Companies come and go, life goes on

At one time Lake Mills had three local dairies delivering milk retail, two milk processing plants, a shoe factory and a canning factory.

They are all gone, but we do not suffer a lack of milk to drink or a choice of other dairy products to eat, shoes to wear nor canned peas to eat.

General Motors may likewise become history -- deservedly so -- but there will be no lack of cars to drive, nor trucks to transport.

-- Karl Andersen, Lake Mills

Give them bailout -- but with conditions

The Big Three automakers want a bailout. Their emergency request provides a tremendous opportunity. Aid should be given if they meet these conditions:

Fire senior executives and discharge their boards of directors, replacing them with public trustees.

The U.S. government should get equity (stock ownership).

Change their complete product line to produce only fuel-efficient automobiles that are compatible with safety and health.

If these conditions are not met, no public funds should be provided to rescue these dinosaurs. Taxpayers need a piece of the action if they are asked for bailouts. If the public is asked to invest, it can only be for the public good.

-- Bob Menamin, Verona

Let overpaid CEOs and employees sink

Automakers should not be bailed out. Their CEOs and some employees have been overpaid for years. Let them sink.

Too many people have been living too high on the hog for too many years. We have a Freddie Mac loan and we won't get out of making our payments. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should not be bailed out, either.

-- Marge Sutter, Mount Horeb

GM needs help to continue uphill battle

I was employed by GM for 34 years. During that time, little attention was given to fuel economy, just as our Congress and presidents gave no attention to the developing oil crisis.

The auto industry's excuse was that they were building what the public wanted to buy. What excuse has our government given for ignoring the developing problem?

Since the mid-1980s, GM -- in partnership with the United Auto Workers -- has made many changes to make them more competitive. Plants were closed, pay ranges were changed. The latest is that my health coverage as a salary retiree ends at the end of the year.

GM was coming back, sales were up worldwide and operating costs were falling until the implosion of the mortgage industry. And who caused that? Our do-nothing Congress led by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, plus President George W. Bush, who did nothing!

Financial assistance should be given to the auto industry. Millions of people will be affected if nothing is done. One condition should be that no executive bonuses are given until the industry is profitable again and the loans repaid.

Our American auto industry played an important part in winning two World Wars and the creation of a successful middle class. They cannot be allowed to fail.

-- Robert Linn, Lyndon Station

Expect international ramifications, too

Our government has already helped the Big Three multinational automobile manufacturers by giving them billions to "retool" their plants. Now they want billions more because they're experiencing double-digit sales losses and they claim they'll go bankrupt.

What do average American workers do if times are hard and they can't make ends meet? We cut our budgets, sell things, work two jobs, cancel trips and forgo expensive dinners. Those who don't have medical insurance cut their pills in half or take them every other day.

Maybe it's time for these international manufactures to do the same thing American taxpayers do.

The Big Three have automotive plants in France, Germany, Mexico, India and other countries. Foreign workers have a stake in this worldwide recession, too, but who will come up with the rescue funds?

Maybe Congress should force these multinational automobile corporations to sell off and downsize as part of any bailout package. There are countries and corporations ready and willing to buy some of their overseas assets. And it would bring jobs back to America.

-- Bill Wenzel Sr., Prairie du Sac

Government wants control of industry

It's interesting to watch the politicians strutting around talking about the auto industry.

Those in support of a bailout say they must help but with strings attached to see that this crisis doesn't happen again. What they really want to do is control the industry, mandating what type of cars to build, what types of fuel, wages and so forth.

I have a suggestion for a couple of new model names. How about the "Freddie Mac" or the "Fannie Mae?"

-- Dave Norby, DeForest

Now is not the time for auto 'tough love'

It is easy to say from afar that a company like GM should not be bailed out, to think that GM doesn't matter all that much.

A good look at the issue reveals a completely different picture, however: thousands of unemployed dealers and parts manufacturers, service stations with thousands invested in repair tools and parts, jobs lost in places that don't pump oil -- not to mention the serious blow to economic confidence.

In different economic times, perhaps, it would not be unreasonable to offer Detroit some "tough love," but not here, and not now. There is far too much at stake.

