Carmaker deal is too costly to taxpayers

When I was younger, someone circulated a list of jokes. It was called "Great Lies". One read" Hi! I'm from the government and I'm here to help you".

It's no longer a joke and the financial industry is regretting it every day. Now the auto dealers are suffering the result of government intervention.

I don't quite understand the logic between the recent actions. Between them Chrysler and General Motors are de-franchising 1,800 car dealers. These people are the small business people who generate jobs. These are the people who provide service and parts in the local area.

These are the people who invest their time and money in providing a needed service on the local level. These are the people who support charities and local endeavors. These are the very people who have had no part of the debacle that the two manufacturers have generated for themselves.

The rationale in many newspaper reports say that, because there are too many dealers, customers are able to pay less for cars. Isn't that what competition brings about, better value for customers? If a dealer does not provide value in initial purchase or in parts or service, he goes out of business. Isn't that the American Way that we have celebrated?

The manufacturers, on the other hand, have misread the market, have produced cars that customers do not want and will not buy, and have bargained away their business to the United Auto Workers over the years. What is the justification for keeping them in business with taxpayer dollars?

Peter A. Loughlin

Buffalo Grove