Consumers who opposed a bailout for the auto industry might have thought they could just avoid GM or Chrysler vehicles. Now, reports the New York Times, Ford will get a $440 million loan from the federal energy department, and Nissan and Tesla will also get government loans. Why should taxpayers, most of whom are a lot poorer than the Ford family that, according to another Times article today, still controls the motor company with a stake worth more than $140 million, be forced to loan money to Ford? For that matter, why should taxpayers who are richer than the Fords be forced to subsidize a family that is managing its assets with a commitment that, the Times article quotes Bill Ford explaining, is not financial, but "emotional"? If Bill Ford wants to pursue an emotional commitment, can't he do it without taking $440 million in loans from the taxpayers? Ford had a marketing advantage over GM and Chrysler by being the domestic automaker that didn't need or accept a bailout. The federal loan would seem to risk squandering that advantage.