Major restructuring is coming for GM and Chrysler as both automakers continue to ask the government for more money to survive. In this case, "restructuring" is a euphemism for saying that we the taxpayers will foot the bill for their bailouts. The final total cost is unknown, but rest assured that we will be "partners" with them in an effort to save auto production in America.

Clark was opposed to the initial round of auto bailouts, and he's also opposed to the latest GM and Chrysler request for bailout money.

The whole question of what qualifies as a domestic automaker is misleading; Both GM and Chrysler import some cars built abroad and slap their nameplates on them. Likewise, foreign automakers have domestic assembly plants and employ American workers. Nissan makes cars in Tennessee; Mercedes makes them in Alabama; BMW in South Carolina; and Honda in Ohio, to name just a few examples.

In capitalism, the most efficient provider should survive, but these government subsidizes actually allow the inefficient to survive. That's exactly why a bailout subverts the intent of capitalism.

It may seem like we're helping to save American institutions. But what kind of example does it set for the rest of the world, when other countries are considering their own bailouts? The French are bailing out just about every industry known to man. Before you know it, they'll be bailing out pastry chefs!

And then there's the "what about me" syndrome. Clark is always hearing from small business owners asking, "Where's my bailout?" That's the hazard you create in capitalism when you pick winners and losers based on the strength of their lobby in Washington, as we're doing with the automakers. It creates a kind of "bailout envy" with a severe ripple effect.