I hesitate to go too far down that road, because clearly, General Motors and Chrysler are the companies that need to talk to you about the necessary elements of any type of restructuring. As I said earlier, I think what we're faced with right now, in some respects, is the perfect storm. Not only do you have companies that needed to restructure operations, because, quite frankly, they were manufacturing in excess of the real market needs of North America over the last number of years, but now they're facing a situation where, as a result of a further decline in demand, there are cashflow issues. There are any number of other impacts on their business.
The assistance you might provide to companies to help them restructure and emerge as stronger, more viable companies isn't necessarily something we see as a competitive disadvantage for us. To the contrary, if it avoids a situation in which you do significant damage to the supply base and the dealer networks and so forth, there may be some advantage, as a whole, for the industry.
The issue, though, is that sometimes there is a demand on government to look at very specific and narrow programs. They are designed to underwrite specific vehicle programs or to provide very narrowly focused consumer incentives that assist one or several companies to the disadvantage of the industry as a whole. That's really where our comments are pointed. If you provide incentives to the consumer, make them broad-based, and aim for a general benefit to the consumer. Then the consumer decides. I think that provides us with the proper mechanism.