Congratulations Andrew. By Larry David's theorem, as everything that comes out of Inhofe's mouth is by definition wrong, the opposite must be correct. And the merits are supportive: carbon rationing is indeed in our future, whether the anti-science warriors want to recognize it or not, so imposing mileage standards would be a clear cut act of efficiency of government in relating the direction of policy to industry, such that industry can respond accordingly and protect shareholders.

I should point out though that carbon emissions are not the only externality at stake here, and not the only tangential rationale that argues for a bailout. Others include the fact that their are massive externalities to trade deficits, especially when those trade deficits are caused by artificial government behavior such as managed exchange rates.

Indeed, as Brad Setser has noted the paradox of, a major feature of our "free market" for some time has been massive currency intervention of our trading partners. The eye-watering scale of the intervention has artificially boosted American wages and concomitantly hurt the competitiveness of American workers. All of which amounts to nothing more than a massive export subsidy program by foreign competitors (proceeds from the intervention have been invested in low yielding, in fact depreciating assets, at the expense of investment in their high growth domestic economies- the risk adjusted difference between the two rates of return is the cost of the program. This has been a massive number.).

The effect of all that on our country has been the hollowing out of the manufacturing industry well beyond that which is supported by fundamentals. That is a real economic cost of the overvalued dollar- that factories and productive capacity and the skill set/human capital required for the US to produce whatever equilibrium goods it should, has been allowed to degrade and fall into disrepair, increasing the transition cost when all of it becomes economically viable again (i.e. when the unsustainable is no longer sustained and the US dollar is allowed to depreciate). I should point out that we would have no airplane manufacturing industry either without the massive American subsidies for Boeing that offset the subsidies of its foreign competition, Airbus. It is interesting that this has not been noted.

Moreover, trade deficits have had two distinct external negative impacts. In addition to hollowing out the manufacturing base beyond that which was called for, it has led to the explosion of dollar claims, i.e. credit, and the outward surge of dollar flows that incited credit explosion and asset inflation globally (actually, these developments were mutually dependent, as evidenced by the narrowing of the trade deficit as the housing market began its plunge, but the point remains the same). We knew this unprecedented expansion in claims fueled by these massive trade and current account deficits respectively as the credit bubble (at least some of us did), and know them now and prospectively as the credit crisis and worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression (and watch this space). So all these free marketeers like Inhofe and CEI and AEI and the rest of the lemmings will indeed have to go back to the drawing board at some point in the future if they are to remain relevant. In other words, if America is to shun public subsidies for its auto industry, the rationale had better not be the "free market", as there's been nothing free about it for some time.

PS The other reason for a bailout that no one's talking about, and this is a huge hairy pachyderm on the cocktail napkins, is the bond market. Ford and GM have over a hundred billion in long term debentures, much of which has been securitized, and a multiple of which has been underwritten in the CDS market. If you really want to piss off Mr. Market and exacerbate all manner of monetary function, for this reason alone, letting GM and Ford file Chapter 11 is a great idea.

The justice department is very good at picking up non-political corruption law breaking amongst prominent Democrats and their staff. Just must be lucky I guess...

Glenn, pardon but your readership would like to know why you are criticizing the Democrats for supporting a confirmation you yourself supported. Wasn't Mukasey, after all, no worse than the serving AG? I could make a point about Iraq War funding and its potentially own goal effect on the Democrats 2008 electoral prospects. Knowing your profoundly intimate understanding of the electorate I'll sheath my sword on that score.

How did I know that yesterday's quixotic crusade was all about Lieberman? Via an innately dim view of the human sole most likely. As I said then, we don't know yet whether that was evidence of guile or guilelessness, but neither do you nor anyone blabbing about it at the moment. As the man says, it's better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt, but hey, this is the blogosphere. Yipee.

Actually 'your readership' is my middle name. Sorry for the confusion. I'll agree with your assessment that it was an excellent statement on your readership's behalf though, and, who knows, maybe you'll think twice before citing obscure blogs and blog comments to substantiate an argument about national politics in the future. Then again, maybe it's just that my feelings are hurt because you didn't respond to my email.