For people who think that the market has bottomed, that we have avoided a second Great Depression, listen up. If GM, Ford or Chrysler are allowed to fail, as the saying goes, "we ain't seen nothin' yet."

We need to bail them out this time. General Motors isn't too big to be allowed to fail. But this is the wrong time to let that happen.

-- Jay Jaeger, Madison

Don't reward their poor management

Doesn't it seem strange that GM is begging for millions of dollars to correct that which they failed to follow through on after the last oil crisis?

It's a vast economic machine that does not have a social conscience, as evidenced by the introduction years back of the Hummer as well as other gas guzzlers.

Look at successful auto manufacturers and see that they are not making costly, radical changes every year, but are focused on the products that sell well. How can our automakers watch Honda, Toyota and Nissan focus on efficiency and quality and be surprised? Now India is jumping in, as well as Korea.

Stupidity and poor business judgment should not cost the taxpayers more money then it already has. Shame on them, and shame on us if give them more money.

-- Richard Harper, Middleton

Granting funds leads to more requests

The Big Three U.S. automakers want us to bail them out rather than go through bankruptcy and reorganization. They have failed for a number of reasons, and greed has played no small role.

Their profits have been in the gas-guzzling monsters, not in the fuel-efficient, environmentally sound, smaller cars. They pay wages and benefits that are exorbitant compared to the world marketplace, even when compared to Americans working in foreign-owned auto plants in the United States.

Their failures may end up reducing their numbers and affecting millions of other jobs dependent on providing parts and services to the companies and employees.

But I don't think the taxpayers can afford to allow our government to give them money that only gives them temporary relief. This will lead to further requests for billions more, as we see the financial institutions starting to do already.

If we are about to have a true recession, we might as well have a real one rather than wading in shallow waters in this so-called economic downturn.

-- Ernie Pellegrino, Middleton

Good time to force new technology

Don't bail out the auto industry's Big Three. It's time for the century-old technology of the internal combustion engine to be relegated to the past.

It's time to break up GM just like AT&T (Ma Bell) was broken up. GM is a near monopoly, heavily subsidized by government dollars already, that forces American consumers to buy old technology they no longer want that contributes to global warming. In the 1930s, GM insured its own future by buying up urban trolly lines and destroying them.

Put the union workers on new assembly lines making wind turbines, solar panels, geothermal heat systems, small electric cars, hybrid diesel electric buses and new electric trains.

-- Thomas Berg, Madison

Would tax rebates encourage buying?

If we've learned anything from Obama's election, it's that Americans will definitely vote the green of their pocketbooks over almost any other issue.

With this in mind, I suggest that just as we receive government credits and incentives when purchasing energy-saving appliances for our homes, we also receive tax rebates when we purchase high-priced, American-made items such as our Detroit-built automobiles.

This just might be enough incentive to get the money flowing again. Perhaps we could then forget loans and bailouts for our corporate giants. Our motto should be: "Buy American, for Americans."

-- Abdiel Galindo, Madison

Companies come and go -- yet life goes on

At one time Lake Mills had three local dairies delivering milk retail, two milk processing plants, a shoe factory and a canning factory.

They are all gone, but we do not suffer a lack of milk to drink or a choice of other dairy products to eat, shoes to wear nor canned peas to eat.

General Motors may likewise become history -- deservedly so -- but there will be no lack of cars to drive, nor trucks to transport.

-- Karl Andersen, Lake Mills

Bail them out, but after bankruptcy

Should there be a bailout? Yes, after bankruptcy.

The U.S. economy has three problem areas -- jobs, housing and confidence. The U.S. auto industry has four problems -- unions, management, the economy and potentially unreachable environmental standards (can the Japanese automakers meet the new CAFE standards?).

Bankruptcy can solve three of those -- unions, management and arbitrary CAFE standards. Bailing out the industry after its re-structuring in bankruptcy is the only way to create viable U.S. automakers. It will also help our overall problems of jobs, housing, confidence and the economy, and at the same time impose some compromise on environmentalists who see many scientific successes "before their time" (such as stem cell research and renewable energy technologies).

