I beleive the article is referencing the cap and tax bill that passed the house but has not been reconsiled in the senate. This is likely one of those give away things buried in the bill where the government is giving the states money to buy green vehicles to replace fleets. They are basically saying if you take our money the vehicles purchased have to meet X criteria (i.e. being Big 3 made). In a way it is pointless because I never really see many governments buying imports (at least not here anyway). The price difference alone between say a Ranger and Tacoma or Impala and Camry keeps most governments away. That beingsaid, I think a proper way of wording it would be to limit to "vehicles made in North America". Fact is...(much as I dislike them)...Toyota and Honda make a lot of cars here and do provide an economic engine for a lot of US towns. And yes, their crying is very hyporcratic. Conversly however, GM and Chrysler make a lot of cars in Canada, Mexico, and Asia. Limiting it to cars made in North America would be less protectionist, while perserving an advantage for GM and Chrysler because currently none of the imports make subcompacts/ super fuel efficiant vehicles here in the US. GM and Chrysler however are just tooling up to make the rebadged Fiat 500 and Spark here in US plants.

Either way..this is a non issue drop in the bucket, fleet sale thing anyway.

 

This is all a big nothing. Toyota is hurting just as everyone else is hurting because of the economy. It isn't like everyone in this country has "found religion" and is going to swear off their products. If anything, the gov't bailouts and bankruptcy have soured people on GM and Chrysler. Toyota will be back to profitability whenever the economy picks up, so crying about "protectionist" policy is a waste of time.