Mitt Romney, who knows something about car companies, comes out strongly against the bailout. He whacks both sides, starting with the wage differential the UAW foisted on the car companies:

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

He does favor more government supported R&D, but ultimately sees only one way out:

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

This is smart politics for Romney, demonstrating his expertise and his conservative bona fides. More importantly, he is right on the merits, and may help stiffen the spines of fellow Republicans. It is well and good to wax sentimental about the auto companies, but until someone explains how a Congressional bailout would work better than Chapter 11 to restore the industry to health, Congressmen on both sides of the aisle would do well to follow Romney’s advice.