My last auto mechanic, whose children I put through college, had a sign on his wall that read: "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

He'd point to it each time I rushed in and needed some maintenance work done yesterday.

I thought he was being a jerk -- which is why he's my ex-mechanic -- but I think the Federal Communications Commission should put up the same sign and point at it the next time those geniuses at Sirius and XM satellite radio systems request a merger to save money and offset their own bad business decisions.

Paying Howard Stern $500 million is one such bad decision.

When I saw in 2005 that Sirius was paying that shocking sum to shock jock Stern over five years, my first thought was, "Man, did I choose the wrong business."

My second thought was, "Man, I'm glad I have XM and not Sirius, because their rates are going up."

Now that the two companies are seeking a butt-saving merger, though, it appears XM subscribers may wind up pulling Sirius' antennae out of the fire, after all.

The contention of the two companies that a merger would result in lower rates for subscribers is laughable and seems to belie history as well as economic logic: Has there ever been an instance in which a lack of competition benefitted consumers?

Oh, sure, the cable television industry, but name another one. (That's using a literary device called facetiousness.)

We also see how great mergers have been for consumers of terrestrial radio where, because Clear Channel Communications owns 1,200 stations, listeners get to hear the same endlessly insipid, crappy programming and commercials over and over. (Again, facetiousness.)

To those who oppose government intervention in our lives -- unless, of course it's in our bedrooms -- I concede that the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee us life, liberty and the right to hear Otis Redding and the Beatles without commercial interruption.

But it should. That is precisely what XM and Sirius promised with relatively low monthly rates. The concept of paying for radio seems ludicrous -- unless you're one of us people who take music-listening seriously and would rather eat a plate of eight-day-old, unrefrigerated collard greens than hear Luther Vandross 20 times a day on your favorite soul station or Kenny G and Michael Bolton anytime anywhere.

I gladly hand over my $14 a month not only so I won't hear that, but also so I can hear Barry White, Inez & Charlie, Steely Dan, the Amazing Rhythm Aces, Richard Pryor and Frank Sinatra without commercial interruption.

While writing this, I am flipping through XM and those are the musical gems playing simultaneously on my six favorite stations.

I'm obviously not the only one who loves satellite radio. CNNMoney reported that both companies are experiencing strong revenue and subscriber growth, but both are losing money.

Don Curtis, president of Curtis Media, which owns, among other things, WPTF-AM in Raleigh, said, "Internet streaming radio will be far less expensive" than satellite radio and won't require all of the expensive equipment. "That'll be a far more practical solution."

Proponents of a merger contend that it would provide customers more options.

That is possible, but both systems already offer more than 100 channels each of music, talk, news and sports: How many more options could one use? Also, how many of Stern's listeners do you think are distressed at the end of his daily broadcast because they are unable to switch stations and hear what Oprah & Friends -- that's the name of her XM channel -- are talking about?

Whether you are a satellite radio subscriber or not, we'll all be singing the blues if the government starts bailing out two companies that made bone-headed business decisions.