To progress this picture a bit more, you consider that profits will not matter to this new organization because theoretically they can always worry about that at some other time if the company becomes viable. Producing cars that customers want will be so passé, it will be about moving them from the bigger, more profitable cars and trucks that are demanded to the smaller, more fuel efficient and less profitable cars that the Government wants us to have. Also, when it comes to making decisions between the profitability of the company and Union interests, we all know how that one will go. This model of operation will all but guarantee that profits will be a secondary consideration at best, thus the Government ends up with a white elephant that stays on life support in order to justify the Administration’s involvement of taxpayer money and to keep their hands on the levers of control. It will be the gift that keeps on giving for years to come because the concept of profitability has been discounted as greediness instead of an effective tool that focuses the company on efficient operations.

To put the final touches on this picture is to then ask will customers visit the remaining showrooms and buy these cars produced by bureaucrats. That remains to be seen, but if they refuse, it is of no consequence because as stated previously there will be no requirement for profits, plus they can always get more taxpayer money to prop it up if needed. It is estimated that there will be about 40k jobs left in America for GM after the restructuring which equates to well over $1 million per job if these numbers are accurate and do not increase. This sounds a bit expensive for something that garners only about 20% of our citizens’ approval, yet here we are as disgusted owners anyway. The question that keeps being asked is “how will the Government run General Motors?” The most likely answer is “into the ground,” but what difference will that make? The important thing is that the Government maintains control and provides a work program for their supportive Union members courtesy of the taxpayers.

A question worth pondering arises by considering the amount of pain that will be created to work this program back into solvency, what is the Government willing to do to accomplish it? What if they increase the withholding and the eligibility age and drive the benefits down only to find they still have an unsustainable solution remaining? A solution that has such miniscule benefits for the masses of baby boomers that will be drawing upon it that it will be politically suicidal. There will be a delicate balance between how much higher the withholding can increase versus how much the benefit to recipients can be driven down, and there will be definite limits to both choices which may not be enough to fully solve the issue going forward.

With any potential shortfall looming alongside what is surely to be a healthy dose of governmental incompetence and inefficiency, it leads me to an obvious target that may be plundered in order to augment the public system. That target being individual IRAs, 401ks, SEPs, or any other contribution-based accounts that individuals use to invest for their retirements. Since these accounts only exist because the Government provided for them in the tax code, would they possibly consider them to be an alternative to social security thus sweep them over into the public system and away from the individuals? Would they dare appropriate personal accounts to bolster a failed public system, perhaps by adding some type of credit in excess of the normal calculated social security benefit for these individuals even if it will be insufficient compensation for a lifetime of personal contributions? Another method that would accomplish the same thing is excluding people with personal retirement accounts from receiving social security benefits until their personal accounts have been exhausted using a prescribed withdrawal schedule, only then would they be eligible for social security benefits for their remaining years. The Government would essentially exclude, thus penalize, all the lifetime savers so benefits can be paid to the ones that did not provide for their futures. Does this sound familiar in our world today? You may be thinking to yourself “they would not do that,” or “they can’t do that.” My reply to both is a simple one word question. Really? I have seen many things recently they “could not do” and they did them regardless without hesitation or much resistance. Making an assumption that they have any integrity when it comes to their agenda at hand seems laughable based on recent events and their demonstrated arrogance. Whatever your mindset is concerning our Government’s integrity, it is a thought worth considering.

We have been carelessly deficit spending for decades, why do we believe we have the right to continue in the name of economic relief as if we have never suffered through corrections, depressions, or rough times before. It is a reality that has been with us from the start and will continue to be with us as time progresses, there will be plenty more economic calamities in our future that will have to be resolved too. The distress from our current turmoil is already being harshly bestowed upon us, and we will work through this one as well. Why would we want to further destroy ourselves in the future with reckless deficit spending that will unlikely alleviate any of the suffering currently being experienced and will certainly create a future crisis. The Government absolutely will not solve any of these problems we face; in fact they will only add more pain into the process if history is any guide. It really comes down to a choice of either withstanding the current impact and having a more prosperous future awaiting, or wanting the assumed easier road by a “perceived” Government rescue by plundering our future. It is reasonable to believe that we Americans know the right course of action even if it is extremely unpleasant, we surely must realize that future generations should not be obligated to pay for our irresponsibility.

