GM is asking its employees to write letters to congress, to urge that the automotive industry gets a chunk of government money…tax dollars…to the tune of $25 Billion, to tide them over the slow economic times.

Should it happen? Or shouldn’t it?

Granted, the automotive industry supply chain is huge, and reaches far and deep.  If these giants were to flop, I can certainly imagine a huge impact. But, is the money being sought going to help? Will it strengthen the companies so they can bear economic downturns, or will the money simply allow the industry to survive in the shape it is now, making no demands on improving it?

“Give a man a fish,” comes to mind. What do we as tax payers get out of providing this money? Is there a real plan that will make the companies stronger and more successful in the long run? In the letter that GM sent to employees, the statement “$25 billion of government support that our industry needs to bridge this current period” says nothing about benefits to tax payers–other than avoiding the substantial loss of jobs and additional economic downturn that would likely occur. It’s a threat–give us your money, or you’ll pay much more.

Will we get higher quality vehicles as part of this investment? Will vehicles run more efficiently? Will they be more environmentally friendly?

An idea tossed around in our household last night, was how about making a purchase deal with the automotive industry–a deal to purchase $25 billion worth of vehicles. Small, energy efficient, no frills–and I mean: no frills–vehicles that can then be loaned to low income families to support efforts of going to work. Auto insurance industry gets a boost. Gas companies get a boost. Service stations get a boost. Families that otherwise cannot afford transportation, but are in areas where mass-transit is horrible, or decent paying jobs require a commute, could benefit from such a plan.

I don’t think the industry should ask for our money without providing a plan for how they can grow and improve themselves. Maybe they’ve gotten too big. Should we always be at the risk of an economic crisis because a large player goes under? Is there not enough room for several smaller players, so that if one of them doesn’t survive, we all don’t get dragged down, too?