therelevantrhino

Magic underwear and failed Presidential bid aside, Mitt Romney represents the crux of the argument against the tragic oxymoron knows as “conservative thought”. Where a rational person might argue that instead of focusing on how to make cars more efficient or more green, Mittens argues that the problem is not in the design, it’s in all those damn retiree benefits.

Of course, why would anyone want to have a guarantee that after a lifetime slaving for a giant company in which the execs get massive payouts for laying off 20,000 workers want some kind of safety net? Who needs benefits when you can just go back to college at 56 years old? I’m sure Wal-Mart is hiring greeters…

His second argument- people inside the auto industry have no idea how to run the auto industry- on the surface nearly makes sense.  His idea to replace management with PR wonks and marketing gurus, however, does not. It calls for positive spin as opposed to real world solutions. “The problem is not with the auto industry, but with the face of the auto industry” is the same type topic change that refuses to address the meat of the issue: American auto manufacturers can’t compete in a market that demands energy-efficient and greener vehicles.

Unions, of course, are another one of Mittens’ problems. I’m sure everything would be much, much simpler if we did away with the 40 hour work week, fair pay, and health benefits, but the average union auto worker making $27 an hour is still struggling to make ends meet. I know multi-millionaires can’t wrap their heads around this concept, but it’s true.

Allowing the auto industry to go bankrupt is a perfectly reasonable argument if you’re concerned with a bottom line. But I would invite the proponents of  bankrupting the Big Three to visit with the millions of employees that would lose their pensions, benefits, and livelihoods to personally tell them that they are merely statistics and not people.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS