Yeah, me too. But the Sierra Club already indicated that Bush could tie aid to the ailing Big Three auto manufacturers to a commitment by them to produce more energy-efficient vehicles. (I get the Sunday WashPost, it was in there.)
The Next Big Thing from Detroit
"My organization, the Sierra Club, generally opposes corporate welfare and certainly opposes bailing out the Big Three just so they can go on making the same assortment of polluting gas guzzlers -- i.e. sport-utility vehicles -- that have got them, and us, where we are. On the other hand, perhaps some sort of government rescue effort would be justified if the Big Three were willing to do their part as good corporate citizens by giving the country something important in return. For example, what if a bailout were coupled with substantially increased miles-per-gallon standards that would cut our oil dependence, save consumers money at the pump and reduce the rate of pollution from the effects of global warming?"
continuing ... "Automakers have the technology to make all vehicles average 40 miles per gallon within 10 years. Subsidizing the Big Three to meet this goal would not only inject cash into the companies but also put them on their feet to compete against the technologically superior imports that are running away with the market. This would help preserve good jobs, increase industry profits and avert future bailout requests."
Since I'm a big fan of cellulosic ethanol, one aspect of this would be to make flex-fuel cars such as those sold in Brazil and described in the article posted at the head of this thread.
That is a really interesting idea. The big three would probably deeply resist this however, as further hampering their "competitiveness."
American Mfgrs seem to suffer from the more entrenched issues of reliability and weak technology. Perhaps if they received tax incentives to upgrade their tech and reliability, but of course gov. micro management seldom really works.