Cash for Clunkers?

O.K. , O.K., I haven't mentioned much in the political scene lately--but, I just can't stand not commenting on this one.

Today, the President lauded Congress on it's last minute deal to extend the "Cash for Clunkers" program. From what I understand, the program runs like this: you turn in your ag-ed car and the government promises you $3500-$4500 on your new car purchase. Everyone benefits, right: you get a new car, the car salesman gets a commission on a car that otherwise would have gone unsold--thus contributing to an ailing economy?

My problem is this: didn't the government just buy up huge portions of the car industry? So now, they have become the owners AND consumers of and in the auto industry. . . .of course it benefits the government to have an incentive program in an industry that they have such a big stake in. . . .but isn't that a HUGE conflict of interest? How can we be sure that the auto industry was most worthy of billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars versus another industry? Of course lawmakers will pat themselves on the back for how wonderful this peice of legislation is, but I can't help wonder how much this program was given precedence over something else because now the auto industry is owned by the governement.

Just wondering if this is the best way for our government to do business? And since when was it even government's job to be in the private economy?