Lots of responders are ticked off at my last post, in which I argued that a GM and/or Chrysler bankruptcy would be better for everyone than a federal bailout of the automakers. (For what it's worth, the U.S. Treasury Dept. reportedly has denied them access to its $700-million bailout program, which may be why the GM-Chrysler merger is on hold, at least until a new administration takes charge.)

There's a new alternative available to save the domestic auto industry, one that some of those same responders might not like much better.

I still endorse bankruptcy, and I still support ending CAFE standards, but this idea — let GM, Ford, and Chrysler meet those fuel-economy standards without having to uphold domestic sourcing and content rules — would have the particular value of boosting the consumer appeal of their product lines. That, not incidentally, gets to the bottom of the domestic automakers' most pressing concern: cash flow.

But, my e-mailers should not worry. It's not going to happen. There's no one in power or rising to power in Washington who (even secretly) believes deregulation would work. In fact, they're so pumped up with confidence from their union and other anti-free trade supporters that they may even increase the domestic content requirements for manufactured goods. Remember "The Patriot Corporation of America Act"?

The anti-globalists that populate much of the domestic manufacturing scene are feeling vindicated by Tuesday's election results, believing that voters' endorsement of anti-free trade coalitions proves the validity of their arguments. The U.S. Business and Industry Council issued a statement in which the group's president Kevin L. Kearns says, “For too long, American leaders have insisted that borrowing, consuming, and importing could maintain our economic superpower status and a high standard of living for the average American.”

If "borrowing, consuming, and importing" has been a policy, it's been one that voters have wholeheartedly endorsed, until now. And if U.S. manufacturers want to compete in any sense, they ought to reacquaint themselves with the value of "consuming." 

Among the demands Kearns and USBIC are making in a post-election policy statement: "Higher and tighter U.S.-content requirements on federal defense-related procurement …  High U.S.-content requirements on non-defense federal procurement …  U.S. content and technology transfer requirements on inward foreign direct investment …  Detailed country-of-origin labeling on all imported foods, drugs and medicines and children’s products."

That's not the whole list. USBIC is piling on the widespread outrage about the no-end-in-sight federal bailout project. But bailouts come in different forms, including regulatory protections of the sort USBIC is demanding. They're demanding policies and entitlements that don't have dollar signs fixed to them, but this is merely an accounting detail. I'll quote a partial list:

• A Transition Task Force on Manufacturing Revival – with manufacturers, not investment bankers, representing the business community.
  
• An immediate freeze on passage of new trade agreements.
  
• An Apollo-type program to support and expand current domestic manufacturing, as well as to restore a world-class domestic presence in critical industries devastated by predatory foreign trade practices.
  
• Creation of a new tax system that rewards manufacturing here in the United States – both by retaining/upgrading existing facilities and investing in new plants and equipment.

The outraged voters that anti-free traders believe endorsed their positions on Tuesday will see through all this favoritism, too, because they're only voters once every few years. The rest of the time, they're consumers, and generally free to make different choices.