Go complain to Morrie, Mitch

Mitch Albom, author and columnist for the Detroit Free Press, goes completely off the rails in this article, accusing Congress of, among many other dastardly things, having "blood on their hands" for not bailing out the American automakers.

Of course, there isn't one word in his entire rant about how the United Auto Workers's stubborn refusal to modify any aspect of their contracts with the automakers until 2011 was the sticking point that convinced a couple of the more rational members of the Senate to finally take a stand, ending yet another run on our money, this time by an industry that has been hamstrung for decades by the unions.

One famous example of UAW malfeasance: the "job bank". This is the ludicrous policy in which carmakers continue to pay the salaries of thousands of laid-off workers (12,000 in 2005, according to this Detroit News story about the program). These workers then report to an office to watch TV, do sudoku puzzles, or whatever else fills up their lazy "workday". Some take advantage of the time to improve themselves or do charity work. Most don't. What other industry has to suffer through such massive union-mandated waste, fraud and abuse?

I suppose the UAW has its members convinced that no job at all is better than a job with a cut in pay and benefits, something that millions of other workers are experiencing at this very moment.

Ford has already stated that they have enough cash to operate. I don't see the point of bailing out a company that isn't about to shut its doors.

Chrysler is 80% owned by Cerberus, a private firm with tens of billions in other assets, yet according to Forbes magazine columnist Dan Gerstein they have refused to put any of that moolah (save for one $2 billion loan) into propping up Chrysler, which makes up only 7% of their total holdings. (Please read that article, it's a fantastic piece of journalism.) Cerberus has also refused to release any financial information about their overall corporate health, declining to prove that its situation is dire (because it isn't). Why, then, should the taxpayer be forced at gunpoint to hand over money to a wealthy (and secretive) firm that isn't willing to put any of its own capital into fixing Chrysler's problems, nor is willing to open its books for public scrutiny in order to show an actual need? I agree with Gerstein, who writes in his stellar article,

"I am not a finance expert, but what makes this episode so outrageous is that even a casual observer can see what a taxpayer ripoff Cerberus appears to be getting away with"

As for GM, the best play for them is bankruptcy, where they would be able convince a judge to modify the lead weights of those union contracts into something that makes sense in today's world, not the long-gone dreamy 60's, when there was basically no foreign competition for the automakers, and the manufacturers could well afford to take care of every little want and perceived need of its workers in a style reminiscent of Soviet Russia.

In his screed, Albom writes:

"And why? So you could stand on some phony principle?"

Capitalism isn't a "phony principle", it's a core belief on which this country was founded; the idea that the government isn't your parents or some sort of guaranteed safety net, that with risk comes reward, but there still is that risk, and that hard work and education (along with a little luck, to be sure) will make one successful, not sitting around playing Trivial Pursuit on some company's dime while waiting for Big Daddy to call you back to work.

Is that reasoning clear enough for you, Mitch?