CNN iReport

This past week the United States' "Big Three" automakers went to Washington to beg & plead for $25 Billion to bail them out of "financial crisis" and/or prevent them from going bankrupt. Meanwhile, here in Indiana, my husband hits a patch of black ice while traveling at a speed of less than 30 m.p.h. in his 2008 Ford Ranger that results in a roll over accident, which renders the vehicle a total loss. Amazingly, the truck body crumples like aluminum foil, tie rods snap like toothpicks, and the passenger compartment comes close to collapse. Fortunately, because he is wearing his seat belt, his injuries are minor and he escapes with a few bruises & abrasions. Upon witnessing the damage to the vehicle, no one can believe he wasn't travelling faster. I can't believe the piece of junk cost us nearly $27,000.

Which brings me back to the automakers. For years, these companies have been charging more & more money for vehicles that are made with materials that undoubtedly would have been considered inferior in Henry Ford's day-or even Lee Iacocca's-all the while claiming that the changes are intended to improve fuel efficiency and create more environmentally friendly automobiles. My take, however, is that rising costs are more the result of greed than they are due to good intention.

Disagree? Consider this...

The "Big Three" automakers offer their employees compensation & benefit packages that make most American's annual salaries & retirement plans seem like peanuts in comparison. They pay line workers $30 plus an hour ($62,400/year based on a 40 hour work week) to periodically push a button or screw in a couple of rivets, and Ford President & CEO Alan Mulally rakes in more than $40 Million a year. As if that isn't enough, Mulally got a signing bonus of (get this) $7,500,000 to $11,000,000 as an offset for forfeited performance & stock option awards at his former employer.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fair pay. Given, however, that the Federal minimum wage is $6.55 per hour (or $13, 624/year based on a 40 hour work week) and, according to the U.S. Census bureau, the average annual income hovers around $48,000, the salaries the automakers are paying hardly seem fair. What's more, it hardly seems fair that these companies are covering the cost of paying employees by increasing vehicle pricing for consumers-especially when products they are producing can't even withstand the impact of a low speed crash.

When all of these factors are considered, do the "Big Three" really warrant a $25 Billion bail out? I think not. In fact, I can't help but thinking that the "financial crisis" they are facing could have been avoided by a more judicious allocation of funds. Additionally, I can't help but wonder why these companies haven't looked to themselves for salvation. Had these giants adopted different policies like reigning in executive salaries, or employee ownership as opposed to cutting corners and being at the mercy of the United Auto Workers Union, they might not be in the mess they are today.

Perhaps I wouldn't feel so adamant if my husband's 2008 Ranger had sustained only minor damage instead of crumpling like a soda can as a result of his accident. If that had been the case, it's more likely I would have felt that the vehicle was worth the $27,000 we paid for it and that the people working for Ford deserve the wages they're earning because they'd turned out a quality product. That was not the case, however, so in my mind, the "Big Three" need to go back to the drawing board and devise their own plan for fixing the current "financial crisis" instead of getting in line for a bail out by the U.S. Government.

This is especially true given that we're now experiencing our own financial crisis because we must pay the insurance deductible on one vehicle that is a total loss while also trying to come up with the money for a down payment on a new one. Gee, I wonder if that qualifies us for our own bail out from the Government? To bad I already know the answer is a resounding "No it doesn't!"