To bail or not to bail

That is the question. You know? I am really sick and tired of paying for rich people's mistakes. Any company Uncle Sam is looking to bail out is run by some rather rich people. Why are they rich? They gave themselves raises for making bad decisions, and now, oops, the worker bees who are filing bankrupty and foreclosing left and right are supposed to bail their butts out. Something stinks in Denmark.

Let's take the auto industry since that is currently 'up' for discussion in D.C. For years they don't listen when people say they want fuel efficiency. Nope, let's make more huge earth killing SUVs like the Hummer! They refuse to see the writing on the wall - and they have entire departments that exist to see the writing on those walls. Can those people, then can the ones who wouldn't listen to those people.

We currently see ads from the 'Big 3' touting that this vehicle (the size of a toothpick) gets a big whopping 25 mpg! Well color me purple. Let's see, we have an 8 year old Chevy Impala (Suzie Q). That's considered a mid-size car. While we took our road trip in September we clocked our gas mileage out of curiosity. We were going about 80 through NE, and in that car we got a little over 31. Why would I drive a toothpick that ONLY gets 25? Why does that toothpick only get 25 anyway? This makes no sense. The new toothpick cars are 8 years newer, definitely smaller and get LESS gas mileage. Hmmmmmmm. Who was the Einstein there? Not only that, but I'm sure Suzie Q's mileage would improve if I weren't going 80 - which I rarely do.

These big 3 ship the same cars we buy to Europe. International trade. Great. Cool. We're all for that. Here's the kicker. The cars shipped overseas get a MINIMUM of 40 mpg, because that is the min. requirement there. But they get 25 here? What is the deal with THAT? So when the big 3 whine to Congress about higher fuel efficiency standards: that they can't be met, it'd strain & bankrupt the company, blah, blah, blah. Don't believe their bull. They've bankrupted themselves. If they'd have sold the 40 mpg and better cars here - they would not be in the financial situation they are in now.

The problem is that the people who suffer from not bailing out are average people like me - just going to work & doing their jobs. How do you punish the upper management for making piss-poor decisions, and try to make sure that those under them don't suffer the consequences? This brings me to my next gripe.

Pay.

These top 'dogs' (Presidents, VPs, CEOs, CFOs & on & on & for Pete's sake, pick a title) make some large cash annually. That's an understatement. In fact their amounts are so large that I deem them obscene. Truly and REALLY obscene. I read of 1 man who was CFO for 8 weeks, the co. filed bankrupty and his 'golden parachute' was a $17 MILLION dollar settlement. This I really and truly do not understand. If a company if filing bankruptcy, they don't have money. More to the point, they are severely in debt. So why, why, why, why, are they paying a guy $17 million dollars that worked there for 8 weeks? If you know this answer, please educate me because this doesn't work in my world. For one, I really don't think 'golden parachute' clauses should be legal. And if you can't legally condemn the practice, then cap the darn thing at say $1 million & have it annually increase with inflation. Because I know A LOT of people who'd be OK with $1 million. If they can't be unemployed and be OK with $1 million in their pockets, they really need a refresher course in budgeting - which is probably the reason they're out the door on their rears anyway - but I digress.

Let's get back to the pay issue. It has become completely insane over the last 15-20 years. The financial gap between the upper management and the worker bees is so large that there aren't words to describe it. So this is my solution. Yes I have one - I'm not saying it'd work, or be perfect. But don't you think SOMETHING needs to start happening with it? It's a starting point, that's all. OK, here goes. I think that you take a company on an individual basis (no outside comparisons). Look at the lowest paid person on staff & what their hourly rate is. The top dog is only able to make a certain %age over that - like 8 times. Take out benefit packages. Let's say your lowest paid person gets $10/hr. The top dog can only make $80/hr. I'd say that the top dog really doesn't do 8 times the work - but leadership has its priviledges and impact. I think that's reasonable. I think that's rational. So I now wonder how much money the AIGs, Ford, GMs & Chryslers of the world would save if this was applied? Oh, and I forgot one more thing. No more insane stock options. You want stock? You buy it, just like everyone else buddy. That leads me to benefit packages.

I'm not going to harp on time off - I think this country is WAY behind the world in that department and that is a story for another day. But seriously, the stock plans these 'top dogs' have access to? Yes, they should be GONE. Cash in your stuff now & that's it. Like I said, you want stock, you buy it, just like every other Tom, Dick & Harry on 'main street'. Health insurance, it should be available to every employee. Full time or part time. But let's stay current with the trends of the country. There should be a co-pay. There should be a deductible. Let's be responsible here.

You wanna talk welfare? I can tell you, without a doubt, that these bail out packages are the biggest welfare programs this country has ever seen... and it is all going to rich people. Would you want to tell those homeless kids they can't eat or be warm tonight or all winter (it is a heatwave of -2 here, during the day) because we had to go bail out the 'big 3' whose CEOs and CFOs make enough money in a year to fund all shelters in the US for a few years? (And no, I don't care that they've agreed to work in 2009 for a dollar. Their benefit package is still more than enough to keep their current lifestyle secure - don't kid yourself.)

What about the bail out already passed? Well, it's being handled wrong - it's backwards. You want it to support the housing market? Give the $ to the people who are having difficulty with their mortgages, not to the banks. The struggling people would give it to the banks to keep their home. The home stays filled, less homeless people, property values aren't tanking entire neighborhoods. That is a solution. What we've got is crap. $750 billion dollar crap. What a crock.

At any rate - my vote on the bail out is a big NO. Auto, or anything else. No More. Businesses need to succeed or fail on their own. I know a lot of people who own their own companies. They'd be thrilled to have a check from Uncle Sam - but that's not how it works. And you know what? That's not how it's SUPPOSED to work either. Let them fail. Let new ones start & flourish & bring greater success than the current ones have ever seen.

A bail out is a band-aid. Not a fix.

Ebb & tide. Ride it out. Let it be.