Photo by Steve Wampler

House and Senate Democrats are moving forward with a plan to bail out Detroit’s failing automakers. In a letter to General Motors’ Rick Wagoner, Ford's Alan Mulally and Chrysler's Robert Nardelli, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), have called on the companies to provide a restructuring plan and give an assessment of their companies' finances, including the amount of money they need to return to long-term viability. Hanging in the balance is a $25 billion lifeline from the federal government.

The debate currently centers on how much money the federal government should provide Detroit and how many strings should be attached. But the debate Democrats should be having is more fundamental: is the bailout a good idea at all? While Pelosi and Reid’s goals are laudable – saving companies and jobs – a taxpayer-funded bailout of the auto industry is not in the party’s best interests.

Why?

1. Rescuing companies is not why the people elected Barack Obama. Among President-elect Barack Obama’s stated goals are providing educational opportunities for Americans with disabilities, investing in early childhood education, spending $150 billion to create green jobs, making health insurance affordable and accessible, providing job training, and investing in urban and rural infrastructure and defeating terrorism, among others. On top of all that, he's promised to restore fiscal discipline to Washington. I know $25 billion might not seem like much (I can’t believe I just wrote that) but if the financial industry’s $700 billion bailout is any indication, this $25 billion is just the start. A president only has so much money and political capital. Which of Obama’s seemingly worthwhile programs should take a backseat to funding poorly-run companies?

2. Bailing out another industry sets a thorny precedent for Democrats. If the government bails out banks and automakers, other industries will ask for cash too. The airlines will probably be first in line. Factories, builders and retailers are suffering as well. Which companies and industries should Congress say no to? Will the companies that haven't purchased enough political cover be denied? Will Democrats only reward organizations with union workers or those located in strategically important districts? You would like to think they would be fair, but look at the can of worms that would be opened. It will be very easy to accuse Congressional Democrats of playing favorites in the next mid-term elections. Even if Democrats do not commit any improprieties, appearances of impropriety will be plentiful.

3. A federal bailout does not solve the American auto industry’s fundamental problem: that it is not profitable. Giving the Big Three more money will not change the fact that its cars are not being purchased by consumers. American auto companies currently run on a business model in which its employees are paid more than competitors and its retired workers are rewarded handsomely for doing nothing that contributes to the company’s competitive advantage. Giving money to automakers without renegotiating union contracts so they are on level with competitors -- which would lower the price of American-made cars -- pretty much makes the Big Three a government jobs program. Ironically, this jobs program would be funded by the same taxpayers who refuse to buy the products created by the workers they are paying.

The knee-jerk Democratic – and in many cases, Republican – answer to any pressing issue is to “do something,” provided the government does the doing. The public, in this case, has spoken and has said, “Not so fast": almost half of the adults polled by USA TODAY/Gallup said that providing loans and other help to automakers is “not very important.” Perhaps they realize what George Will recently pointed out: that redistributing wealth from the successful to the failed is an implausible formula for prosperity.

Or maybe they are just tired of jet-set guys in suits asking them for money.

-- Joe Donatelli