to Timothy Geithner's piggy bank. This is money that has been seized by the government from you, the taxpayers. How hard is this?

Last week, Obama announced that he was appointing a pay czar. Well .. he isn't going to exactly call this character a "Pay Czar," the official title will be "Special Master for Compensation. This is the guy who will be in charge of making sure that executives at evil financial institutions wouldn't make too much money At least, that is what we expected a pay czar to do. We are finally starting to get a better idea of what exactly the Obama administration had in mind. We will supposedly get all the details sometime this week. But here's a start ...

Any bank or corporation that has received two rounds of bailout money will be forced to submit changes in executive pay to be approved by the government pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg. Those would be companies like Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG, General Motors and its finance arm, GMAC.

Now do you really think that these pay restrictions will only apply to the institutions who have received two rounds of bailout funds? You're kidding me, right? Once the standards are set you can bet that the businesses and financial institutions will be under tremendous pressure to follow suit. This will apply to financial companies, US operations of foreign banks, and other private hedge fund companies and private equity firms. Even companies that repay the TARP funds in full will not escape oversight on their compensation structures. We are talking about the government setting the standards for an entire industry to make them more fair and comparable to other industries.

The principles currently being drafted by the Treasury Department will apparently allow regulators to tell banks when they need to change their compensation arrangements if the government feels it would "encourage too much risk-taking." What is defined as "too much risk" has yet to be determined. It will be a politically motivated government-style definition, though, and you can just guess what that will entail.

Here's a nifty little line that appeared in this article from the New York Times. Tell me that it doesn't make you do a double take ... to think that we once lived in a time when private companies like banks had the luxury of setting their own compensation levels! Here's the quote: "In the past, banks had free rein to determine the base salary and bonuses they awarded their employees." OMG! Can you believe that? Can you actually believe that there was a time in this country when private businesses could decide how to compensate their own employees? Just how backward were we? Any government-educated person certainly knows that this is a job for government, not the private sector.

Government setting private sector compensation ... change you can believe in.

Despite Obama's warning that blocking the Chrysler deal would have "grave consequences" ... The Supreme Court granted the request to hold the sale of Chrysler to Italy's Fiat. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that order of the bankruptcy judge allowing the sale "are stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the court." Fiat can walk away from the sale if it doesn't close by June 15th.

One of the issues here is the brilliant idea to stiff the secured interest of Chrysler bondholders in favor of Obama's union buddies.

Maybe we ought to let Chrysler decide what is best, rather than come to a hasty agreement in the middle of the night in order to comply with the Obama agenda.

All of the sudden, Congressional Democrats are realizing the implications of this government takeover of GM. Why? Because they are starting to hear from constituents who aren't too happy about the fact that the government is deciding which dealerships will be put out of businesses. So now that these politicians have to worry about votes, they express "growing concern" to Obama about the closure of GM and Chrysler dealerships. Here, for your pleasure, is a letter from House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer and Reps. Chris Van Hollen and Daniel Maffei.

Dear President Obama:

We are writing to express our concerns about General Motors' and Chrysler's decision to close profitable automobile dealerships across the country, and urge you to ask GM and Chrysler to delay final action on proposed closures pending further review of the decision to consolidate dealerships and the process by which Chrysler and GM selected the dealerships to close.

Closing these dealerships will put over 100,000 jobs at risk at a time when our country is shedding jobs at an alarming rate. We also question the criteria being used to determine which dealerships should be closed and the fundamental fairness involved in this effort. It is our view that the market rather than leaving it up to the manufacturers whose poor leadership contributed to their demise. Furthermore, we believe car dealers will be key players in any effort to revive the American auto industry.

We believe the dealerships are one of the auto industry's key sources of strength and the manufacturers should continue to honor their agreements and contracts. The dealerships, and their more than 1 million employees, form personal relationships with customers that often contribute to brand loyalty and will be key to General Motors' and Chrysler's recovery following this economic downturn. While we understand the desire to reduce the number of unprofitable dealerships, no one has yet sufficiently explained the need to close profitable dealerships.

We recognize that efforts by your Auto Task Force prevented the total liquidation of General Motors and Chrysler, as well as their dealership networks. We commend your efforts to help these businesses survive these challenging economic times.

However, we are concerned that manufacturers are closing profitable dealerships to circumvent current contracts which could require expensive buy-outs under normal conditions. We are also concerned about allegations that dealers that have previously stood up for their rights against the manufacturers are being targeted by these closures. We believe that the forced closures of profitable dealerships needs to be scrutinized by the Task Force to prevent additional future financial loses to General Motors and Chrysler and job loses across the United States

We may consider legislative proposals to ensure that dealers and their employees are treated fairly, and we look forward to your timely response.

Look, folks. This is just the beginning. Obama is promoting a fascist economic system in the country. OK .. I know you're government educated and you don't really understand economic fascism. Here's your primer:

• An economic system where both industry and business is owned and controlled by the government ..... Socialism.
• An economic system where industry and business is privately owned, but controlled by the government ..... Fascism.
• An economic system where industry and business is privately owned an privately controlled. .... Free enterprise.

See if this is taught in your local government school.

Too late for me to construct much of a rant for the Nuze, but you can bet I'll be able to Boortztificate about this one on the air.

Our president, Barack Hussein Obama (Hey ... now he's proud of his middle name, so I can use it, right?) Has decided he needs a Pay Czar. The White House says that this person, one Kenneth Feinberg, will actually be called the "Special Master for Compensation." He is going to decide just how much executives for companies receiving bailout funds can make.

For now the Pay Czar will rule over companies receiving bailout funds. Well, you have to start somewhere I guess. But hold on ... this could only be the beginning. How about companies who receive special tax benefits from the government? Then how about companies who have contracts to do work for the government? After that we can expand the Pay Czar's responsibilities to companies who are deemed to be "too big to fail," and thus have to have their executive compensation levels monitored by the government.

Am I the only one out there reading Atlas Shrugged right now?

By the time this nuze is posted, GM will have filed for bankruptcy protection. Sadly, there are more Americans that can explain the intimate details of the American Idol finalists, but they cannot explain why GM is going bankrupt or what effect this will have on our economy and the future of American capitalism.

This arranged bankruptcy filing essentially hands GM over to the government. When all is said and done, the government will own 72.5% of General Motors. The United Auto Workers union will own another 17.5% of General Motors. Major bondholders will essentially own 10% of the company. GM stock will probably not be traded for at least six to 18 months. If you are a current GM stockholder, say goodbye to your shares. The taxpayers will make back the $40 billion loaned to GM if shares of the new GM increase dramatically in value. This is change you can believe in.

Sometime this morning, around 11:30 EST, we will be addressed by GM's CEO Barack Obama. The Looter-In-Chief. He will explain why GM's bankruptcy and government ownership will be the best route for this nation. He will do it in a way so that the government educated will understand just enough to nod their heads in agreement and then go back to reading their People magazines. They won't question the Constitutionality of it all. They won't question the free market implications. All they need to know is that their right to watch a big screen TV hasn't been "taken" away from them.

By the way, if we had Mitt Romney in charge right now, GM and Chrysler would have been pushed into bankruptcy months ago. But either way, he says that now the government should immediately turn around and distribute its 72.5% stake to the taxpayers and the UAW should do the same for its members.

Are we encouraging companies to turn to the government? GM is going to save more than $12 billion in tax breaks .... If it ever becomes a viable company again. But these new tax rules don't apply to companies that don't turn to the government for help but are taken over by other private companies. Chrysler, for example, could lose the value of its tax write-offs if it merges with Fiat.

The AP explains:

U.S. taxpayers are about to become majority shareholders in GM, acquiring more than 70 percent of the company in exchange for billions of dollars in aid. Under ordinary circumstances, an ownership change like that would trigger a big tax hit for a money-losing corporation like GM, severely limiting its ability to use current losses to lower future tax bills.

But these are far from ordinary times. The Treasury Department has, in effect, suspended long-standing tax rules for companies that receive bailout money, providing benefits not available to firms that don't receive government help. New Treasury rules could provide GM billions in tax breaks once it becomes profitable and starts paying taxes again, which could be years away.

The value of those savings, however, would be dramatically reduced if GM is taken over by another company. Decades ago, Congress severely restricted the ability of money-losing companies to cash in on the tax breaks if they are taken over by other companies.

The goal was to discourage corporate takeovers for the principle purpose of avoiding taxes, Willens said.

The government, however, doesn't want to penalize firms for taking part in the taxpayer-financed bailout, so the Treasury Department has issued several notices in recent months creating exceptions for firms that receive bailout money. Under the new rules, corporations can keep their tax breaks if the government becomes a majority owner.

OK ... let's put this in language that even the purposely dumbed-down government educated myrmidons in this country can understand. If you are running a substantial private business and if you decide that it is your responsibility to weather this economic storm and keep your business viable without using taxpayer's money and submitting to more authoritarian government control, you will then have to pay your taxes just like everyone else. Wait ... NOT like everyone else. That would be because if you decide that you can't make it on your own, and government intervention with taxpayer's money would be helpful, you will be rewarded with corporate tax breaks. Got it on your own, no help. Play footsie with government control, financial benefits await. Not the way to run a free enterprise economy.

The economy has hit broadcasting just as every other industry out there. Advertising revenue is down and people - damned good people--are being laid off. In one sense it doesn't seem logical. When business is bad you advertise to bring more customers through the door. Our weasels are trying hard to get that message across .... But in some cases the money just isn't there.

Well ... the Democrats have a solution. A solution, that is, if you're not a broadcast company owned by a white male. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (SC) is one of the preeminent race pimps in Congress. Every issue has a racial component for Clyburn. Clyburn has teamed together with Slobbering Barney and tax-cheat Charles Rangel to urge the Treasury Department to start spending some of that bailout money to minority-owned broadcasters.

If you're a broadcasting company owned by a white male you need not apply.

We'll just rely on your comments here. You pretty well know what I might have to say about this.

Obama wants Congress to authorize another measly $100 billion to loan to the International Monetary Fund. Why does the IMF need the money? To create a $500 billion global bailout fund.

Just what we need ... because our own domestic bailout is working oh-so well. We're going to run record deficits until your grandchildren have grandchildren thanks to PrezBO .. so why not spread some of your Grandchildren's wealth to the entire world? Aren't you just loving the change?

How do you like the idea of the Imperial Federal Government of the United States owning ALL of General Motors? Well, it could happen! Yeah, I know ... that's pure socialism. But look who's in the White House! A typical Marxist grad student is running the show. Don't act surprised.

According to Reuters:

General Motors' plan for a bankruptcy filing involves a quick sale of the company's healthy assets to a new company initially owned by the U.S. government, a source familiar with the situation said on Tuesday.

The new company is expected to honor the claims of secured lenders, possibly in full, according to the source.

The remaining assets of GM would stay in bankruptcy protection to satisfy other outstanding claims.

The government's plans include giving stakes in the new company to GM's union and bondholders, although the ownership structure of the company is still being negotiated, said the source who is familiar with the company's plans.

In addition, the government would extend a credit line to the new company and forgive the bulk of the $15.4 billion in emergency loans that the U.S. has already provided to GM, the source said.

But when it comes to the unions, UAW president Ron Gettelfinger says that he plans to sell the union's stake in Chrysler and GM in order to raise cash to cover retiree healthcare costs.

I'm looking for the part where the government is required to privatize. If you see it, let me know ... or is General Motors, along with Chrysler, going to be a ward of the state.

By the way ... Yesterday PrezBO announced his plans for a 39-mile-per-gallon corporate fuel economy average by 2016. Not going to happen. Any American automaker who tries to meet this goal is going to have to sell so many tiny and unsafe high-mileage cars that it will be virtually impossible for them to be profitable without adding thousands to the price of the models that people actually want to buy. This is what you get in a government-run economy. Products that people don't want to buy, but that please the snot out of special interest groups like the Sierra Club.

A listener pointed me to this letter from a Dodge dealer down in Florida. Thought you may enjoy ....

My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.

We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.

I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.

HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?

THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY

This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.

This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.

HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.

Sincerely,

George C. Joseph
President & Owner
Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu

Tax cheat Timothy Geithner has decided that the government should not impose caps on executive pay at companies receiving bailout funds. Thanks for finally clearing that one up for us, Tim. But he does believe that the government should set policies that would discourage financial companies from rewarding excessive risk-taking.

He says, "I think we can bring about broader reforms of compensation incentives in finance as a whole," not just at companies participating in TARP. "We'll make it much less likely that people get paid to take large amounts of short-term risk at the expense of their firm and the system as a whole."

Now, of course, we need to figure out who gets to define whether or not risk-taking is "excessive." I guess that would be the government. And a quick question for you ... where would our country be today if our history were not full of people who were willing to take "excessive risk" for a fantastic reward.

