I am not a lawyer, I never even have played one on TV, so maybe some of you can help me here.
If I were Ford,Toyota, Honda,Mitsubishi, Subaru, BMW or any other car manufacturer producing cars in the US, the first time GM or Chrysler placed an ad on TV I would sue. Or if GM offers a rebate to buyers of their cars isn't that using Federal tax dollars to promote one business over the other? Surely there is some kind of statute against that? Isn't there an issue with the Commerce Clause here? If the Commerce Clause can be invoked to promote abortion, surely it is in place to prevent the Government from taking tax dollars and giving it to tax payers who choose to purchase certain cars manufactured by certain companies? The other auto companies played by the rules, pay their taxes, a run a profitable business (or at least absorb the losses). Their reward is to have their competitors propped up by the Government. Loans are one thing, ownership is another.
How will the Government have open and honest bidding when it comes to procuring the millions of vehicles it buys? Can it force GM and Chrysler to offer more competitive bids? How does Ford even compete when they are bidding against the owners of their competitors?
In a final word that will no doubt excite my liberal readers to hyperbole -- when the government takes over the means of production previously held by private enterprise, that is fascism in its purest form. After all, Mussolini only wanted the trains to run on time.