The first thought that hit me while reading the accumulated Washington Post: why should the federal government bail out the auto industry? Apart from the humanistic reasons of trying to keep workers their jobs, that is. I say, let the oil industry bail them out: oil and car industries have gone hand in hand over the last few decades and especially in the last 8 years to ensure that no so much money was dedicated to "greening" the U.S. car industry: if a car becomes fuel efficient, then the oil industry loses money, right?
If the car industry bail out is a must to save the economy, then let's accompany it with a few pre-requisites. Not only with quotas of fuel-efficient cars to be built from now on till forever, but also with money for research on global warming consequences and moreover, on green solutions that would guarantee US independence from foreign oil, and from oil altogether. And not only that, but the Federal Government should become part owner of the bailed-out industry. This is not socialism, this is ensuring that the money used for the bail out does not fall into the wrong pockets: for who is truly bailing out anyone here, but the tax payer? You, me, and millions of others not so lucky pilgrims, whose lost-job packages will not include millions if our jobs do disappear.
Add a special tax on any car that run less than 20 miles a gallon in town... These are the cars that should be more expensive to buy (remember a few years back when anyone seemed to buy Hummers: the aid for farmers ended up benefiting the local yuppies who "needed" one for the day when their very long driveway would be under 3 feet of snow... The last time it happened in DC was in 2003!).
Add a special tax on homes over a certain number of square feet: McMansions are not only symbols of bad taste, they are also a waste of energy and can never be made fuel efficient.
The second thought that hit me (and hit me hard too!) was the potential "Return of the Clintons". Why would Hilary (and her inescapable husband) be a better Secretary of State than, say, John Kerry? Apart from the fact that the deal reeks of conflict of interest (Bill Clinton's job since his presidency involves dealing with many countries, some of them have their hands very dirty when it comes to human rights), why bring to the White House cabinet personalities who certainly do not incarnate "Change" or "Hope"?
Come on, Obama: do not shoot yourself in the foot before the inauguration!