Experts say that Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing is all but inevitable for General Motors. If it wanted to avoid bankruptcy, GM would have to persuade bondholders to swap $27 billion in debt for 10% of its risky stock. That's not all .. you also have the UAW to deal with, and you have to close factories and dealerships. Oh and all of this has to be done by a June 1 deadline.

Bottom line is that it doesn't seem like it is going to happen.

Experts say that GM is currently lining up majority stakeholders to make a court-supervised reorganization go more quickly. But some say that the threat of bankruptcy is just a ploy to con any reluctant bondholders into the equity swap deal. The government requires that 90% of the thousands of bondholders agree to this stock swap. Why would they, considering that the government and the UAW would get far more stock in exchange for debts owed by GM? Consider what the White House tried to pull last week with Chrysler .........

Barack Obama's auto task force has a difficult choice to make ... will it bend to union demands and require GM to keep more jobs in the US or will it allow GM to expand its operations in countries with cheaper labor?

After pouring billions of OUR CHILDREN'S DOLLARS into GM, the fact of the matter is that it can't survive while it is beholden to the United Auto Workers. This means moving more manufacturing (and therefore jobs) overseas. Needless to say, the unions are less than happy. They feel as they have a right to these jobs! How dare GM try and make money by paying people to do the same job for less money!

The current outline for GM would roughly double the number of cars built in Mexico, China and South Korea. This makes absolute sense. In the United States, GM pays UAW workers about $54 an hour with benefits. However in South Korea, GM would pay its workers less than half of that at $22 an hour. In Mexico, workers could earn about $10 an hour and in China that figure could be as low as $3 an hour.

A UAW official says, "My hope is that the government is like the UAW: protectors of the people." I'm sorry but GM is not in the business of protecting the people. It is in the business of making cars. As for the UAW .. it isn't in the business of protecting people either .. unless they're UAW union members.

When I'm thinking about these autoworkers one image sticks in my mind. When is the last time you saw an autoworker wearing a windbreaker or hat with just a Ford, Chevy or Chrysler logo on it? I'm sure they're out there .. but I haven't seen one. Instead they're always wearing their clothing emblazoned with the UAW logo .. UAW Local this, that and the other thing. Who are they working for? Ask them and they'll point to their union logo. Seems a lot of them forgot that the union doesn't sign their paychecks.

So what is it going to be, Obama? Are you going to let GM survive by allowing it to expand its overseas production with less costs, or are you going to bow to the labor unions and force GM to make cars in the United States?

How would you feel if I told you that our imperial federal government was going to set up a powerful national agency to bailout cities and states? Considering where the looter-in-chief and the Democrats are taking this country, it probably wouldn't surprise you. The man who orchestrated the financial rescue of New York City in the 1970s is advocating this type of agency. Felix Rohatyn says that Congress should consider creating an entity like the Reconstruction Finance Corp. that was created back in 1932.

Seeing as our government is doing such a fantastic job bailing out the financial industry or the auto industry ... don't you think that we should give the government even more power to bailout our cities and states? You know where this goes, don't you? The emasculation of local governments and the primacy of the federal government. Come on, folks. Can't you see this coming? We have a president who is completely and absolutely in love with government - a president that has no love for the private sector. Just where do you think this is going to take our country? Do you see those people driving around with Obama bumper stickers on their cars? Your children are going to have a lot to thank them for.

Speaking of bailouts ...

You knew this one was coming. Chrysler is not going to repay the taxpayers more than $7 billion it received in the form of a bailout. It has been confirmed with the Obama administration that this is included as part of its bankruptcy filing.

So there you go. Not only do secured creditors get the hind teat ... but so do the taxpayers. Who gets the front? The very union workers who helped destroy the American automobile industry. How wonderful. That's $7 billion ... gone. Poof. Never to be seen again by you or your children or grandchildren.

When I say 'braindead' I think you will know what I am talking about when I tell you about this next item of Nuze. Matt Lauer on the "Today" show was all hot and bothered at the idea that Goldman Sachs may be able to pay back its bailout loan. He was speaking to the chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer. Here's how Matt handled the news of Goldman Sachs:

"I'm worried if you think if that's a good thing. Are they doing this because of financial stability or might they be talking about that, simply to get out from under the thumb of the federal government and be allowed to go back to running the business the way they want to run it as opposed to the way the government wants them to run it?"

OMG! Are you kidding? Just who do these Goldman Sachs people think they are? They can't be serious! We just cannot allow businesses to run themselves! That is not the American way. The Obama vision must prevail. The businesses may be private ... fine .. .but everybody knows the government must run them. We just cannot allow the private sector to run its own business operations.

Just remember that whenever government says that a program is going to cost a certain amount, it is never ever going to cost that cited figure ... it will always cost more. In this case we are talking about the $700 billion TARP, which was originally cited to cost the tax payers $189 billion. But guess what? The Congressional Budget Office has raised its estimate of how much the tax payers are really on the hook for .. try $356 billion. That's just a mere $167 billion more than originally estimated. It is guaranteed to go higher.

By the way, TARP belongs to Bush, you know. The original intent was to purchase toxic assets from financial institutions so that they could lend again. Sure didn't work out that way. Another spending program that belongs to Bush is the Medicare prescription program. I wonder what the tab is for that now. At a minimum it is twice what Bush told us it would cost.

Maxine Waters is one of the most brain-dead politicians in Washington. Truly the representative of the dumb masses. Yesterday, she was complaining that Obama's Treasury Department isn't doing enough to help minority firms that want to help manage bailout programs.

Yesterday, the Treasury announced that it was extending the deadline to apply to manage the assets, it was loosening the criteria to evaluate applications and it was going to "emphasize the department's interest" in minority-owned firms participation.

But this apparently wasn't enough for Maxine, who says that the Treasury should be required to give priority to firms that include minorities and women as partners. Maxine says, "Even under the updated guidelines, the burden remains on minority- and women-owned businesses to find willing partners among a select group of very large asset managers who do not have a particular incentive to welcome their assistance."

Remember ... while we're trying to get ourselves out of this economic mess ... we have to make sure that not too many white men are involved. It's not whether or not we recover, it's who is working on the recovery.

Last week, Slobbering Barney (a man who has never worked in the private sector during his entire life) passed a bill through the House called the Pay for Performance Act that would allow the government to set compensation restrictions on all employees of all banks receiving bailout funds. Here comes the law of unintended consequences. Now we have the Obama administration is apparently trying to figure out ways to get around these restrictions. Why? Because some banks out there are trying to pay back their bailout funds while others are sending the signal that they don't want to get into the bailout process at all. Obama wants to control the banks. In order to control the banks he needs this bailout connection. Essentially it's a "you take my money and I own you" deal. Barney's wealth-envy based restrictions are a problem here.

So .. what do you do as president if there's a law in the way of your agenda? Simple. You figure out a way around the law. What do you think we're operating here? A system based on the rule of law? Get serious. So here's the plan. Sources indicate that Obama can get around the rules by not providing direct aid to financial companies. What you do here is set up some special entity that will act as a middleman. The government pays the middleman, and the middleman then sends the money off to the financial institution. Since the financial institution isn't getting bailout money "from the government" the Barney restrictions don't apply.

Is this legal? Heck, that doesn't really seem to be an issue any more. What does legality have to do with it? Where is the Constitutional authority for the government to seize these banks in the first place? Questions of legal and illegal have come to only apply to the private sector. As Mark Levin says in his book, we're now in what you might term a soft tyranny. The Constitution is only in the way. For the time being questions of legality don't apply.

Well ... Obama has already gotten his way with the auto industry by ousting Rick Wagoner. So who will be next? Wagoner certainly won't be the only sacrificial lamb.

If the Service Employees International Union had its way .. the next one up to the chopping block would be Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis. The president of the union says, "It defies logic, common-sense, and responsible governance to punish the auto industry while letting financial institutions off the hook ... Firing GM's CEO is a positive step towards restructuring a broken industry .... But the Obama Administration needs to apply the same lesson to the financial sector: replace failed leadership and shepherd the industry into a new era."

The unions are working a power play here. Success in engineering the firing of Bank of America's CEO would result in a massive increase in power for union leaders. Then the unions can set about seeking punishment for any business leaders out there that they perceive as unfriendly to unions. This would, of course, include any business leaders working against the union's precious card check bill.

Did you know that Obama is supposed to be the most powerful player in business? Doesn't this blending of the government and business sector bother you just a little bit?

By the way ... why does the president of the United Auto Workers still have a job? Surely Obama recognizes (if he won't acknowledge) the role of the labor unions in destroying our automakers. Now if that doesn't qualify to be the stupid question of the day, then I certainly have no idea what would. Democrats - unions. Waggoner contributed heavily to Republicans. Do the math.

Slobbering Barney Frank has never held a private sector job in his life. That might explain why this man holds the private sector in such disdain. Just two weeks ago, he was up there in Washington spitting nails about these AIG bonuses and how the government needed to "recover" this money. But people finally came to their senses and the bill quietly died.

But the latest move from the House Financial Services Committee .. which is led by Sylvester the Chairman has approved legislation that could be even more outrageous than the 90% tax on bailout bonuses. This new legislation is called the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009." Pay for performance? Since when has the government been one to pay anyone based on level of performance? If Barney is so hot about paying for performance, why not apply that to teachers in government schools? For right now Barney's legislation would impose government control on the pay of all employees at companies that have received bailout money from the government. The controls would be retroactive. That would mean that our government could walk into one of these workplaces, pick out one employee, and tell him that he has to "give back" some of the money he has already received.

So tax cheat Timothy Geithner - a government hack - will be determining the pay of thousands of employees of private American companies. Not only that, but the government will come up with the way in which to evaluate employee performance. And what is the excuse, according to the bill? In order to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards."

OK .. I know what you're saying. You think that Barney is serious when he says it would only be limited to companies receiving bailout funds. You may have been born at night, but was it last night? You really don't see that Barney and Friends would soon be looking for a way to extend these compensation controls to the rest of our economy? Look ... they have already put a floor on compensation with minimum wage laws. Why should they not believe they can install a ceiling?

Starting today the United States government will stand behind your warranty. That means that the United States taxpayers are guaranteeing your warranty. Excuse me, but doesn't this take some type of legislation? How does the president suddenly decide that all GM, Ford and Chrysler warranties are to be guaranteed by taxpayers?

Excuse me .. and I know that this is old fashioned thinking ... but I don't seem to remember the congress passing a law saying that the taxpayers could guarantee automobile warranties for a select number of owners. Maybe Herman Cain was doing my show that day. But .. Barack is King right now .. and all he really has to do is say it, and it's law.

Wait! There's more! Aren't we going to have to establish a grand new government bureaucracy to handle all of these warranties? And once that government bureaucracy is established, how many of you think it will ever be dissolved? How many of you think that we will ever reach the point where warranties on cars manufactured in America aren't guaranteed by the taxpayers? Who is going to set the warranty terms? The government or the automakers? Will we have politicians campaigning on the promise to extend and expand car warranties? How about "If you vote for so-and-so, you're going to have to pay to repair your own car."

We are seeing the beginning of a grand new entitlement program here.

Yesterday we got Obama's official plan for the auto industry. Step #1: Fire the CEO of General Motors. Step #2: Push Chrysler toward a merger with an Italian car company. Step #3: Threaten bankruptcy for both companies.

Wall Street didn't seem to like the administration's response. The Dow responded remarkably ... sinking nearly 4%. I guess I would have lost confidence too, if I realized that the government could oust any CEO at will if the president thinks it is the right thing to do. In fact, some experts are saying that this is the most significant presidential intervention in the private sector since 1952 and Harry Truman with the steel industry.

So it is clearly Obama's goal to re-make the auto industry the way he wants it to be, not based on profitability or the demand of the market place. He says, "I am absolutely committed to working with Congress and the auto companies to meet one goal: The United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars ... our auto industry is not moving in the right direction fast enough to succeed." In other words .. Obama gets to decide the right direction. Instead of making cars that the consumers want, Obama will decree that the automakers will make cars that HE wants. If they don't move in that direction fast enough he'll just fire one team and hire another.

