I'm no fan of the US auto industry or the car culture in general, but if Obama can pull a feasible plan off that requires Detroit to boost fuel efficiency standards, it will be impressive.

Of course, without concomitant land-use reform, increased fuel efficiency will simply decrease the costs of driving and the problems of sprawl will be exacerbated.

I have more hope in his infrastructure investment scheme. He could link an auto bailout to bus manufacturing, for instance, but I am pretty sure GM has gotten out of the transit market in recent years.

A study says that if they go down 3 million jobs will be lost, along with taking us from a recession into a depression. Yea, Save them NOW.

Automaking is a basic industry. We need it. Do we need it in its present form? Not necessarily. How to change it is the question.

The single biggest move towards saving the auto industry would be national single-payer health care. Save the carmakers, kill the insurance industry. I prefer that choice, BTW. (For the truly uninitiated, the insurance industry's primary function is not "coverage", it is generating investment capital. They've managed to write mandates amounting to welfare programs for them into state and federal laws. Time for that to change.)

Then, set mandatory - and increasing - fuel efficiency and emissions standards, while not specifying how they are reached. This will be the root of much innovation. That innovation will have tremendous spinoff benefits.

And a concurrent commitment to public transit, complete with the construction of both bus and rail infrastructures - and vehicles/rolling stock, both with strong domestic content requirements, along with other localized incentives such as surcharges on monthly parking contracts in downtown areas of larger cities, with the proceeds dedicated to transit subsidy. You want to commute by car, fine, you can underwrite a more sensible approach for others.

It's a start, anyway.

Who's supposed to buy these vehicles when we bail them out?

It has been reported that Citibank and others are going to Modify the home loans for struggling homeowners

So let' me see if I understand this.

A homeowner is going to the banker and the banker’s going to see what kind of payment the distressed homeowner can make, and then there will be an adjustment made.

Do you think the bank is going to allow the distressed homeowner to go out and buy a new car, in order to stimulate the economy?

There better be an across the board mortgage modification for every homeowner, but there won't be one. Then another bailout program will have been ineffective.

Of course the bankers will resist modifying all loans, they want to skin those who can afford to be skinned. So those with bad credit are now in a favored position?

I guess the plan should be EVERYBODY in America should skip 3 payments and then the banks will work and reduce your interest rates?

Then we all can do our part and save the auto industry, buy a car and skip your house payment.

Hey, we already own a bunch of banks. We might as well start making some loans.

Interesting that your post title is now already moot. Congress is not waiting for Obama. Dems for it, GOP against:

Pelosi said yesterday she wants ``immediate action'' to give automakers additional assistance as shares of General Motors Corp. hit their lowest level since 1943 and analysts said the company faces possible bankruptcy. Bush hasn't said he would approve any further aid to those companies. Richard Shelby, the Senate Banking Committee's top Republican, opposes the measure.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid made clear the bill's prospects of winning passage in this month's ``lame duck'' session rely on help from both congressional Republicans and Bush.

Pelosi's Auto-Rescue Plan Sets Up Clash With Bush, Republicans

It suspect it's partly being done for President-Elect Obama, so that he doesn't have to start his administration with a mass of unemployed auto workers. Bush and friends react badly to any bill, they get the blame, not Obama.

My own feelings tend towards the way I felt about the bailout bill. They have to do something, but as always, they are doing a rushed job because of urgency without the proper expertise, i.e., they don't do anything about problems until there's a fire, then they have to do a half-assed job, pasted and slapped together. Often the fire occurs when they've got other important stuff on their plate which makes their response even more haphazard.

As I implied in this comment on another thread, I think a lot of people aren't coming to full terms with how much the global economic meltdown will be affecting everything Obama as president does. Just throw out everything else, everything else he said is off the table. Main streets around the world haven't seen the real effects yet. It will affect foreign policy, it will affect everything, he will be dealing with it and nothing else. There is a lot of hopeful stuff being said that I think shows a complete sense of denial about the economic situation. Example: He cannot worry about whether it's a bad long term idea to bailout automakers, he's got to do it for the short term good. A huge mass of unemployed autoworkers just hurts anything else he wants to do from the getgo.

You tell the auto companies to "drop dead" right now, and you are basically doing a Herbert Hoover, it would freak out the world and send shocks everywhere that you have no way of predicting. They waited too long to be able to do anything else, they should have been riding herd on them with standards long ago, all those SUV's should never have been made, but it's water over the damn now. Arguing that they should be punished now by letting them die is arguing "free market" laissez faire principles--in a way, I think that might be a good medicine to do with this situation IF the rest of the economy was healthier, and workers had someplace else to go, but the problem is, it's not.

I agree with artappraiser. Remember what happened when the feds let Lehman Bros. go under.