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.

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?

Since Friday of last week, workers at a Chicago window and door maker factory have refused to leave. Last week, Bank of America canceled financing for Republic Windows and Doors and the workers were given three days' notice. So they decided to stay in order to ensure that they would receive their severance and accrued vacation pay.

Yesterday, Bank of American finally came through and extended credit to the Chicago factory. "A limited amount of additional loans" has been given so that the company can resolve the claims of the employees.

Now, in this case I am on the side of the workers. They earned this money, this severance, this vacation pay. The taxpayers of this country sent mucho dinero to Bank of America just so that they would continue making loans like this ... loans to businesses so that they could fulfill their commitments. What was BOA going to use this money for? Executive bonuses? This time, unless you give me a good reason not to, I'm saying the unions got one right.

Yesterday the taxpayer ensured the fate of Citigroup to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. Citigroup will live to see another day. And maybe another bailout ... who knows. Now get this: despite the fact that it is now on the taxpayer hook, and recently fired 53,000 employees, Citigroup says it plans to maintain its $400 million contract with the New York Mets. They will pay the Mets $400 million so they can call their new stadium "Citi Field."

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.