Well it turns out that this is a direction that Barack Obama has envisioned for a while .. and like his chief of staff says, "never let a good crisis go to waste." In Obama's 2006 autobiography, The Audacity Of Hope, here's what he had to say about his vision for the auto industry:

The bottom line is that fuel-efficient cars and alternative fuels like E85, a fuel formulated with 85 percent ethanol, represent the future of the auto industry. It is a future American car companies can attain if we start making some tough choices now. For years U.S. automakers and the UAW have resisted higher fuel-efficiency standards because retooling costs money, and Detroit is already struggling under huge retiree health-care costs and stiff competition. So during my first year in the Senate I proposed legislation I called "Health Care for Hybrids." The bill makes a deal with U.S. automakers: In exchange for federal financial assistance in meeting the health-care costs of retired autoworkers, the Big Three would reinvest these savings into developing more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Aggressively investing in alternative fuel sources can also lead to the creation of thousands of new jobs. Ten or twenty years down the road, that old Maytag plant in Galesburg could reopen its doors as a cellulosic ethanol refinery. Down the street, scientists might be busy in a research lab working on a new hydrogen cell. And across the way, a new auto company could be busy churning out hybrid cars. The new jobs created could be filled by American workers trained with new skills and a world-class education, from elementary school to college.

It seems as though Obama is doing a real good job of selling a crisis as a means to institute his vision of the automotive industry. Are you comfortable with this? In fact .. are you comfortable with this level of government enterprise in the marketplace?

I'm think that there's a nagging thought with many of you that this has gone entirely too far .. and that our markets might have self-corrected if the government had let this crisis run its course. And .. if you've been paying attention you should know that this crisis wouldn't have happened .. and it certainly would have been less severe if Barney Frank hadn't stood in the way of efforts of people like George Bush and John McCain to intervene in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac years ago.

This is something, isn't it? Obama replaces the GM boss, but Barney Frank - the one individual who carries more of the responsibility for this mess than any other single living human being -- seems to be untouchable.

Chrysler .. $4 billion bailout recipient .. is raising some eyebrows. Why? Because the company is spending an average of $5,600 per vehicle in incentives to get people to buy. And now, Chrysler sales are increasing .. and people are upset because they believe that bailout money is being used to offer larger incentives to buyers.

Apparently Chrysler has always been one to give steep incentives, but those deals have only increased from a year ago. According to the Detroit News, "In February, Chrysler spent an average of $5,608 per vehicle on incentives, according to Edmunds.com. That compares with $3,681 from General Motors Corp.; $3,384 at Ford Motor Co.; $2,572 at Nissan Motor Co.; $1,682 at Toyota Motor Corp.; and $1,249 from Honda Motor Co."

So now, people are questioning the spending levels of Chrysler, asking whether taxpayer money is being used to subsidize incentives that other auto companies that didn't receive a bailout can't offer. In other words, is the government bailout giving Chrysler an edge in the market place.

So ... let's recap. You can't use bailout money to reward extraordinary employee performance, and you can't use bailout money to encourage people to buy your product. Oh ... wait! I get it! The only acceptable thing you can use this bailout money for is building electric cars.

The more government gets involved in our businesses and marketplace, the more screwed up things are going to become. Capitalism is under assault. The left, with full cooperation of the media, has done a wonderful job of convincing the American people that it was capitalism, not government, which failed here. The people are wrong - but not educated to the point that they can see it. A big thanks to the wonderful voters for putting the Democrats - and this Obama guy - in charge.

Last week, all of America had their pitchforks ready for the roast .. of the evil AIG employees who received retention bonuses. The House passed a bill that would tax the bonuses at a rate of 90%.

Fast-forward one week later .. the House Financial Services Committee adopted a milder version of the bill. The new legislation allows bailout companies to pay bonuses so long as the government feels the compensation is not "unreasonable or excessive."

Oh. That makes me feel so much better. So it will be Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and tax cheat Tim Geithner who will determine what is considered "unreasonable or excessive." We all know that government would make such a good judge of the unreasonable and the excessive ... like spending taxpayer's money on butterfly gardens, for instance ... or lobster sex.

Question: How long will it be before these power hungry DC Despots decide that their ability to regulate bonuses and executive pay for some financial institutions is so durned fun that it ought to be expanded to the entire private sector? Isn't having power fun!

Just in case Harry Reid gets his way and the AIG bonus bill comes up pretty quickly in the Senate, here is something to note. The House-version of the bill would lead to the loss of one million American jobs. That is according to a senior economist at JP Morgan.

Michael Feroli, an economist at JP Morgan, concluded that the restrictions of compensation for companies receiving TARP money would put them "at a severe competitive disadvantage for talent relative to foreign banks which have not received such funds." Gee, ya think?

Yesterday Obama released his plan to loosen up the credit markets. The Dow liked it, rallied 500 points. For those of you who really want the details, Jamie Dupree has the plan posted in its entirety.

Here's the gist .. The government in partnership with private investors will purchase bad assets from troubled financial institutions. If the value of the securities goes up, the private investors and taxpayers would share in the gains. If the values go down, the government (the taxpayers) and private investors would incur losses. The goal is to generate $500 billion in purchasing power by using $75 billion in TARP money, combined with private investment and loans from the FDIC and the Fed. And as we've already known, these toxic purchases could grow to $1 trillion.

It's wait and see time. At least Obama sees a role for the private sector. I have a fear though. What if the private sector entities who participate in this rescue end up making a lot of money? How quickly will Barney Frank et all start screaming for windfall profits? Remember, AIG has shown us that you can't trust the government to abide by a simple contract any more. Why trust the government in this?

When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac want to pay out at least a million dollars in bonuses .. all of the sudden, it is OK for companies to dole out retention bonuses to keep their best and brightest employees. James Lockhart, the federal regulator overseeing Fannie and Freddie says, "there's a 'great risk' of key employees walking away if they don't pay out the promised bonuses. These Fannie and Freddie employee retention programs were established because federal officials believed top executives will play a critical role in ensuring the successful turnaround of the companies."

And the same doesn't go for companies like AIG?

The latest corporation up to the chopping block: JP Morgan Chase. The company has received $25 billion in TARP funds. But it plans to buy two luxury corporate jets worth $138 million and also build "the premier corporate aircraft hangar on the eastern seaboard" to house them. The new hangar will apparently be built with reclaimed wood, quarry tile and even include a "vegetated roof garden." The Gulfstream 650's are supposed to be the "fastest," "widest" and "most comfortable" private jet ever. Can't you feel the wealth-envy building?

A spokesman for JBMorgan Chase says that no TARP money would be used to make any payment for the new jets or hanger improvements.

But that doesn't fit well into the wealth envy argument, does it? All that matters it that these evil corporations want the luxury of having private jets!

I make more profit from the advertising on this website than the Atlanta Journal-Constitution makes from publishing a newspaper. Now that's a bit scary, isn't it? But .. give them credit. They're trying some new things to turn things around: Looking for a new conservative columnist, for instance. Mallard Fillmore in the comics and that Wall Street Journal two-page insert on the weekend might help.

Unbeknownst to me some of the people that I work for (who just happen to also own that newspaper) have made inquiries over the years about the paper publishing a Neal Boortz column once or twice a week. The suggestion has been met with howls of what could be either laughter or outrage, usually followed by the phrase "no way in hell."

What if they did publish a column? Well, here is what might have run yesterday. Instead it was published on Townhall.com. Read the comments ... a few people actually liked what I wrote:

You know, I think I'll start writing more columns. Beats the hell out of having to do a television show, and columnists don't do book tours.

Yesterday's vote in the House was completely expected. Overwhelmingly, your representatives in Washington voted huge taxes on bonuses for AIG employees. Nancy Pelosi said, "We want our money back and we want our money back now for the taxpayers." Funny .. after recently passing a bill with more than 8,000 earmarks worth over $400 billion, the hollow-eyed hippy from Haight-Ashbury and her flying monkeys are suddenly worried about the taxpayers.

First point. It is not "their" money. The money, whether you like it or not, belongs to the people to whom they were paid. Those bonuses were paid pursuant to a valid contract and are now the rightful and legal property of the payees. Let's us also remember that the amount paid in those bonuses was less than one-tenth of one percent of the bailout money received by AIG. Remember, though ... politicians believe that ever penny you earn actually belongs to the government. In the official language of Washington any money from your paycheck that these political hacks allow you to keep is a "tax expenditure." You earned it ... but if you're allowed to keep it they treat it as a government expenditure. To the Democrat mind, and in the mind of all too many Republicans, all wealth is owned by government. Produced by the people, but owned by government.

Second point. This is absolutely unconstitutional. Con su permisio I'll explain.

So the House succeeded in passing a 90% tax on bonuses given to employees of AIG and any company receiving at least $5 billion in bailout money. But only with those evil rich employees whose family income is above $250,000 a year will have to pay this 90% tax.

You just cannot like what you're seeing here. These politicians are targeting specific individuals out there who have received some money that the politicians, for political purposes, just do not want them to have. So they pass a law allowing the government to seize that money. Can you imagine where this goes from here? How about Ann Coulter? She delights in writing books that just irritate the ever-luvin' puddin' out of Democrats and liberals. Let's say that one of Nancy Pelosi's flying monkeys reports to the Princess that Coulter made $1.5 million from her last book. This money was legally paid to Coulter pursuant to a contract. Sound familiar? But Pelosi feels that Coulter has made this money by promoting divisiveness in the population, so she decides that punishment is in order. She then has her minions pass a bill establishing a 90% tax on the royalties from all books and writings that promote political dissention and defame public servants in the Congress of the United States. Come on now, you tell me the big huge difference between a confiscatory tax on legally earned bonuses and one on legally received book royalties.

This is going nowhere folks. It will never make it through the Senate. If the members of the House had any appreciation at all for the Constitution it wouldn't have gone this far. And why, pray tell, would that be? That would be because of one pesky little clause found in our (once) supreme law of the land.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5 - United States Constitution

"No bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

Do you know what that means? The key is the word "attainder." Let's go to Websters: It's a 15th century word meaning "extinction of the civil rights and capacities of a person upon sentence of death or outlawry usually after a conviction of treason." A definition, this one from the Catholic Encyclopedia, describes "bill of attainder" thusly: "A bill of attainder may be defined to be an Act of Parliament for putting a man to death or for otherwise punishing him without trial in the usual form. Thus by a legislative act a man is put in the same position as if he had been convicted after a regular trial."

Well, in this case the Congress isn't trying to put anyone to death ... they're just trying to steal some money. They are trying to deprive some individuals of property that is rightfully and lawfully theirs without accusing them of a crime and without the benefit of any trial ... except, that is, for this trial that has been taking place in the media for the last week. Well, there's that pesky little Constitution again. A man cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, and in our country due process means a trial before a jury of one's peers. Barney Frank et al are trying to take these people's money through legislative action without a trial. I would truly hope there isn't a federal judge in this country that wouldn't smack this idiocy down at the earliest opportunity.

This isn't about whether or not those people deserved those bonuses. Perhaps not. But the bonuses were paid pursuant to a legally enforceable contract. The property is theirs. Now we have politicians who are trying to take it away just because they're unhappy and embarrassed because they didn't take care of this little problem before the bailout money was paid.

On to the Senate. Let's hope someone over there has read the Constitution.

Yesterday Barack Obama decided that he wanted to throw more money at another problem. So he unveiled his plan to spend $2.4 billion for electric vehicle development. The plan also gives a $7,500 tax credit to people who buy plug-in hybrid vehicles.

So what's the problem? The problem is that there isn't a market for these vehicles. As of right now, hybrid cars only represent 2% of US vehicle sales, and it is deeply unprofitable for car companies. Just wait until the people buying those hybrids (and I have one myself) have to replace the batteries. You're going to hear howls of outrage then. My guess? The government will come in with some taxpayer-funded program to help people replace batteries in their hybrids. What fun.

In short .. Obama wants to give them money anyway to make cars that people don't want to buy. According to the LA Times:

Last month, only 15,144 hybrids sold nationwide, down almost two-thirds from April, when the segment's sales peaked and gas averaged $3.57 a gallon. That's far larger than the drop in industry sales for the period and scarcely a better showing than January, when hybrid sales were at their lowest since early 2005.

Yet automakers believe they have little choice but to make more hybrids. Though car buyers are losing interest, politicians are pushing them as key to reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil and limiting the global-warming gases that cars emit into the atmosphere.

Did you know that the auto parts industry is also getting a bailout? Just another $5 billion of your tax dollars. No matter what happens to the recipient car company, the money will be paid. The payment of new bailout money to auto parts manufacturers is your sure sign that more bailout money is on its way to GM and others. BOHICA

Barney Frank has been a fierce defender of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac .. considering he was sleeping with a Freddie Mac executive when ...... well never mind. I don't want you to lose your breakfast. But he has also when one of the most outspoken (if that is what we can call that mumbo-jumbo coming out of Barney's mouth) critics of these AIG bonuses.

Guess what other companies are gearing up to dole out retention bonuses? Yep, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are companies that are at the epicenter of our mortgage meltdown. The US Treasury has agreed to give Fannie and Freddie $200 billion a piece in exchange for preferred stock. In 2008, they lost a combined total of about $108 billion.

