Rewarding incompetence.

Talk about rewarding incompetence: Today General Motors ask for an additionally $16 billion on top of the $30 billion it received in December. Paul Ingrassia notes that this amount “doesn’t count the $8 billion it wants to develop fuel-efficient cars, and another $6 billion it’s soliciting from foreign governments.” All the while their “foreign” competitors — a misnomer considering the number of Toyota and Nissan factories in America filled with American workers — need not one dollar of bailout money. Rewarding the unprofitable practices of our Detroit automakers won’t solve a problem, whereas bankruptcy would.

That’s on top of this ridiculous expense that would drive any business into the red:

That was a couple years before Detroit agreed to let auto workers retire with full pension and benefits after 30 years on the job, regardless of their age. In practice, that meant a worker could start at age 18, retire at 48, and spend more years collecting a pension and free health care than he or she actually spent working.

Wouldn’t every American love such a golden deal?

The trend to reward incompetence gets worse. Our latest stool-leg of the Obama-proposed economic recovery package includes $400 billion to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, arguably the two institutions most responsible for starting the credit crisis and the first domino to fall.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg folks. It’s going to get worse. Much worse.

[George Will] Rep. Henry Waxman, the California Democrat, practiced law for three years, then entered elective office at 29 and has never left, so when he speaks about a world larger than a legislature, and about entities more enmeshed in life’s grinding imperatives, he says strange things. Objecting to General Motors, Ford and Chrysler opposing more severe fuel-economy and emissions standards, he says: “They have not yet stopped being controlled by their own self-interest.”

There is something piquant about a congressman summoning others up from self-interestedness, and it is mysterious whose interests, other than those of their shareholders, corporations are supposed to be controlled by. And although Waxman seems to concede that more stringent standards would injure the companies’ interests, he supports those standards, as he supported giving billions of taxpayers’ dollars to preserve the companies. He surely will support the next installment of auto subsidies, which, like the previous installment, will not be the last installment. In last year’s second quarter, GM lost $118,000 a minute, and the next plan for its salvation until the next crisis will require more government money to prevent bankruptcy, which would require more government money.

Talk about trillions of dollars has become so commonplace that billions seem minuscule — even though a billion minutes ago Plutarch (46-120 A.D.) was alive — and it is hardly worth mentioning mere millions, such as the $50 million for stimulus through the National Endowment for the Arts. But those millions elated Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Arts Caucus: “If we’re trying to stimulate the economy and get money into the Treasury, nothing does that better than art.” Nothing? Is Slaughter correct about what we’re trying to do? Is the point of the government’s stimulus spending to get more money into the government — “into the Treasury”? She is not the first politician to desire prosperity for the people so that they could be more bountiful taxpayers.

“Never,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said when voting against the stimulus, “have so few spent so much so quickly to do so little.” Three of his contentions are correct. The $787 billion price tag is probably at least two-thirds too low: Add the cost of borrowing to finance it, and allow for the certainty that many “temporary” programs will become permanent, and the price soars far above $2 trillion.

But Cole’s last contention is wrong. The stimulus, which the Congressional Budget Office says will, over the next 10 years, reduce GDP by crowding out private investment, already is doing a lot by fostering cynicism in the service of opportunism.