Let 'em dangle

Businesses come and go. Some thrive. Others die. It's the nature of capitalism. Those that make goods or provide services that people want, while maintaining sound business practices, will thrive. Those that don't, well, they fail. The Big Three automakers are on the brink of failure, and I'm tempted to say we should let them do so, rather than give them billions to stay afloat. The only thing that gives me pause is the number of good jobs that will be lost, but the United Auto Workers union has to bear some responsibility for the current mess, and if GM, Ford and Chrysler were to be relegated to the dustbin of history, somebody else will make cars in the United States, and will need the skilled labor to do so. The UAW negotiated itself a jobs bank program in which, at last count, about 3,500 workers for the Big Three automakers were being paid up to 95 percent of their salaries for NOT working. At the same time, the bigwigs of the auto companies have been pulling down millions in salaries while running their businesses into the ground. Last week, Fritz Henderson, president and chief operating officer of GM, said bankruptcy reorganization was not a viable option for his company, because GM would lose consumer confidence, "and we want (consumers) to be confident in their ability to buy our cars and trucks." Number one, why shouldn't we just allow consumers to have confidence in buying Toyotas, Hondas and BMWs? They make good cars and trucks, many of them right here in the United States. Number two, many companies have gone into bankruptcy reorganization and emerged to become successful again. That suggests that consumers didn't abandon them just because they needed to get their houses in order. If the hardware store down the street from you goes under, nobody's going to come running from the government to cut them a check. Why should GM, Ford and Chrysler be any different?