The toleration of this deficit spending also has the effect of giving our Government the ability to put off tough decisions that must be made in governing our nation. There is no reason for them to make tough decisions regarding the numerous issues and programs being debated within an actually observed budget. Deficit spending in effect totally removes the money constraint therefore politically divisive issues can be easily avoided by widespread funding. Being an arbiter of competing interests and executing decisions for the benefit of the nation overall is a central role of our Government, and being able to throw money at any request by way of deficit spending basically absolves them from this responsibility. It is absolutely immoral for us to continue running deficits while expecting future generations to cover them, nobody in their right mind should think this is acceptable, yet the aggressive escalation of these deficits is now being proposed. It would prove much more responsible and constructive to buckle down and constrain spending to the tax revenue collected while forcing our elected officials to start making decisions within this limitation. This would take some extreme effort on their part to accomplish because it would be an odd concept for them to understand. Sadly, the mindless spending of our country into oblivion may be the only thing our Government does proficiently, and this compulsion will eventually overcome us if we refuse to change course.

During this time our Government has been feigning outrage with these events even though they are at the foundation of them occurring. It seems every time there is some fiasco, it somehow leads back to the Government either by faulty legislation, unenforced regulations, or just the old reliable covering up the facts while denying there was any knowledge of the problem. It is then followed with the show trials that never produce anything, the calls for new laws and regulations, the finger pointing, the endless committees, probes, commissions, and the promises that this will not stand in the future. These evasions are business as usual, but it would be nice to hear them accept some responsibility for their actions in the creation of these failures, but it serves them better to point elsewhere.

We the public have been outraged over reports of $165mm in bonuses being paid out to executives at AIG, and this is understandable, but the real issue should be why $170+ billion of taxpayer money was even injected into the firm and who is accountable for that money. The bonuses, as offensive as they are, amount to less than .10% of the money infused, should we instead be scrutinizing the other 99.90% and where it was likely squandered? There are hundreds of billions of dollars being haphazardly spent at every turn and the outrage is fixated on bonuses or offsite conferences, and the politicians are more than willing to jump on this bandwagon of outrage knowing it keeps the attention off of them for their bad judgment or lack of accountability. AIG is just one example, but any of the recent bailouts or scandals can be debated and the same thought applies. We should stop being consumed by the minuscule disbursements while overlooking the exceedingly massive amounts being spent on our behalf courtesy of the U.S. Government.

Our Government has absolutely no hesitation in spending any amount of our money they deem appropriate to supposedly rescue the economy. While we are squabbling about bonuses and pointing partisan fingers, they are burying us alive in debt, alienating investors, and expanding the size and scope of Government. These are the events of significance that we should be focusing our attention on with sharp interest. The busier we are chasing the trivial matters and ignoring the bigger picture, the easier it is for them to push through their desired agenda with little scrutiny. To borrow a reference from the game “Clue,” the real crime being committed is likely the Government in the capitol with a checkbook.

…”the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . If the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.” -James Garfield, July 1877

Such eloquent words from James Garfield a few years before he became the President of the United States, they are as prescient today as the day they were spoken; it certainly illustrates the point that we get the Government we deserve. In America, we seem to be missing the fact that our politicians are a mirror image of our collective society. A collective that is a mix of the politically active members of our society (informed or not) as well as ones that choose to remain indifferent. If the active members elect a reckless and immoral Government while the indifferent members remain uninvolved, they too are choosing this same Government through toleration. Simply stated, our Government and its policy are forged by a minority of active members operating within the span of tolerance of the inactive members, until that tolerance yields and they become engaged. Regardless of whether members of society choose to be involved or uninvolved, concerned or indifferent, it is a choice that each is making about the Government that will represent them, thus producing our warranted outcome as a whole.

This can be a painful admission to many citizens in our nation that feel the Government does not represent their values even though they are very informed and active on the political scene. Government can never be better than the collective average of all its citizens. The question to answer becomes what is this collective average of our values as Americans and how each individual’s values compare to it. If you are an individual that has a higher set of values than the collective average, you will likely meet constant frustration trying to understand or bring about change with little success. This will continue unless a faction of uninvolved, like-minded people can be urged into participating to bring about change. On the other hand, if you happen to fall within the collective average or below, you will likely think that everything is wonderful and right in America and nothing should change.

Considering this view that our Government is a mirror image of its people, and we contemplate such Government, then what can we deduce about the character of Americans collectively?