by Terry O'Neal-Cox MD

Created on: April 05, 2009

I can see why this is even a debatable question; there are no qualifications. If we choose not to understand, or have no knowledge of, why the question even exists leaves the door open for a lot of opinions and answers. First, the government is not running the affairs of ALL automakers. Second, I have little faith in government run institutions but the automakers opened the door for the government and, by repetitive actions, insisted the government "come on in".

The government did not egregiously venture into the affairs of a successful private company. The government was invited in, and asked to spend the taxpayers' money. The taxpayer pays GM for its product, and pays taxes to the government for the product. In order for the taxpayer to share in GM's profits, he/she must buy GM's stock. But when GM mismanages its business, it applies for taxpayer dollars. This looks like triple dipping, and they have done it in the past. They have now triple dipped sufficiently to open the eyes of, both the government and the public. Too often in the past, and still in the present, our government has been giving away our money. Like the venture capitalists, if the government is going to provide so much operational cash they should have a say in how the business is run. There is public agreement that if the leader of a business is compensated for the success of the business, he/she should equally accept the consequences of failure. If the board members acted responsibly and terminated the GM CEO, there would have been no need for government intervention. Even Jack Welch agrees that this was a necessary evil.
The government should also terminate the Banking CEO's who over saw the failure of their institutions, and required government intervention for continued sustenance; the ones who, instead, are getting "stay put" bonuses. I am not sure where they would go if they were "not staying put". The public's outcry against bonuses in the time of failure has been equal for dismissal in the case of poor leadership. Mr. Wagner has a lot of company. I believe that they, and others who fear scrutiny, are the proponents of the slippery slope argument concluding that the government's actions are applicable to all businesses, good and bad. This is a fallacy.
Should the failing automakers, as private companies, depend on the government for unconditional monetary support? This should be the question. Another question is should the automakers, or any business for that matter, dig a hole of failure then dictate how they should be lifted out? Finally, should the government spend our money on FAILING private companies, over and over, or at all, when the business is contracting rather than expanding, or just business nature take its course? If we remove the word "running" and replace it with the word"in" from the question being debated, we get "should the government be in the affairs of the automakers"?
What is the alternative?

Learn more about this author, Terry O'Neal-Cox MD.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.