There are 11 auto manufacturers in the U.S. today. This is seven more than the U.S. had 40 years ago. Thus there should be little support for a bailout for GM or Chrysler. Due to their non-competitive cost structure, GM's and Chrysler's long-term economic future is doubtful. A bailout would only delay the inevitable insolvency of both GM and Chrysler. "Too big to fail" is a failed policy. In the event of their failure, work will be simply shifted to their more productive and lower cost U.S. competitors such as BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Ford, and Mitsubishi. All of the listed companies are global in scope. These producers are owned by U.S. citizens (among others), pay U.S. taxes, employ U.S. workers and have U.S. citizens on their upper management team.
Management and unions representing workers at GM have failed. A vital market based economy demands that success be rewarded and failure be punished. In this case, management failed to recognize how dependent company profitability was on large cars and low gasoline prices. Unions failed by pressing for wage and benefit concessions that were greater than the market could bear. The only reason to bailout GM is political. And mixing politics and economics normally results in lousy outcomes.