Auto companies - Just another bailout?

I'm not quite sure where I stand on the bailout of the the auto companies GM and Chrysler, and as an undecided reader, Herszenhorn's article on the issue was unsatisfying.

While the politics behind the vote were explained well, I wasn't impressed with the explanation of the arguments for and against the bill. Herszenhorn talked about how the Democrats in Congress were working with White House officials to finalize the details of the bill and rally support for it, which they need desperately because it needs 60 votes in the Senate in order to pass. The bill is sort of a long shot in the Senate because the Democrats hold 50 seats right now and the Republicans hold 49 (the missing senator is President-Elect Barack Obama), and there are a number of Democrats, the party that is generally in favor of the bill, that actually oppose it. Ten of them voted against the $700 billion bailout, which may indicate that they'll vote against a $15 billion bailout for the two companies, and two Democrats, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, will be overseas for the vote.

It seems like it'll be a difficult feat for the lame-duck Congress to pass any legislation, but the Detroit 3 are important enough to demand the legislators' attention. The rescue plan up for vote grants $15 billion in emergency loans to GM and Chrysler, which are worse-off than Ford. The two auto companies would accept, along with the loans, a "car czar" - an individual named by President Bush to have a high level of government control and oversight. Under the bill, long-term viability plans would have to be developed for each of the companies by March 31, otherwise the "car czar" would either impose a viability plan (which could include Chapter 11 bankruptcy) or demand repayment of the administration. In face, the "car czar" can demand repayment of emergency loans at any point if the car companies fail to reorganize or meet other obligations outlined in the bill.

This is what Herszenhorn explains in his article, but for me, it's not what I really want to know. I want to know how the bailout proposal would affect me and my family should it be passed, and how the failure of these auto companies could if it doesn't. I don't think I'm alone either. Obviously a downside to the bill is that it would raise taxes for Americans, but what about the consequences of its potential failure? These are elements of the story that were absent from Herszenhorn's article - elements that were sorely missed.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/10auto.html?_r=1&ref=us