Auto bailout: No strings attached?

Is Obama's task force being realistic?

Earlier this week, the EPA called CO2 a "health danger", setting the impetus to higher national fuel economy standards, probably similar to what California is seeking, in addition to a carbon trading cap-and-trade program. Both programs, many auto analysts have noted, could be detrimental to Big 3 viability.

At the same time, it appears a 9 1/2 million vehicle run rate per year could be around a couple of years - something which US automakers have called unsustainable. 11 1/2 million vehicles per year is closer to the Big 3's threshold.

Yet, here we are at the deadline for more automaker aid, which is coming with few strings. However, if the run rate sticks at 9 to 10 million autos per year, automakers will need more and more help, and that is without higher fuel economy standards or cap-and-trade. Add these programs, and the need for significantly more auto aid will be necessary.

Isn't it time for a more comprehensive conversation regarding these intricately intertwined issues from Washington? Is that too much to chew in a sound bite?