The New York Times editorial board makes the case against extending the bailout to Detroit – before supporting exactly that:

Detroit made its own problems. The auto companies have refused to change their product models even as consumers reject those models again and again. The autos signed over-the-top benefits packages with the United Auto Workers that cripple productivity and efficiency (a sign of what could happen, writ large, if Congress passes and a President Obama signs card-check next year). As their market share diminishes, the autos rely heavily on political connections to sustain their enterprises. It’s corporate welfare at its worst. The Times gives two arguments in support of using bailout money to prop up Detroit. Neither argument holds water. The first is that “it is not unreasonable to believe that they might survive as self-sustaining companies if government money can get them over the credit crunch and deep recession that is expected in 2009.” Why is it “not unreasonable” to believe this? Because