But wait, Fannie may is going to pay retention bonuses of as much as much $470,000 to $611,000 this year to some of its executives. Freddie is planning to do the same, but we don't yet have the details.

Now I don't know if Barney's ex is still working there ... I think not ... but if he were, you could bet your bottom sheckle that Barney would dummy up on this one.

One of the most prominent phrases we heard in this AIG hearing yesterday was "give back." That phrase is such a mindless liberal talking point. You might have heard my discussion with a caller yesterday. I just hate this "give back" nonsense. I'm heavily involved in charitable giving. My wife has a 501C(3) charitable foundation. But I am NOT giving back. I'm giving. The money I give I earned. It was not given me. Therefore ... I am not giving it back. I'm convinced this whole "giving back" nonsense was created to cause people to subconsciously believe that whatever wealth a person might have was given them, not earned.

Did you happen to listen to those parts of the hearings yesterday where Slobbering Barney was demanding the names of the AIG employees who got the bonuses? These people committed no crimes .. yet here is the Imperial Federal Government demanding their names and sputtering about subpoenas. This is not only disgusting, it's chilling. You do something perfectly legal, and suddenly you have this politically powerful troll demanding your name.

Barney said that if AIG honcho Ed Liddy didn't turn over the names, he would ask his committee to vote to subpoena the names. Even though AIG employees are receiving death threats from the dumbmasses who couldn't tell their head from a hole in the ground .. Barney wants to make sure that we get those names!

But other members of Congress didn't seem to think this was a bad idea. Senator John Tester said, "Is there a downside? If they don't give the money back, they ought to have their names released." Senator Ben Cardin suggested that if the bonuses were not returned, the names should be given to the Justice Department and Eric Holder would decide if they should be released. Cardin said, "These bonuses have to be given back ... It's just unconscionable, and we can't allow that to happen. If necessary, we should take legislative action."

And let's not let this comment from Barack Obama go by the wayside. He said on the South Lawn yesterday, "People are rightly outraged about these particular bonuses ... But just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of that have existed for far too long." Just what culture is PrezBO talking about? The culture of capitalism?

There was so much more.

Perhaps the hokiest statement came from Rep. Paul Hodes, a Democrat from New Hampshire. He said that AIG stands for "Arrogance. Incompetence. Greed." How cute.

But moving right along ... AIG CEO Edward Liddy did ask that some of these bonus recipients give at least half of the money back. Those receiving retention payments of $100,000 or more were asked to return at least half of those payments.

Today in Washington we are going to have a Congressional beat down of AIG CEO Edward Liddy. He is going to appear in front of a House financial services subcommittee. And I think we can safely say that he is going to get a less than pleasant welcome. Liddy is going to have to defend the concept of abiding by the terms of your contracts with your employees. Look for Maxine Waters ask Liddy some questions ..

"What is a contract?" would be a good start. Mensa Maxine is so darn good at this sort of stuff. We'll also be treated to some posturing from the man most responsible for this mess ... and that would be Barney Frank.

So it turns out that AIG paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 of its employees. Eleven of those bonuses went to former employees. The contracts were written in March 2008, and they guaranteed 100% of their 2007 pay for 2008. They were not based on performance. Apparently the top individual bonus was more than $6.4 million, and the top seven received more than $4 million each. Did these people really earn this money? Possibly not. But they were parties to a contract .. and if the money had not been paid they would have most certainly sued for it.

Here's something I'm guessing you don't know. The Financial Services Division of AIG is headquartered in Wilton, Conn. In Connecticut they have a little gem called the "Wage Act." This law says that if an employee has to sue for wages payable pursuant to a contract they recover twice the amount that is contractually owed. That would have meant $330 million instead of $165 million. Add some attorney's fees on top of that. So ... you're running AIG. What would YOU do?

Now ... here is just a sampling of some of the comments coming out of Washington.

I'm sure that Chuckie Schumer would like to have his way with Edward Liddy. Did you hear what he had to say about these AIG bonuses? If not, here's a brief synopsis of what Chuckie had to say on the Senate floor:

"My colleagues and I are sending a letter to [AIG CEO Edward] Liddy informing him that he can go right ahead and tell the employees that are scheduled to get bonuses that they should voluntarily return them. Because if they don't, we plan to tax virtually all of it. He should tell his employees that if they don't give the money back, we'll put in place a new law that will allow us to tax these bonuses at a very high rate so it is returned to its rightful owners, the taxpayers. So for those of you who are getting these bonuses be forewarned, you will not be getting to keep them."

He wasn't the only one who had something to say about these bonuses. Harry Reid declared on the Senate floor, "Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money."

And slobbering Barney can't let a good wealth-envy moment go to waste. He's still sputtering about all of these bonuses asserting, "The time has come to exercise our ownership rights. We own most of the company. And then say, as owner, 'No, I'm not paying you the bonus. You didn't perform. You didn't live up to this contract."

Oh and we're not done yet. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus says, "They're not going to get the financial benefit of those bonuses."

And Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan introduced a bill into the House that would tax at 100% bonuses above $100,000 for any company receiving bailout money. Ryan says, "We will use any means necessary ... It boggles my mind how these executives can be so unaware of what the American people are going through." Democrat Rep Steve Israel also sponsored this bill. Israel says, "If we can't kill the bonuses, we'll tax the bonuses." He says, "American families shouldn't be forced to reward these professional financial failures with extravagant bonuses that could buy fancy cars and yachts ... AIG may not like it, but since they had to come to the federal government for help, the federal government now has a say in how they spend taxpayer money."

Another bill introduced by Democrat Rep Gary Peters would "create a 60 percent surtax on bonuses over $10,000 to any company in which the U.S. government has a 79 percent or greater equity stake in the company. Currently, AIG is the only company that meets this threshold."

This is an absolute orgy of pandering to wealth envy. In the meantime the government cruises along operating a Ponzi scheme that makes Bernie Madoff look like he's selling brushes door-to-door. That would be Social Security. Someday we're going to face a meltdown over this soon-to-be welfare program that is going to make AIG and Madoff look like two-bit operators.

Holy flying pasture fritters! I don't think I've ever stood quite as alone as I did yesterday on this AIG bonuses thing. I don't think I had one call yesterday from one single person who agreed with me on this issue. That's fine. I believe I'm right .. and not being on the side of the majority won't bother me.

Here's the point I was trying to make yesterday. The American people have $165 billion invested in AIG. We don't have the money, so we are going to have to borrow it. From who? Well, perhaps from China! Maybe China will buy the treasury notes issued to back up this newly printed currency. So ... who do you want to pay this money back? How about your children and grandchildren? That would be just swell, wouldn't it? AIG fails, the $165 billion is shot to hell, and there's nobody around to pay it back except for future generations of Americans through increased taxes.

There is another option. Why don't we let AIG pay it back? Why don't we stand back and let AIG take reasonable steps to turn its fortunes around and once again become a profitable financial powerhouse? Certainly you see no problem with that! The question, of course, is just how do they do that? They do it with management expertise, that's how. They do it by retaining the best minds they can and putting those minds to work on solving AIG's problems. There is no shortage of competition for the type of business minds that can change the fortunes of AIG. There are other companies out there who could use that help .. and who aren't under Barney Frank's thumb. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the efficacy in allowing the best financial minds out there to gravitate toward companies that haven't received TARP funds while the companies that have borrowed so heavily from the taxpayers make do with second-rate executive talent. So how do the companies with the bailout funds keep the executive talent that will likely lead them to profitability? Well, they pay them! That's how. They live up to their contractual obligations. If they don't pay them, someone else will.

The issue here is not that AIG paid bonuses ... bonuses that amounted to less than 1/10th of one percent of the bailout money it received. The issue should be to whom those bonuses were paid. If they were paid to the perps who put AIG into this mess - and that's supposing the mess was caused by AIG execs and not by the federal government essentially forcing AIG investors and subsidiaries into making and buying hideously bad mortgages - then we have a problem. If the bonuses were paid to people who are working hard to solve AIG's problems and achieving some success, then no problem.

Let's take this angle. When was the last time you looked at the retirement plans for members of Congress? Some of these congressmen created the Community Reinvestment Act monster that coerced banks and lending institutions into making many of these subprime mortgages. These congressmen urged Fannie and Freddie to reduce their credit guidelines so that these quasi-government agencies to buy most of those bad loans. These congressmen and senators are going to retire with fat retirement funds that are completely safe while tens of millions in the private sector will retire with retirement funds decimated by this economic meltdown. Much of the problem was caused by the Barney Franks in Washington .. why aren't they paying the price like the rest of us?

New York Attorney General Cuomo (No relation to Perry) wants a list of people who got those AIG bonuses. What? Now we have crimes being committed here? The attorney general is going to investigate people who receive payments pursuant to a contract? Cuomo - clearly playing to the political message here -- says that "we owe it to the taxpayers to take every possible action to stop unwarranted bonus payments to those who caused the AIG meltdown in the first place." Cuomo is going to investigate who received the bonuses and who developed the bonus plans.

What in the hell is going on around here? Are we going to adopt a standard where contracts are only enforceable if they're popular with political class and the public? If that contract is unpopular what are we going to do? Sic the attorney general after the parties if they live up to its terms? Do you know where this is going to go? Well, what if you were some sort of a financial genius, and AIG or some other institution receiving bailout funds wanted to hire you to help turn them around. You're going to think: "Hmmm ... sounds like a nice opportunity. I can help those people and make some pretty good change in the process .. but do I want to be the subject of a criminal investigation by the attorney general if I accept a bonus? Do I want the president calling me greedy and telling the congress to pull out all of the stops to take the money I have earned back? I think not. I'm going to stay right where I am."

A lot of what we're seeing here is the anti-capitalist, pro-government left seeing an opportunity to demonize the private sector. The same politicians who are so adept at getting the public whipped into a frenzy over these bonuses seem somehow unable to gin up any degree of outrage over taxpayer money being spent on lobster sex and tattoo removal. At least there's a chance AIG is going to pay the money back. Let's see if some gang-banger gone straight offers up the money spent to remove his tats.

I, for one, am a lot more curious as to what Barney Frank's lover was up to at Fannie Mae while he was busy protecting that institution from President George Bush's attempts at reform, than I am in sending the New York Attorney general on a witch hunt for executives who received bonus payments pursuant to a contract.

Yesterday, President Obama and tax cheat Tim Geithner outlined their plan for small businesses. But before doing that, Obama wanted to make sure he had his say about these AIG bonuses. And not surprisingly, he believes that they are outrageous. Not only that, but he wants tax cheat Tim Geithner to "pursue every single legal avenue" to block the payments.

Obama, of course, just had to use this occasion to play into the wealth envy. He used one of my favorite words ... "greed." He said, "This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed ... This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents. It's about our fundamental values ... All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multi-million dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules." What rules would that be, PrezBO? Abiding by your contractual obligations? That rule?

Here we have Obama wants to worry about fundamental values. Where were those values when he nominated a tax cheat to be the Secretary of the Treasury and the head of the IRS? Willfully cheating on your taxes is OK. Getting a bonus for the work you've done pursuant to a contract is not.

The White House says that the Treasury Department will use a planned $30 billion infusion into AIG as leverage in order to compel the company to repay the bonuses of financial-products group employees. The infusion won't be final until the company and the Treasury figure out some sort of repayment options. OK .. here's an idea. The bonuses, as I've said, amounted to 1/10th of the amount of the bailout funds. So take this new $30 billion and reduce it by 1/10th of one percent. That would be $27 million Then everything will be square.

Well .. at least she's not asking for bailout money ... yet. She wants the Justice Department to give San Francisco area newspapers the leeway to merge or consolidate to save themselves. Fair enough. The question here is why in the world would the government stand in the way of these newspapers keeping themselves afloat?

I hope you're distressed over the current condition of the nation's newspapers. They're in trouble, and our society really can't afford for them to fail. If the government, through its antitrust rules and regs, is standing in the way of newspaper survival .. then fix that. I'm in talk radio .. and I recognize that there no way in the world for any talk radio program to cover the important issues of our time in sufficient depth. The time just isn't there. I rely on newspapers every single day. Before I go on the air I've gone through The Wall Street Journal, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Washington Times and Post, Investor's Business Daily, The San Francisco Chronicle and the Naples Daily News.

I guess this is turning into a plea. Please, folks. Start reading your newspapers. Information is power, and without the information you can only get from a good newspaper you are next to powerless. Sure, I know ... most of these newspapers have a very liberal slant. Recognize that and deal with it ... but read. An uninformed populace cannot save our Republic. If you don't read newspapers ... you are uninformed.

