There are many challenges facing the Obama administration as it manages the government's involvement in the U.S. auto industry. A top concern for taxpayers is that the billions of dollars in bailout funds provided to General Motors and Chrysler will be paid back. In hopes of a return to profitability, both companies are cutting costs by reducing capacity, lowering labor costs and shedding dealerships. Still, the future remains uncertain for both companies as all automakers struggle with dramatically lower global demand caused by the worldwide recession.

Last week, the Senate Finance Committee questioned a senior adviser to President Barack Obama's auto task force about how TARP money and other taxpayer funds are being used by GM and Chrysler.

Beyond these obvious issues, there should be an examination of not only how the troubled automakers will become competitive, but also a recognition of the importance of fairness and a level playing field when the federal government is a majority owner of one car company.

American consumers have to wonder what 70 percent government ownership of GM means to Ford and other automakers selling cars in the U.S. If the government's primary concern is repayment of bailout money, will the government give GM artificial advantages over Ford and other car companies with manufacturing facilities in the U.S., including Toyota, Honda, BMW and Mercedes?

Already there are concerns that GM is gaining an unfair advantage, beyond the obvious issue of billions in government bailout money. Given the fact that credit and financing are an important part of selling cars, the federal support for GM and the related financing company GMAC has caused some to suggest that Ford is being put at a competive disadvantage when it comes to providing financing to car buyers.

According to a Bloomberg news report, in recent bond offerings to fund their financing operations, "Ford paid $107.5 million more than GMAC for every $1 billion it borrowed."

And financing is just one area where Ford and others could face unfair competition. When various departments of the federal government put out bids for new vehicle purchases, will Ford and other automakers be given a fair chance at the business? Or will the Obama administation apply pressure so that more government purchases go to GM in hopes of boosting the company's sales and profits?

Maintaining a level playing field for the domestic automakers will be a challenge, given all the bailout money pumped into GM and Chrysler. There also are concerns that Congress will begin to meddle in domestic carmakers' decisions.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., caused a minor controversy when he convinced GM to reverse, or delay, a decision to close a distribution center in his state. Will other lawmakers be tempted to meddle in GM or Chrysler turnaround plans?

The issue of fairness cannot be ignored as a new GM struggles to remake itself into a smaller, but profitable company.

Though not universal, there has been fairly broad support for the federal aid to GM and Chrysler. But taxpayers do not want to see those companies, which have been kept alive with taxpayer billions, given unfair competive advantages over Ford, which has, so far, managed to avoid taking any bailout money.

And there also should be an examination of the purpose of the automotive bailouts. Should money from U.S. taxpayers help GM expand a foreign assembly operation? Should taxpayer help be available to a U.S.-based manufacturing operation run by Honda, Toyota or BMW?

President Obama says he doesn't want to be in the automobile business, but his administration has made the federal government a majority owner of GM. It will be important for that relationship not to be abused when it comes to other companies making and selling cars in the United States.