The same poll found that nearly half of Americans believe GM will need another bailout, 61% believe Congress should drop healthcare reform, and 66% believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. It doesn’t look like American’s are fond of the Obama agenda.

Since Scott Brown’s win in the Massachusetts Senate race, some Democrats have seemed more willing to compromise. They recognize that with their 41st vote, Republicans will need to have some say in legislation. Of course, that might not stop them from attempting to bribe two Republicans into voting for a watered-down bill. I don’t think it’s likely they could get two Republicans to travel to the dark side, but you never know.

At any rate, attempts to continue to push Barack Obama’s plan will end up hurting the Democrats in November. Barack Obama’s thirst for a larger, more intrusive government will decimate the ranks of Democrats in November and render them ineffective in the second half of the President’s term. They will blame Republicans for not getting anything done, but in the end, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

Ford’s recent innovations seem to be far ahead of both Chrysler and GM. Is it merely a coincidence that the most innovative American car company is also the only one that is profitable and wasn’t bailed out by the federal government? Perhaps GM and Chrysler should take notes.

Barack Obama and other socialist-leaning politicians thought the bailout was a great idea, and they still do. The best thing that could have happened would have been to let Chrysler file for bankruptcy, cancel all of their contracts, then reorganize without government assistance. More jobs would have been lost, unions would have been angry, and the companies would have been decimated, but I find that preferrable to the precedent that was set.

On the other hand, their loss would have been someone elses gain. Their assets could have been purchased by other companies, many of those employees would have been put back to work, and it would have been a great opportunity for smaller, independent car companies to expand. In the long run, it would have been a perfect market solution, and it would have rewarded the companies that made the best decisions.

Think about this: The government owns a substantial portion of the auto industry, they tell them what types of cars to make, and control who is in charge. This was all done under the guise of preserving “America’s auto industry,” but did it? Won’t Fiat, a foreign car company which purchased part of Chrysler, own a controlling share in the company? Chrysler will be as American as Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen, and Suzuki.

This leads to the problem of the government picking winners and losers. While GM and Chrysler are being propped up by the federal government at tax payer expense, we have Ford who is steadily improving their bottom-line and their fleet. What do they get for their trouble? They get the opportnity to compete against the federal government. Congratulations!

We were told the auto bailout was a necessity, but that’s far from the truth. The void left by Chrysler and General Motors would have been filled by other enterprising companies. As an American consumer and tax payer, I don’t think I could bring myself to buy a car produced by General Motors or Chrysler. If you feel the same about the bailout, I would encourage you to do the same. I hear Ford has some great new vehicles.