Over the weekend, one of the big stories was these AIG bonuses. If you'll remember, AIG has received three government bailouts totaling $180 billion. But yesterday, the company paid out $165 million in bonuses to employees. The fact that AIG had to pay millions in bonuses, considering its massive failings, has politicians irate. Politicians don't get irate when millions of dollars are spent by government on blueberry research or lobster farms .. but let the private sector pay that type of money pursuant to a contract and all hell breaks loose. We're certainly not at all shocked to find that one of the ticked-off politicians is none other than Barney Frank. He says that we need to figure out whether or not these bonuses are "legally recoverable." Barney wants to know, "Who said and at what point, 'We're going to give these bonuses no matter what.' And I do think it's inappropriate for those people to stay in power at that company."

Hey Barney ... some taxpayers out here might want to know whether some of the pork you clowns throw around to buy votes is legally recoverable as well. Remember - if you had to put the blame for this economic mess we're facing right now on just one person in Washington, that person would, without a doubt, be Slobbering Barney. Maybe someday we'll get the full story about Barney protecting his boyfriend who worked at Fannie Mae while this mess was building.

AIG Chairman Edward Liddy says that "the firm was legally obligated to make already-committed 2008 employee-retention payments, the value of which were set early last year before problems at its Financial Products unit became public."

Here's the new reality my friends. Government can seize and spend as much as it wants where it wants and when it wants. The private sector? Not so much. God forbid a company should reward performance. Rewarding performance is something very foreign to politicians and they don't like it. They're used to punishing performance, not rewarding it. The private sector rewards performance and punishes failure .. just the opposite for Barney and his clown circus.

Barack Obama came into this presidency preaching transparency. But Congressional investigators have found that the Obama administration has failed to properly oversee foreign deals by banks receiving money from the $700 billion bailout.

A report by a House oversight panel raised questions about the following deals ... a $8 billion financing deal for Dubai by Citigroup (recipient of at least $45 billion in bailout funds); a $1 billion investment in India by J.P. Morgan (which got $25 billion from the government rescue); and a $7 billion investment in China by Bank of America (which got $45 billion from the bailout).

The overseas deals were not illegal and it is impossible to know if they were funded by bailout dollars or not, but that is precisely the point .... Congressional investigators are troubled that the Obama administration did not implement oversight or reporting requirements. Remember the outrage over George Bush's lack of scrutiny under his half of the bailout plan? Looks like things aren't any better under the Obama administration.

As of right now, only the largest 20 recipients of bailout money are required to file reports with the government while the other 297 companies are not. In other words, we're probably never going to know how the bulk of this money was spent.

I'm sure that Obama and many of his sycophants are OK with this though. What's $8 billion for a deal in Dubai, or another billion in India? Just as long as these people don't ride on a private jet, right?

This whole "want him to fail" nonsense is so absurd. Here's the question: "If Obama's goal is to create a European socialist state in America, do you want him to succeed or to fail?" There! Now just how difficult was that? Now let's get to work preventing Obama from succeeding in his socialist welfare-state plans.

Barack Obama released details of his plan to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. The good news is I have yet to find a provision that would allow bankruptcy judges to reduce the principal amount due under a mortgage loan. Maybe that's been dumped ... or maybe it comes later and under the radar. As it stands now mortgage modification will occur only if borrowers provide their most recent tax return and two pay stubs, as well as an "affidavit of financial hardship." In the affidavit, they have to cite the reasons behind their financial woes, like losing a job or some drop in income. Oh and by the way, mortgages for single-family properties that are worth more than $729,750 are excluded from the program. The borrower will also have to show that they exhausted all remedies in personal negotiations with the lender before they will be allowed in the bankruptcy court. That great symbol of government education, Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California, refers to this process as "going through all that mess."

We're told that the Obama administration's housing plan is intended to help 9 million struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure, but it leaves out tens of thousands of borrowers in the most battered housing markets who won't qualify because their homes have lost too much value.

The program detailed Wednesday offers refinanced mortgages or modified loans with lower monthly payments. The refinancing plan is limited to borrowers who owe up to 5 percent more than their home's current value. Loan modifications, supported by $75 billion in federal funding, are unlikely for severely "underwater" borrowers.

Amazing. I'm dumbstruck. There are provisions of this borrower bailout that actually making some sense here. And, yes .. I'll freely admit it when this administration does something even marginally right .. .but I don't expect to be kept busy with this task.

In the California cities of Stockton, Modesto and Merced, more than one out of every 10 homeowners with a mortgage won't qualify for any help because they owe more than 50 percent more than their house's current value, according to data from real-estate Web site Zillow.com. Fine .. turn these people into renters. Works for me. Time for some entrepreneur to go to these cities and build low-rent apartments. Oh, wait. Our country discourages entrepreneurship right now. Looks like Stockton, Modesto and Merced will become Section 8 havens.

The plan doesn't help homeowners in states "that are at the epicenter of the housing debacle," said Greg McBride, a senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com." Cry me a river.

When was the last time you heard Barack Obama say something good about our economy? I'm not saying that he hasn't, I'm just asking for you actually heard it. I think that would be about the same time he had something positive to say about free markets and capitalism. Yeah .. harder than it sounds. And this seems to be an issue in Washington these days .. politicians seem to forget that their words (unfortunately) have consequences. Their words have consequences because they have so much power .. too much power. Take for example the grand-standing against CEOs who fly on corporate jets. If you are the CEO of a private company, you would be better off being found in bed with a dead girl or a live girl than flying to Washington in a private jet. But the same does not hold true for the Speaker of the House. Nancy Pelosi flies a taxpayer-funded private jet back and forth across the country every week ... we'll call it "Broomstick 1". That's OK though. She's not a capitalist .. she's government. (BTW .. New Gingrich flew commercial.)

The comments from these leftist footstools are having a profound effect on the travel industry and ultimately jobs. We are talking about people who get their paychecks from the airline industry, the hotel and tourism industry, the entertainment industry. Go figure .. the same people that claim they are creating legislation to "save or create 3.5 million jobs" are the same people that are killing them off with their political rhetoric.

Roger Dow is president of the U.S. Travel Association. He says that there is an alarming amount of collateral damage that is piling up thanks to politicians in Washington. More and more companies are canceling events, conferences or trips because they are afraid of how their company image will be perceived. He says, "This has been painted as an effort to go after fat cats and CEOs .. It's not the CEOs who are paying the price."

It is now considered oh so politically incorrect for someone to go on a trip or to visit a resort that everyone can't afford to visit. Remember ... "everyone should have an equal amount of stuff."

So the travel industry is trying to play nice. It has come up with a set of guidelines for what companies receiving bailout money should consider "appropriate travel." They are hoping that these guidelines be adopted by the Treasury Department so that companies will feel more comfortable and confident in booking trips, without worrying about being criticized for them.

Some news about two of our favorites .. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The New York Times reports that more than likely, the companies will never fully return to private hands. This is a fact that lawmakers and company executives are starting to realize. Maybe that is why Freddie Mac's CEO just resigned after six months on the job.

One reason sighted is the fact that Fannie and Freddie must repay the taxpayer dollars invested, plus interest in order to become independent once again. Even if they are profitable once again, it could take them more than 100 years to pay back the taxpayers. And that assumes that they start turning a profit - something they aren't expected to do anytime soon.

Many are worried that this is a sign of things to come for another industry in peril: the banking industry. If the government should nationalize some of the large banks .. will they end up in this same situation - as permanent government institutions.

Next up ... the automakers?

A fist bump to the Tennessee GOP for coming up with this one. Looks like you can buy your own at their website.

It was only a matter of time before we got to this point. And it took Northern Trust Corporation to do it. That is the evil corporation that has sent John Kerry on a mission to make sure that he is seen as a watchdog for the taxpayer!

Here's the set up. Northern Trust is a bank based out of Chicago. It received $1.6 billion under the government's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). According to the bank, it did not seek TARP assistance, but it agreed to participate in the program at the request of the Treasury Department. The TARP funds were essentially forced on Northern Trust. Northern Trust has made it clear in corporate statements that TARP "funds are not allocated to operating expenses, including marketing, advertising, corporate sponsorship or charitable activities."

Back in the fall of 2007, the bank signed a five-year contract to sponsor the Northern Trust Open, which is a PGA tour event. We are talking about a year before TARP even existed, okay folks? On February 19th-22nd .. just last week .. the bank held its second annual golf tournament. Phil Mickelson won, for anyone that cares. The event included parties and concerts and goody bags from Tiffany's. Does it look bad? Yeah. But is that the whole story? Of course not.

Then comes John Kerry, Barney Frank and the rest of the wealth-envy crowd. They are upset with the "extravagant spending practices of U.S. banks" that receive taxpayer money. John Kerry actually pulls out this line, "Americans who play by the rules are losing their jobs and struggling to pay their mortgages ... It's an embarrassment that this legislation is necessary, but some companies clearly need a reality check to get their priorities straight so taxpayer money is used to get their house in order and not to pay for lavish parties."

So what legislation is he talking about? Under John Kerry's legislation, which would go into effect March 1st, a TARP recipient could not "host, sponsor, pay for conferences and events and pay for holiday or entertainment events for the year in which they receive TARP funds." You can seek a waiver from the ... government ... for an event that the TARP recipient believes would be directly related to the operation of business. If you violate this restriction, the TARP recipient would have to reimburse the government taxpayers for the cost of the event and pay a $100,000 fine per violation.

Barney Frank is already calling on Northern Trust to refund the taxpayers for the golf tournament.

This week we are going to see this "cramdown" bill come up for debate. We are probably talking Thursday. But this is the bill that would allow judges to erase or reduce the principal amount of a mortgage for borrowers who file for bankruptcy. In other words ... you buy a house for $225,000. You borrow $200,000 from a third party (individual, bank, mortgage lender .. whatever) to give to the person who sold you the house, along with $25,000 of your own. The third party lender takes a security interest in your home to cover any losses in case you fail to pay them back. Then you go deadbeat and file bankruptcy. The judge then rules that you don't have to pay all of the $200,000 you borrowed from the third party back ... and what's more, the third party cannot rely on their security interest in your home to make themselves whole. Pretty nifty, huh?

Now ... how will the mortgage lenders react to this? Do you know what PMI is? That's private mortgage insurance. When you don't put enough money down on your home the lender may make you pay premiums for PMI. This insurance policy will pay off the lender if you bail on your loan, the lender forecloses, and you home doesn't bring enough at auction to cover the amount you still own the lender. People don't much like paying PMI ... but it has been part of the game if you put less than 20% of the purchase price down. Well, let me introduce you to a derivative of PMI. This may be called PBI. Private bankruptcy insurance. This will be an insurance policy that the lender will take out to cover them in case you go bankrupt and the judge says that you can keep your home and you don't have to pay all of the loan back. Guess who is going to pay the premium for this insurance? That would be you .. another little goodie added to your mortgage payment. Add 'em up. A nice fat little extra added to your monthly payment to cover the lender if they foreclose on you and don't get enough at foreclosure to cover the amount you still owe, and another fat little extra added to your monthly payment for insurance to protect the lender in case you go bankrupt and the judge reduces the balance you owe and lets you keep the house. Either way ... borrowers who fully intend to pay their mortgage and have little likelihood of going bankrupt are going to have to cover part of the tab for the deadbeats out there.

There is another possibility. Maybe the government will make PBI illegal. Then the lenders just hike the interest rates to cover the potential losses from these cramdown provisions. Who knows! Maybe they'll create PBI and hike the interest rates as well! Or maybe they'll just tighten up the credit requirements to the point that if you even give a hint of the smell of someone who might someday go bankrupt you won't be able to get a loan. How could you emit this odor? Credit card balances, instable job history, too much available credit ... there are many ways.

Seems like a good time to be looking into owning apartments and rental homes again.

The last couple of weeks when Barack Obama and the Democrats had to have their government growth bill passed IMMEDIATELY, or the county was going to tumble into a depression or some sort of economic catastrophe from which we might never recover. This, by the way, is Obama's "hope over fear" talk. We needed to spend money on laptops for teachers, waterslides in Arkansas, butterfly gardens and other goodies from the political wish list or our country is going down the tubes.

Now they have their government-growth bill. All should be hunky-dory, right? Well ... no. Now Obama has suddenly realized the enormous economic burden he and his big-government Democrat fellow travelers have placed on our children and grandchildren. Yeah, convenient that they worry about this AFTER the bill is passed, and not before. Obama says, "If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it we risk sinking into another crisis down the road ... We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration or the next generation."

