One of the arguments for the proposed auto manufacturers bailout is that an American automobile bankruptcy would be devastating to produce confidence. On the other hand, a bankruptcy reorganization would force the manufacturers (and their financing banks, unions, and general creditors) to come to terms with the restructuring that they urgently require.

So let me propose this: a bankruptcy reorganization without going to court. Appoint for each company an “out of court” creditors committee (with proper representation of all concerned). Have each committee and the manufacturer write a legitimate, tough-minded reorganization plan – the same sort of thing needed to exit Chapter 11, including restructuring pension plans, dealing with rejection of leases and contractual obligations, stretching out payments, getting rid of stock and re-issuing it to creditors – the whole package. Congress would then enact each plan as a piece of bankruptcy legislation and fund the plan with a loan secured in a first position on the corporate assets. This last provision would guarantee that the government loan was truly a loan – because it would take precedence over existing secured loans.

I think Congress would accept this approach as being rigorous, fair, and likely to succeed.

The difference between then, Iaocca's request for a loan for Chrylser, and now is huge! Iaocca rebuilt Chrylser at a time when it was possible for the company to be competitive through new management. He also repaid that loan back to the American taxpayers in less time than they were given.

Today, GM, for instance, is as bloated with useless employees as any bureaurcratic office building in Washington, D.D.! It chose back in the late 70's to ignor it's own marketing information that consumers wanted smaller, more fuel efficient cars. As recently as the 90's, GM agreed, in exchange for tax favors and breaks, to bring an alternative vehicle to market. It broke it's commitment to do so, instead, opting for gas-guzzling SUV's and trucks.

The global competitive environment dictates why a multi-billion dollar bailout will not solve the problems of any of these 3 manufacturers. Is it a shame? Yes. Will more Americans lose jobs and suffer? Yes. But is putting off the inevitable and wasting more tax funds the right thing to do? No.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler just don't get it, more so GM. Their won't be changes in management at any of these companies. They are holding U.S. taxpayers hostage, flying in on private jets, holding hands with the UAW, and placing bets in Vegas that the taxpayers won't take a pass.

They would be wrong.

"already authorized from the Department of Energy for retooling the auto industry to build more fuel-efficient cars as a bridge loan to keep the Big Three going."

Hey, GM committed back in the 90's to researching, developing, and bringing to market an alternative vehicle in exchange for a variety of assorted tax goodies from the federal government. They didn't do it.

Now, here they are, with hat in hand and corporate jets and their bloated UAW contracts, virtually boasting that the federal government cannot forsake them. HA! The federal government IS THE PEOPLE, you bunch of over-paid idiots. And the people are not in any mood to keep throwing good money after bad.

GM has messed up so many times that it's absurd. It's management is either ignorant or apathetic: They don't know and they don't care! The UAW is just about as bad. Their mantra, "Hey, we don't run the company." Aha! No, but the UAW was acutely aware that GM had the commitment and responsibility to bring that alternative vehicle to market and they did nothing about it either. Instead, they were grumbling and grubbing for yet another week off with full pay to sit on their asses and do nothing. Oh yeah, and those great "wipe my ass when I'm old" retirement bennies.

When did it become incumbent on the rest of us now to guarantee GM retirees who left their good-paying jobs before the age of 65 will have medical benefits if GM goes under?? Think about this. GM gives away the bank, employees retire early, GM guarantees their health benefits until they are 65, and now they want to stick everyone else with that payment. I don't think so.

As sad as it is, there is no plan for $25 billion, or $50 billion, that will make the existing U.S. auto manfactureres solvent or competitive again. It's a waste of funds at time when we don't have them. It's better to let them go into bankruptcy, reorganize to be competitive, get their creditors paid back, and move on.

There's a saying, "if it has to hurt, make it hurt for all the right reasons."

Why not bail out the people who have been hit the hardest - seniors whose retirement accounts have been wiped out by the stock market?

America has long since tired of Reid and Pelosi's whining incompetence and impotence.

Watch as the Republican minority proceeds to what a Democratic majority could or would not do for two stinkin' years.

But when the Banking Cartel comes demanding a Trillion dollar bailout, suddenly they are pit bulls.

Why is that?

Only one explanation: Corruption, collusion and bribery.

I thought it might be a better idea to use the bailout money to retrain autoworkers as a way of shrinking the industry in a somewhat kinder way than the current layoff model. Then I wondered what industries would they go into because it seems like most industries have too many expensive employees trying to pay for shelter, food and transportation and not enough cheap labor. It's an interesting problem.

Obviously, it's in response to Republicans' let-'em-die rhetoric. Rather than hand over the money right now, Democrats respond to cries of mismanagement by putting the bailout off for a couple weeks while making a show of emphasizing accountability. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, when they do pass the bailout, it will appear as if accountability measures are in place. At least I hope so. A notable number of smart economists seem to view it as an economic necessity in the current environment.

Anyway, maybe it's just because I'm an optimist, but I never thought Tom Paxton's '80's automaker bailout song (youtube in sig line) would ever be relevant again:

I am changing my name to Chrysler

I am going down to Washington D.C.

I will tell some power broker

What they did for Iacocca

Will be perfectly acceptable to me

I am changing my name to Chrysler

I am headed for that great receiving line

So when they hand a million grand out

I'll be standing with my hand out

Yes sir I'll get mine