Crystal ball sez:
Gas tax of a buck and a half coming.
1) partially pays for national retiree health care plan (freeing up some 20 billion or so in lump sum payments to a fund by the automakers - effectively covering the cost of some of bridge loans). To buy a foreign brand car is to accept that nations subsidies to the cost for the health care of the workers. I'm not convinced the US automakers haven't been getting a short deal on this.
2) recover funds for infrastructure
3) demand side assistance for retooled automakers. A big chunk of the problem has been cheap fuel. It probably needs to be expensive enough (around $3.20/gal) to drive demand for the efficient cars and even some passenger car diesels.
The US market for passenger vehicles was around 16,000,000 in 2007. This year looks to be around 12,500,000 - comparable to 1982. Next year is forecast to be somewhere in the same range, with numbers not picking up until 2010 or 2011.
Nardelli (Chrysler) has been in the auto industry about thirteen months, having previously been in Home Depot. Mulally (Ford) since 2006. The Ford family pried him away from Boeing where he bet that companies future on a more efficient jet rather than a faster one. These two men are outsiders; only Wagoner has been in the industry any length of time. Those who've suggested that all three should be tossed and replaced with outsiders may want to study on it a little.
As previously noted, the cost of labor should not be confused with the wage of the laborer. Something like $13/hr - I understand - goes toward benefits for retirees.
As far as that goes, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, VW, Peugeot, Renault, etc. are mostly built in union shops. I've seen some stupid UAW excesses (gotta have a "wheelwright" to carry a lunchbox computer 150 ft inside the building, said the three people standing around the loading dock. Forty minutes later, a wheelwright appeared. Cost to the big three? only a couple hundred.) but as much as it pains me to admit it, I don't think the union is the biggest problem here.