So his solution? His immediate solution is to give the states $15 billion within the next few days to help them pay Medicaid payments to the poor. Now stop right there and explain to me how this is considered economic stimulus? Are these the same people that are going to go out there and start creating some jobs for their communities and providing paychecks? No. Didn't think so. But when Obama suddenly becomes concerned about spending a deficits, his first move is to give hand outs to poor people.

Some of these Medicaid payments will no doubt be spent on necessary medical care. Much of the payments will be wasted on Medicaid patients who bring their children to a hospital emergency room for a scratch that could be treated with a CVS visit and a Band-Aid. In Atlanta some of our more-sterling residents like to spend Medicaid money to get a free ride downtown. How? They call 911 and say the magic words ... "I'm having trouble breathing." Here comes a fire truck, paid by for the taxpayers, and an ambulance, paid for by Medicaid, to haul her downtown to the local charity hospital. They tote her into the emergency room where she gets lost in the shuffle. She walks out a door and disappears - downtown with her free ride. She'll pay for a cab home because this "I'm having trouble breathing" scam doesn't seem to work well both ways.

Now, his long term solution? Make the evil rich and the businesses pay the price now. Don't ya just love how they have managed to turn things around? After the money has been promised, now the deficit is an issue. Now we must obsess about the deficit and worry about the future of our grandchildren, therefore we must increase taxes in order to reduce the deficit by half.

Remember, in Obama speak .. "letting the Bush tax cuts expire" is just the new way of saying "tax increases."

And for all of the concern over increased government spending, the Democrats are going to unveil an appropriations bill today that adds $20.5 billion to Bush's domestic spending requests from last year.

Obama cares far more about making sure that Democrats never again lose power than he cares about the next generation. The key? Create a culture of government dependency. We're there.

CNN did a report on all of the poor people who went out and bought houses that were beyond their means .. and now they are expecting the taxpayers to bail them out. Here's the part of the CNN interview with a homeowner in foreclosure:

ACOSTA: Like countless other Americans, Garcia admits she and her husband bought more house than they could afford, but she says the lender made the purchase all too easy. Now her mortgage is worth more than her house.

(on camera): How much was the house when you bought it?

GARCIA: Eight hundred.

ACOSTA: Eight hundred thousand dollars?. And how much is the house worth?

GARCIA: Right now, it's like $675,000 on the market.

Yeah, it's all the lenders fault. This loon over-extended herself and now can't pay the tab .. and it is everyone's fault but hers. Blame someone else and then expect government to come to the rescue. This woman and her husband need to be renters. We have far too many people like Sra. Garcia and her husband with their names on deeds in this country.

President Obama has another grand rescue coming our way. Today he will announce a $50 billion home rescue plan. The goal will be to slow down or prevent more home foreclosures. The plan? Well PrezBo really knows how to present a policy proposal to the American people. Listen to this: He wants to "encourage services and lenders to do the right thing." Eureka! Why didn't anyone else think of this! Problem solved! Just tell the lenders to do the right thing! No wonder we made this guy our leader.

There are some specifics. Obama wants lenders to modify interest rates and payments to make it easier for some homeowners to get back on their feet. OK, that sounds doable --- for borrowers that didn't lie through their teeth to get their loans and who bought their homes with some reasonable expectation of being able to pay for them. For homeowners who had no job history, no credit rating, and who lied about income on their home loan applications ... no deal. They should have been renters ... and renters they should become.

Here's the dangerous part of Barack's plan --- other than the spending of another $50 billion that is. He wants to give bankruptcy judges the power to reduce the principal balances due under some loans. This is nothing less than pure theft.

Until the mortgage market went into the toilet I was a private mortgage lender. I've already had to take one home back from a borrow who was unable (or just refused) to pay. Thankfully I only have one borrower on the brink right now. What would it mean to me if that borrow declared bankruptcy and some bankruptcy judge came along and said (for example) "Mr. Boortz, I'm reducing the principal amount of Mr. Sternfaulter's loan by $50,000." Well, simply put .. this would mean that the judge has just seized $50,000 from me. Taken. Confiscated. Seized. Stolen. Call it what you will .. but $50,000 is gone.

Why are bankruptcy judges now prohibited from reducing the principal amount due under a home loan? That would be because it makes it easier for people to buy homes. Lenders are assured that at least they will get their principal balance back .. through loan repayment, a bankruptcy arrangement or foreclosure. But what happens is lenders can't be assured of at least getting their principal back? They would face bigger potential losses. How do you prepare for increased potential losses? You charge more for your product in order to create a reserve that would cover those loses. How do you do that? Higher interest rates. Higher interest rates would make it more difficult for you to buy a home .. not to mention more expensive.

Great plan, PrezBO.

General Motors is asking for billions more in bailout money ... and the news yesterday was that talks with auto worker's unions about contract concessions have failed. Which surprises you more?

(A) The fact that GM is back at the taxpayer teat

(B) The fact that the United Auto Workers don't want to be a part of the solution?

Get back to me when you figure that one out, would you?

Yesterday, Barack Obama officially set the bar on what the government considers "excessive" pay. He capped the salary of any executive working for a company that receives bailout money at $500,000. Obama said, "In order to restore our financial system, we've got to restore trust. And in order to restore trust, we've got to make certain that taxpayer funds are not subsidizing excessive compensation packages on Wall Street." So there you go. We have a figure to judge who is receiving excessive compensation, according to the government.

As you can imagine, Wall Street was less than pleased. And those on Wall Street and the business community are worried about exactly what you would think: a talent exodus from the financial sector, which will lead to a delay in the recovery. And just what have I been telling you since last week?

Patrick O'Hare of the independent research firm Briefing.com says that the salary limit is "still a hefty sum to be sure, and the spirit of the order certainly has popular appeal, but it's a slippery slope when the government puts restrictions on how much an individual can earn in the private sector ... Also, the order itself strikes us as a disincentive for financial firms to reach out for aid, which will just prolong the recovery for the sector and the economy."

Slippery slope indeed. I guarantee you that this is going to spread. Wealth envy is, in my opinion, at an all time high in this country, and politicians are surely going to want to capitalize on this. So you can expect these restrictions on executive compensation to spread to sectors of the private economy that are not seeking bailout money. This will be accomplished by punishing corporations who pay executives more than the government-approved maximum through our tax code. Political hacks are getting kudos now for virtually every attack on the private sector. This is one tactic they won't be able to ignore. The government-educated American people see that their president is doing something about those evil, greedy CEOs who are making money while the rest of you suffer.

And you know how I sometimes like the read the comments on different news stories. Well this opinion piece actually came out of the UK, Obama's bank error: it is boards that should determine pay not governments. And the very first comment, must be from a Brit because he obviously has no clue what is going on. The comment reads: "Journalists opinion is irrelevant, President Obama is doing what the American people support 100%, it's called democracy." One-hundred percent? Ya don't say! Maybe that is what your liberal news sources are telling you over in the UK. And oh, by the way, I don't know what Britain is teaching you (and I assume you went to a government school) but America is not a democracy. In fact, that statement from the British moonbat illustrates just why a democracy is so dangerous and our founding fathers warned us away! So, my Brit friend, your definition of what constitutes a democracy - Obama doing what the American people (supposedly) support 100% -- just demonstrates how blatantly ignorant you are. Thank God you don't have a vote in this country.

I've been getting a lot of emails about this Bank of America Super Bowl party. And a lot of you are outraged over it. To sum up .. Bank of American sponsored a five-day Super Bowl event known as the NFL Experience. They basically set up a huge tent just outside the Super Bowl stadium and filled it with games and entertainment and lots of Banks of America logos.

But, as ABC News points out ... Bank of America has received $45 billion in federal bailout funds. How much did this event cost? Somewhere in the tens of millions, if you consider the fact that Bank of America is an NFL corporate sponsor.

The bank says that the sponsorship is a "business proposition" and part of its "growth strategy." Also note that the papers for this NFL Experience were signed last summer, before Bank of America received any bailout funds. The bank says that it was legally required to fulfill its contract.

I really don't think this is as cut-and-dried as some of the critics want to make it. This is marketing. We want these companies who have received bailout money to thrive, to grow, to flourish. We want them to be able to pay that money back to the taxpayers someday. Can Bank of America grow without marketing? Without advertising? Did the Super Bowl bash attract any new customers? Did it improve the image of Bank of America with the Super Bowl fans?

And ... most important ... do we leave these marketing decisions up to politicians and the great unwashed?

We were told that we had to bailout the auto companies (aka. auto workers union) so that we could save an industry that provides a lot of jobs to American workers. In fact, that auto companies went as far as to say that our country would be sent into a depression if we didn't save their companies.

So the taxpayers gave them a bailout. And guess what? They are coming back for more. Billions more. And guess where that money is going?

GM investments in Brazil.

Yep, you read that correctly. An article from the Latin American Herald Tribune reports that GM is going to invest $1 billion in Brazil "to avoid the kind of problems the U.S. automaker is facing in its home market." And according to the president of GM in Brazil, this funding will be coming from the bailout money from the US taxpayers.

I wonder what kind of problems they're talking about avoiding? Probably union problems .. but do the GM officials have the cajones to say that?

Guess who is in line for the next bailout? Rental car companies! Why a bailout for rental car companies? Well, it seems that they ran rolled with some sort of a sweetheart deal with the auto companies for years .. but now they can't find anyone to buy their rental cars, and they can't get credit to buy new cars.

So they are turning to you, the taxpayers, to receive bailout money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to buy new cars. In fact, this has already been cleared by the House of Representatives. They included a clause in a recent bill that would allow the government to back loans to rental car companies.

The Wall Street Journal came out with a pretty sobering (but not surprising) report yesterday: Political Interference Seen in Bank Bailout Decisions.

The Treasury had said it would give money only to healthy banks, to jump-start lending. But OneUnited had seen most of its capital evaporate. Moreover, it was under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use.

Nonetheless, in December OneUnited got a $12 million injection from the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. One apparent factor: the intercession of Rep. Barney Frank, the powerful head of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Frank, by his own account, wrote into the TARP bill a provision specifically aimed at helping this particular home-state bank. And later, he acknowledges, he spoke to regulators urging that OneUnited be considered for a cash injection .....

He cites the bank's status as the state's only financial institution owned by African-American (blacks). "We did say, yes, I thought it would have been a social tragedy if the one minority bank in Massachusetts that has been working so hard and had been overextended into housing was to be wiped out by a federal action, the Fannie-Freddie preferred [shares] thing, and that's why I think it was important to try to help them.

So .. there you go. Barney Frank raises his handsome head again; this time he is send money we don't have to a black-owned bank. The purpose here was not stimulus. The purpose was to use the financial crisis as an excuse to shore up a politically favored bank in Barney Frank's district.

There is not one bit of doubt in my mind that, considering the various ways Barney Frank has been involved in this financial mess, if he were a Republican the media and the entirety of the Democrat Party would be yelling - and yelling loudly - for his scalp.

Get used to this.

Earlier in the week I told you about a Congressional Budget Office report that basically said that this economic stimulus plan is a bunch of horsesqueeze. It isn't actually going to do what it is supposed to do - stimulate the economy. That's because only $26 billion would actually reach the economy this year and $136 by 2010. I know a great way to give the people of this country hundreds of billions of dollars back immediately ..... but we've already been through that, haven't we?

So the Democrats took this report into consideration. What they took from the report is not the fact that throwing money at the problem isn't going to work ... what they took from the report is the fact that they aren't throwing enough money fast enough.

Part of the economy stimulus package may include incentives for people to buy cars and financing to help auto companies develop better batteries and alternative fuel. Auto executives and lobbyists say that they have discussed options with Obama officials that would allow the stimulus bill to spark new credit, boost technology development, get people into showrooms and help auto companies achieve fuel efficiency goals. Dan Becker of the Safe Climate Campaign at the Center for Auto Safety says, "The stimulus is about creating jobs. If the automakers are able to sell the cars they make, they will be able to put people to work. Better technology requires more people."

So there you go ... a plan for the government to finance a new car credit if consumers turn in their older, less efficient cars. Another possibility for this stimulus is to double an Energy Department grant program to help bailout companies GM, Ford and Chrysler speed up their development of hybrid and electric cars. That would cost $50 billion.

So the next pig up the government trough may be ... the adult entertainment business. You got it. The porn industry. The CEO of Girls Gone Wild, Joe Francis, and the publisher of "Hustler" magazine, Larry Flint, say that they want a bailout from the government, similar to the one given to the Big Three automakers. Their request is $5 billion .. oh that's all? They say they will use the money to invest in new means of distribution. They say they will use the money wisely and create jobs for hard working Americans.

Actually ... this is a lot of fun. Francis says that if they are invited to Washington to present their plan, they would be willing to drive across the country in a hybrid vehicle. Francis also says that they would be willing to discuss the idea of the government buying equity stakes in their companies, just like the financial firms. Wow, now there is a way to kill the porn industry .. let the government get involved!

