THAT’S DEBATABLE:

Now that the Senate has rejected a bridge loan to the U.S. auto industry, President Bush has said he will reconsider his opposition to using some of the money in the $700-billion Troubled Assets Recovery Program to prop up the imploding car makers. Do you think that would be the wisest thing to do now? If not, what do you think should be done to salvage the Big Three in the short-term and long-term?

I’m disappointed, but not shocked, that the same Washington insiders who created this fiscal crisis and have rung up more than $1 trillion in debt in a few months have the temerity to think they can run the auto industry better than they have run our government.

I oppose the auto industry bailout. I strongly oppose using funds designated for a different purpose to bailout the Big Three auto makers.

First of all, without a major restructuring, a bailout will only prolong the agony. Contrary to politicians’ claims, bankruptcy would not be the end of this industry — the factories and the know-how would remain — but rather bankruptcy can be a useful tool to reorganize and improve competitiveness.

Finally, why are we bailing out Cerberus, a private hedge fund? Cerberus bought Chrysler as an investment — investments must carry both risk and reward if the free market is to function.

Chuck DeVore

GOP U.S. Senate candidate, 2010

and Assemblyman

(R-Newport Beach)

Under the current economic conditions, we have even less taxpayer money to distribute, so those who have failed business enterprises should not be entitled to a government bailout. Companies that have bad contractual relationships and counterproductive business structures should file for Chapter 11 and restructure to be run in a different, more successful way.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher

(R-Huntington Beach)