Like the nation's other complex problems, sequence is important. Bailing out the automakers before bankruptcy doesn't eliminate the problems that got them there.

-- Brad Taylor, Madison

Abandon short-term profit mentality

Uninformed writers demonize the Big Three as reckless and arrogant and say that they should suffer. In truth they have been cutting and slashing costs for years while relying mostly on profits from trucks and gas-guzzling SUVs.

The problem is a short-term profit mentality. I remember the message of Dr. W. Edwards Deming decades ago who preached that unless organizations invested in innovation of product and service, they would not have a future.

If our government had any vision, they would have long ago promoted the innovations that the Big Three's competitors have worked on to secure a market for cars and trucks that people now want and need.

And where do the Big Three cut expenses when cash is in short supply? You guessed it -- research and development.

The Big Three need access to cash loans now to maintain their operations or we will all suffer. Maybe the government should allow them to tap over-funded pension programs and send them money specifically designated to rapidly develop the products we now need to keep our U.S. auto companies going.

And don't make bankruptcy a pre-condition for government help. Only lawyers benefit from bankruptcy.

-- Jim Gearhart, Mauston

Earmark funds for retooling and R&D

I don't think an un-targeted bailout of U.S. automakers would solve the problems of the industry. The real issues are about wasteful investments in models that are not affordable to the consumers at this time, including large SUVs and luxury models.

The U.S. automakers should be in direct competition with foreign models for compactness and fuel efficiency. Rather than continuing to produce models which consume more fossil fuels, switch to affordable hybrids.

I suggest targeting any taxpayer assistance to efficient re-tooling and research and development.

-- Harry Bohms, Belleville

Bailout one option, but who supports it?

In 1979 Chrysler asked for a handout, but we turned it down. Instead the government loaned them the money. Their then-new CEO -- Lee Iacocca -- paid it back sooner than expected, so this is still an option.

But all Chrysler stakeholders -- including unions, shareholders, banks and dealers -- were willing to sacrifice for the survival of the company. Right now it's the UAW pushing for a bailout.

Before I'm accused of being a union-bashing Republican, let me set the record straight. I've always owned vehicles made by the United Auto Workers, including my Harley-Davidson. (I wonder how many liberal elites can make that claim.)

Letting them go bankrupt and then reorganize is another option. K-Mart did this and it worked.

-- Norman Sannes, Madison

Don't 'stick it' to the military and others

Sticking it to a few corporate bigwigs might feel good for a few days.

After that we'll be sticking it to hundreds of thousands of people who will lose their jobs, followed by people at thousands of dealerships and millions of others in related industries -- parts suppliers, steel, rubber, etc.

Other repercussions will include hundreds of billions of dollars in lost tax revenue, unemployment benefits and pension-related losses.

And how about the military? What happens when the Army wants more trucks, cargo carriers, Humvees and fighting vehicles? Where do we get the vehicles from, Mexico or Sweden?

Richard Shelby, the senior Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, said companies fail every day and others take their place, as if the auto industry is no different than Applebee's or Hardware Hank. Anyone who thinks this better take a second look.

Two years from now when Shelby can't get parts to fix his car, he'll be able to make a few calls and make it happen. Will you be able to do the same? And then, when the military needs some vehicles or parts, Shelby won't be available. He'll be hiding.

-- Larry W. Phillips, Monroe

Buy American' gone, like patriotism

I believe that Ford, General Motors and Chrysler may fall, along with other American-based entities, as patriotism disappears by way of the socialistic efforts of a majority Democratic agenda.

The majority of products purchased in America today are produced overseas because America cannot compete with the lower cost and prices due to our fair labor policies. While I try to buy American-made products, I understand the buying practices of individuals who are not wary of the close relationship socialism has with Communism.

It is obvious that the majority can have their way regardless of consequences. I was 9 years old in 1936 when we tried to escape the Depression by moving to Wisconsin.

Learning to always secure goals that will take care of me without hurting America, or others, was my agenda from 1936 to 1988 when I retired.

What happens from here cannot affect me, or my family, because we are totally American and carry the philosophy, "One for all and all for one."

-- James Oliver Campbell, Sun Prairie