Flint of "Hustler" says, "People are too depressed to be sexually active ... This is very unhealthy as a nation. Americans can do without cars and such but they cannot do without sex."

The man does make a point.

That's it, folks. I have decided that we do need to use our tax dollars to bailout the Big Three. And it's because if we don't, Canadians are going to lose jobs. Lord knows we want to keep the Canadians employed ... if not, they could become a threat!

Yeah, right. Moving right along ...

After the auto bailout failed in the Senate ... true colors are starting to shine. The unions are livid at one group of people for blocking their chances at getting a bailout (for now), and that group would be senators from the South. Yup, the evil, anti-union South rears its ugly head. The evil Southern Senators are Mitch McConnell, Bob Corker and Richard Shelby. The UAW has gone as far to say that these senators are "representing the foreign brands" because their southern states are home to foreign automakers such as BMW, Honda and others. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said, "They thought perhaps they could have a twofer here maybe: Pierce the heart of organized labor while representing the foreign brands." A local UAW president at a GM factory in TN said, "What this is, is the Southern conservative senators trying to destroy the United Auto Workers, trying to destroy unions ... It's a sad day in America when the senators turn their back on Main Street." Well last Friday was a sad day as well ... a day when the UAW turned its back on the automakers.

The real deal here is that the unions are concerned that if they don't get their auto bailout, it will look really bad for the organized labor movement. More and more people are realizing that a huge part of the problem with the Big Three is their unions. What possible excuse is there for paying people not to work? Google "jobs bank" and see what I'm talking about. If the union movement is undermined, they won't get their ultimate prize they have been waiting for: The Employee Free Choice Act. Now wouldn't that be a crying shame.

Meanwhile, I want you to check out this picture: 22 Pounds of UAW Rules and Regulations. If you really want to see what is wrong with the Big Three ... just look into these contracts.

One of the problems here is that so often it looks like these auto workers don't really know or appreciate who they're working for. Visit a Big Three assembly plant just around quitting time. Do you see workers streaming out of those plants with Ford, Chevrolet or Dodge jackets and ball caps on? Hardly any. What you do see is workers heading for their cars with jackets and hats emblazoned with the UAW logo and the name of their local. The union is paramount to them. Their actual employer? The enemy.

Oh .. and let's put this idea to rest that nobody wants to buy a car right now because these automakers might go bankrupt. I did. I bought a brand new Chevy Equinox last Friday. I needed a car that I didn't mind driving in the schmutz and could load up with stuff. I'll leave the other one under a cover until the sun shines and I can put the top down. Just doing my bit to help the economy. You see, it was I who picked the winner (my Chevy dealer) last week with my money, not the government. This is as it should be.

Wow! We could have written that headline at the beginning of this mess. Unions seem to take great delight in standing in the way of reform that could possibly save their jobs. Remember when the airline pilot's unions killed Eastern Airlines?

All the unions had to do in order to get the Republicans to go for this $15 billion bailout was to promise to reduce union wages to the level paid to automakers in the Toyota and Nissan plants by the end of 2009. No way. They weren't going for it. So now GM has hired bankruptcy council.

(By the way ... in answer to the question of who would buy a car from an automaker that was going bankrupt? I would -- I did -- Just yesterday. At this place. There are some pretty amazing deals out there. Trust me.)

Did you hear about the riots? Yeah .. the riots. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina knows that a vast majority of Americans used to be absolutely opposed to the idea .. as time has dragged on, that number has gone down slightly. But the point is that this auto bailout - which is really a union bailout - still has many of you upset. You are tired of the government picking winners and losers. You are tired of the unions dictating business practices. You are thinking about your grandchildren who are really going to bear the brunt of this massive spending spree.

DeMint, and he brought up an excellent point. GM is in a better financial situation than the government that wants to bail it out. The only difference between these two failing entities (GM and the government) is that the government can print the money. GM can't.

So where does this lead us? DeMint says that if a bailout passes we are going to see riots: "We're going to have riots. There are already people rioting because they're losing their jobs when everybody else is being bailed out. The fairness of it becomes more and more evident as we go along. The auto companies may be hurting ... but there are very few companies that aren't hurting and they're going to hurt. We don't have enough money to bail everyone out." He's absolutely right .. we don't have the money. Government politicians who are drunk with power think that they will be able to bailout the people that support their power. This auto bailout is no exception. Riots? No ... I don't really think so. Take the dubs off the market, and maybe so.

That leads us to the unions. For months, politicians have been creeping around the real source of this auto bailout: the unions. They know the UAW is the problem but they are too afraid to say it. Why? Because of exactly what I said before: power. But Jim DeMint says, "The primary driver behind this is the unions, because bankruptcy allows the auto companies to basically restructure all their contracts in a way that a bankruptcy judge says will make them sustainable ... And if they do that, then essentially the unions lose all their leverage. It's the unions that have brought them to the brink. So definitely, I think the reason they want a political solution and a car czar is because a car czar can protect the unions through this whole process at the expense of the taxpayer." Makes sense ... so why did the UAW stand in the way of this $15 billion? I'll tell you why. Because they know they can get the full deal as soon as the Democrats take over, without any strong wage concessions. They're betting that GM doesn't pull the bankruptcy lever before PEBO gets sworn in.

Now back to these riots. Do I think there will be riots? No. And that's because I don't believe that the people of this country really care all that much. They may think they do, but when was the last time they contacted their Congressman or Senator to tell him? When was the last time they turned off Entertainment Tonight and picked up a history book? Sure the phone lines on talk radio shows will ring for a while, but that will die out quickly. You have Christmas to worry about. I don't blame you. But just know that when you return from your vacation, and Barack Obama is sworn in, and the new Congress is ready to enact its agenda .. that is just the beginning, folks. There's a lot of work to be done, and I'm afraid I don't have the faith that the people are willing to fight for it.

Did you know that Harry Reid has decided to slip a little something extra into this auto bailout for the Big Three? What auto bailout, you ask? Oh ... there will be an auto bailout. The unions demand it. We just have to wait to get rid of a few more evil Republicans in the congress and one in the White House. Anyway ... Harry wants to include something in an auto bailout. What might that be? Well, how about a pay raise for federal judges.

Tricky, huh? Before we go any further, let's address one thing. Did you know that your Senators and your Congressmen are getting a $5,000 raise on January 1st? That must be for all of the great work that they have done spending your tax dollars and putting your grandchildren on the hook for trillions and trillions of dollars. Now this federal judge raise is a COLA - cost of living adjustment - but let me ask you this .. how many of you out there who own your own business are giving $5,000 cost of living adjustments to your employees right now? How many of you have worked for years without a raise that won't even keep up with inflation? Or a raise at all?

But Congress is getting one. And if this bailout bill passes, these US District court judges will be getting an "adjustment" to their pay .. all thanks to your tax dollars. That this would be on top of the 2.8% raise that the judges are "expected" to be rewarded next year.

Government. How are we going to rein these people in?

The CEO of American Airlines says that any plans for a federal stimulus should include the aviation industry. This includes more spending on runways and air traffic control. The airlines themselves, though, don't seem to be asking for a handout ... yet.

American Airlines CEO Gerald Arpey says, "The airline industry should be certainly at the top of the list of industries that are deserving of economic stimulus as it relates to infrastructure because we have let the infrastructure in aviation deteriorate."

I've been telling you about this for a while .. the mayors of this country are lining up at the federal government trough. Our own city of Atlanta, home of our radio mother ship News Talk 750 WSB, (Where, by the way, you can stream my show from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern time) So it's about time that we found out exactly what your mayors are asking for. We know they want billions to fund "ready-to-go" infrastructure projects. They say these will create jobs. So here are some examples of the projects that the mayors of this country want to fund with your tax dollars.

These are all thanks to Reason Magazine ... a nice little Libertarian magazine.

• The "O'Malley Road Reconstruction" in Anchorage, Alaska, that will cost $30 million and employ a whopping 300 people
• The police facility in Lake Havasu City, Arizona will get solar panels at a cost of $400,000 and employ 75 people
• In Beloit, Wisconsin, $1.428 million would be spent on stormwater settlement ponds and give jobs to five people .. about 25% of the population of Wisconsin
• The storm sewer system in St. John, Indiana needs "additional capacity." That'll cost $275,000 and employ 15 people
• Manhattan, Kansas wants to pay $71,250 to coordinate its traffic lights on Fort Riley Boulevard!
• And from our home of Atlanta, Georgia ... for $4 million we can install "reflective or green roofing" on unspecified buildings

All of these are considered by local politicians to be urgent projects worthy of federal bailout money. When I say that there are thousands more, that is not an exaggeration. Their request for pork projects is over 800 pages long.

You know that you are dealing with someone really intelligent when they use the word "bashing" in their first sentence. That is why I thought you would enjoy this article by Marie Cocco. You see, Marie is upset that people are criticizing her precious unions in conjunction with this auto bailout. That is because, according to Marie, "No one should be allowed to cast blame on workers who want nothing more than to maintain a middle-class life." In fact, Marie believes that unions aren't the problem ... they are actually the answer to our problems!

Go ahead and read it for yourself. Be sure to check out the bashing, corporate greed and wealth envy.

Again .. the definition of Socialism? That's when the government not only controls but OWNS the means of production. Today we read that the government is thinking about taking part ownership in the Big Three automakers in return for bailout cash. When would these government shares in these companies ever be returned to the private sector? My guess is that would not happen so long as Barack Obama is in office. Government ownership of major industries is really his cup of tea.

The Democrats and unions hate it that George Bush is so involved in the discussions over a Big Three bailout plan. After all, haven't the people said they want Barack Obama to be their president? What is Bush doing hanging around for so long? Now what really ticks off the Democrat-union crowd is that the Bush Administration is insisting that the bailout money only go to automakers who show that they have a restructuring plan that would actually work. In other words, if the automaker is doomed .. why throw good taxpayer money at them? What's happening here is that the president is looking for a plan to actually make Ford, Chrysler and GM viable industries again, while the Democrats are mainly interesting in keeping the United Auto Workers strong. Different goals, different strategies. The UAW needs to go away ... they've done their damage, they should now just sit back and let the grownups try to fix things.

This $15 billion loan package for the automakers is just something to tide them over. Barney Frank says that he is just waiting for the Obama administration in order to get a real long-term bailout for the automakers next March. Barney says, "We don't think the $15 billion is enough to get them into March, but given the administration's insistence ... that's where we are now."

But there is one sure thing right now. No matter what, there will be some sort of "Car Czar." I've even heard reports that this person could be included in the presidential cabinet. So if we are going to have a government bureaucrat in charge of re-tooling the auto industry ... and you just know its coming ... let's make it a good one. My vote is for Mitt Romney.

Not that anyone cares, but where is it written that some bureaucrat chosen by politicians has any better of an idea how to run the auto companies than some private businessmen do?

But in the end, what we are getting from this proposal is still nothing but fluff. Like a requirement that these CEOs sell their corporate jets. Don't you think that Congress has more important things to worry about when it comes to the viability of these companies? Let's start with these horrendous union contracts.

For those of you who want to read this proposal for yourself ... have at it. [pdf]

If the people had it their way .. there wouldn't be a bailout. Thanks to you, Congress will probably not support the bailout ... at least not the full Monte. Although that is very disappointing to some like Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, Diane Feinstein. But the White House is currently working with Congress to give the Big Three up to $17 billion in emergency loans. Along with that loan would come a "car czar." Oh boy. Another czar. This would be a government bureaucrat who would be in charge of any bailout for the auto makers. There is a better person to oversee the bailout: a bankruptcy judge. At least a bankruptcy judge would allow the businesses to restructure themselves, rather than having a government appointed bureaucrat making those decisions. And I guarantee you that if we give these automakers a bailout now ... they WILL be back in a few years if not months ... maybe weeks. You just wait.

Meanwhile, Obama says that if top auto executives don't agree to drastic reforms, they should be fired. He said, "If this management team that's currently in place doesn't understand the urgency of the situation and is not willing to make the tough choices and adapt to these new circumstances then they should go." Did Obama mention the need for the UAW leaders and union members to come to the reform table? Are you nuts? Of course he didn't. Oh that's right, Obama got elected thanks to the unions and these CEOs are evil and greedy. I keep forgetting that.

Argentina is battling its own auto crisis. So here is the government's solution. Are you ready?

Automakers in Argentina will sell basic models of their cars AT COST. Meanwhile, they will receive government subsidized loans in order to keep their companies afloat and keep people in their jobs. Each automaker is required to offer two of its most basic models for this plan. They can choose from one of three financing packages. These packages will be financed .. are you ready for this .. by the social security system.

