Some additional thoughts on the bail-out in general:
1. The focus needs to be on US jobs, not on US companies. By throwing money at GM and Ford the government is propping failing enterprises for the short term. The incentives need to be based on merit, and assigned to regions and not to companies. E.g., the government can allocate $X for Michigan and stipulate the results that need to be tied to this(for example the number of jobs that need to be created). If that means that Toyota creates local jobs in Detroit and GM has to reduce the number of brands that they have, so be it.

2. This would set a good precedent at the Global level and would allow companies to be most efficient in the regions that they have an advantage in. On the other hand if countries begin to protect local firms then global trade suffers. The recovery from this crisis has to be based on an international coordinated policy response. Protectionism is bad for consumers (as it reduces the choice that they have and increases the price of products), promotes monopolistic practices, and protracts the economic recovery.

3. Additionally governments must act similar to private enterprises and stipulate the terms of the bail-out (similar to banks stipulating terms for their loans). The loan term and interest rate needs to be set. Also the government should stipulate how the funds can be used (e.g., the Auto Industry must invest X% of revenues in R&D for alternate energy products). Without these conditions the bail-out is simply a free lunch for the flailing firms at the expense of the taxpayer. Only with these strings will the Unions at the Auto firms acknowledge the gravity of the situation and budge on their demands.