The Argentinean Industry Secretary says, "We have agreed with the plants that these cars will be offered without a profit margin and the dealerships will also reduce their profit margin."

Don't you love this "we have agreed" stuff? That means "We have instructed the automakers ...."

So first Argentina moves to seize private pension plans and blend them into their social security system. They suddenly they're talking about their social security system financing the automakers. Argentina is headed for disaster. Let's hope they crash in time for us to lean some lessons.

The clown cars have rolled into Washington.  The Big Three CEOs drove their vehicles all the way from Detroit.  All except one.  GM CEO Rick Wagoner did drive a 2009 Chevy Malibu Hybrid most of the way to Washington.  But then, once he got close to the Capitol he hopped out of his Malibu and drove the last 25 miles or so in a 2011 Chevy Volt.  How did the Chevy Volt get to the pick-up point in Washington?  Well someone had to ship it there.

I mean, this really has turned into one huge PR stunt.  It's a sales pitch .. let me drive a prototype of this new electric car (that won't be available for another 2 years and will probably cost around $50,000) and people will see the future of our company.  The good news for Rick Wagoner is that you didn't need to ship a car to Washington to impress Nancy Pelosi .. she's already on your bandwagon.  It's the people of this country that you need to impress.  And I have a clue for you .. the American people have a very short attention span.  They may see your Chevy Volt now, but if you can't give it to them tomorrow .. you are still SOL.

Meanwhile in Great Britain, the sale of electric cars has fallen by more than half.  While the Government's climate change advisory body predicted that electric cars would sell like hot cakes .. they were proven very wrong by that silly little thing called the free market.  Only 156 electric cars were sold in Great Britain so far this year.

Oh .. by the way, we learned yesterday why the consumers should pick the winners and losers in the marketplace and not the politicians.  California Senator Diane Feinstein sent a little letter to some of her colleagues on Capitol Hill demanding that a share of any bailout money be spent on an upstart manufacturer of electric cars in San Jose.  That would be Tesla Motors, and they haven't sold a single electric car at retail yet.  Seems there are some cost overrun problems.  Anyone want to buy an electric sports car for about $140,000?  Electric cars may be a reality one day, but let the consumers pick the companies that make it ... not the politicians.  The decision should be made on the basis of consumer appeal, value and cost - not on the basis of political power. 

So an executive from Chrysler says that if the taxpayers don't bailout the automakers, our country is going to go into a depression.  Talk about fear mongering.  In fact, wait a minute, he says that if just one of these car companies fail, then it could trigger a depression.  I said it yesterday .. talk about arrogance!

But a vast majority of you people aren't buying it.  In fact, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 61% of Americans oppose government assistance for the automakers.  But Nancy Pelosi is still up there preaching that bankruptcy is "not an option."  Look .. if bankruptcy isn't an option, why do we have bankruptcy courts?  What Pelosi meant to say was that bankruptcy wasn't a political option.  Well if it's not bankruptcy then it must be a bailout.  Can't Nancy take a hint?

Here's a great article from the Wall Street Journal explaining why GM's plan is all smoke and mirrors ... there are no real changes.  No details.  Their business plan is flawed.

Meanwhile there is still the union.  UAW President Ron Gettelfinger says that the union is willing to change its contract.  Oh yeah .. that makes me feel so good.  The union is willing to delay billions of dollars in payments to a union-run healthcare trust.  And remember the Job Banks program I told you about?  That's the one where union members are paid 95% of their salaries to sit in a room and play Sudoku all day long .. well the union says that it would be willing to "modify" that program.  Modify??  Are you freaking kidding me?  Not only should that program be the first to go, but these union contracts should be scrapped all together.  And there is one easy way to do this.  Bankruptcy.

By who?  That would be General Motors.  GM comes to Washington with absolutely no plan to weather the economic storm other than to grovel for taxpayer money.  Do you get that?  No plan!  Nada!  It's either hand over taxpayer funds or we're going to bail .. and if we bail we're taking the rest of the country with us. 

What arrogance!

The Big Three returned to Washington in their hybrid cars.  They presented their plans in hopes that this will be enough to get them a government bailout.  But guess what?  There doesn't seem to be any really drastic changes.  Their business models haven't really changed.  Their adhesion contracts with the unions are still in place.  There aren't any secure plans to pay back the taxpayers other than creating a government oversight board.  Oh yeah ... that makes me feel so good; a government oversight board.  I feel better already.

There is some talk about symbolic cuts.  The CEO of GM and the CEO of Ford say that they will work for $1 a year if it means their companies get a taxpayer bailout.  That's great.  The problem isn't solved by paying CEOs a buck a year.  The problem is solved by bring in some management talent that will make extremely difficult decisions and them paying them a gazillion dollars if they can pull their companies out of the fire without raping the taxpayers.    

There is already a provision under our laws to take care of this mess.  It's called Bankruptcy.  Chapter 11 bankruptcy, to be more exact.  Reorganization.  The magic of bankruptcy is that all outstanding contracts that are making it difficult for these automakers to compete and survive would or could be cancelled --- and that includes the contracts with the United Auto Workers.  Nancy Pelosi is saying that bankruptcy is not an option.  Why not?  For the very reason I just set forth.  Bankruptcy would not work well for the unions.

The capitalist system - free enterprise - has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system ever devised by man.  Freedom works.  And freedom means the freedom to fail if you don't live up to consumer expectations or if you allowed yourself to be drug into unprofitability by asinine union agreements and products the consumers just don't want.

My guess is that the only way these auto companies survive is if they have to fight their way through this without taxpayer help.  A bailout is the easy way out for them.  What a stupid idea it is to throw tens of billions of dollars at these companies only to have them declare bankruptcy down the road. 

There's another idea floating around out there.  Let's just take Ford, GM and Chrysler and combine them into one large auto company. Oh yeah .. that ought to work.  Nothing like good old-fashioned competition to spruce up the marketplace. 

And speaking of competition ... there is no way the Big Three can survive under their current agreement with the unions.  These unions cannot be allowed to bring these automakers down.  Get rid of them.

Now that just ain't right.

And it's not just Citigroup, folks. AIG pays a British soccer team $125 million to put "AIG" on their uniforms. This is the same AIG that just got a $150 billion loan from the taxpayers. Someone from a group called Taxpayers for Common Sense says it would be more accurate for the soccer team to put "US Treasury" on their uniforms. How about "U.S. Taxpayers"?

There are more examples. Bank of America took a $25 billion loan for the Treasury's Troubled Assets Relief Program. Meanwhile, Bank of America wants to pay the New York Yankees $20 million per year to be their sponsor. Bank of America also has its name on the Carolina Panthers football stadium ... that cost them $140 million.

Look, folks ... I'm sure that there are a lot of companies out there that have done it right. But there are a heck of a lot, especially on a larger scale, that just don't seem to get the message.

Citigroup seems to be next. Remember the announcement last week that Citi was laying-off about 52,000 workers? Well now the government ... that means US ... is going to absorb tens of billions of dollars in Citibank losses.

Who's next? Well, how about the airlines? Oh, and the TV Networks are complaining about lost ad revenue, and since they were some of the largest consumers of the Obama Kool-Aide maybe some money ought to go their way. My guess? Look for some plan to bail out consumers over-extended on their credit cards.

Oh you betcha! There's Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin preparing to go to Washington to attempt to glom on to some of that bailout cash. I live in Atlanta and I've been watching Atlanta goings-on for about 40 years now. So let me send a message to the taxpayers of America. Bailout cash for Atlanta? No way!

For at least two decades Atlanta has had a reputation for one of the most over-staffed and bloated city governments in the nation. The City of Atlanta has been a glorified jobs program for the poorly-educated graduates of one the nation's worst school systems (Atlanta Government Schools) for years. Before the taxpayers of this country fork over the money to cover these years of mismanagement there are just a few things the City of Atlanta should be required to do. Work on these goals and then come begging:

• Sell the Paulding County and Dawson Forest. Oh! Never heard of these massive City of Atlanta land holdings? It seems that Atlanta owns 10,000 acres in Paulding County, Georgia and another 10,130 in North Georgia near the city of Dawsonville. The Dawsonville property is extremely valuable North Georgia mountain land. The 10,000 Paulding County acres were purchased for $935 an acre 33 years ago. Before Atlanta comes begging for taxpayer money these two giant holdings should be sold. If the city wants to wait until the real estate market improves it could pledge to sell these properties within five years and use the proceeds to reimburse the taxpayers .. with interest. What do you think? Five thousand an acre? Let's see ... that adds up to about $100 million?
• Privatize Hartsfield International Airport. This idea was first floated by former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young and it's been bouncing around ever since ... to the distress of Atlanta political types. Here's a link to a 14-year-old study from the Georgia Public Policy Foundation which indicates that revenues from the sale or lease of Hartsfield could amount to $166 million a year - and, as I said, this was 14 years ago. You can only imagine how much that figure would be today.
• As this presently stand it is illegal for the City of Atlanta to take one penny in revenue from the operation of Hartsfield. This is past asinine. By leasing of selling that airport Atlanta could be taking in hundreds of millions a year. Until the city is willing to take this step there should be no federal bailout.
• Privatize a few other things. Garbage collection and maintenance on city-owned vehicles, to name two. That would be a good start.
• Fire Some Folks. After all of the above has been accomplished .. then start sending out the pink slips. And don't give me that horse squeeze about how it would affect essential city services. How many times has some local TV station sent out undercover reporters to video city employees at work .. and how many times have we seen these people doing private errands, sleeping, and gobbling down Krispy Kremes while they were on the clock. Give me a break ... some of these people need to be collecting unemployment.
• Adjust pensions for city executives. Everybody else is taking it on the chin with their retirement funds ... why not the officials of any city coming to the federal taxpayers for a bailout?

There's your short list. You can forward this to your favorite elected official and tell them that you don't want Atlanta in your pocket until these things are done.

Alright so this auto bailout bill is in a holding pattern. But just remember that it doesn't mean it is dead. So here are some facts that should keep you seething ...

The Big Three currently pay 85% of union benefits to UAW members ... who aren't even working. Yep. Remember how I told you about the Job Banks for union workers? If a union worker is employed at a plant that closes, the auto makers still pay 85% of their union benefits. Rick Wagoner, CEO of General Motors, says that his company must reduce operating costs ... but his company must continue paying for union employee benefits for employees NOT to work. Does this sound like a smart business plan for you? As a business owner, this asinine agreement to pay for the benefits of people who aren't currently working should be the first to go.

I've talked about this idea of a "right" to a job where you live. It seems that the unions have already done their part to make that a reality. Let's say that you work at a plant in Detroit and it closes. Meanwhile, a new plant is opening in Missouri. You don't have to move to Missouri to keep your job. But guess what, you also won't be fired! You can opt to go on Job Banks where you can sit on your butt in Detroit, do crossword puzzles for eight hours a day, and collect 95% of pay for the rest of your life.

That business model is the one asking for your tax dollars. And you are telling me that these union contracts, these Job Banks, have nothing to do with the Big Three's current situation?

Meanwhile, the legislative director of the UAW says that the problems with the auto industry are because of a series of bad trade and healthcare policies, along with the current credit crisis.

At least someone at GM learned a lesson ... GM will be returning two of its leased corporate jets.

Short and sweet: Send these automakers into bankruptcy if for no other reason than to give them the means to bust the unions.

"If we give you this money, just how are you going to spend it?"
"Well, we're not actually sure."
"Go get in your private jet and get the hell out of here."

The bad news is that one the Execs may be back in Washington in just a few weeks. Congress says that auto execs have failed to show the American people that this bailout would be the last. But there will be another chance. They are being given time to re-group and come up with a business plan to prove that this bailout will work.

Question: Do you think they'll fly commercial when they come back to Washington for their second bite at the apple?

Here's the plan: break the UAW contracts. These unions are crippling your business and you know it. You know that you are adding thousands of dollars to the cost of your cars because of outlandish union contracts. If you really want to prove to the American people ... after all, it is our money you are asking for ... that you mean business, do what you need to do to emasculate the unions. Stop allowing them to dictate your business model. If you can't even manage to do that, then there is no reason for any American, much less Congress, to believe that you are serious about restructuring your businesses.

Congress plans to reconvene in December to tackle the issue again. There are a few things that could happen. Congressional Democrats could be relying on the American people to lose interest. By December, you will be focused on Christmas and stuffed from Thanksgiving. At that point, will you still be as adamant about this auto bailout as you are now? I sure as hell hope so. Because unless these auto execs return to Washington (on freaking commercials airlines) and say that unions will no longer be dictating their business models, then let them fail.