The Bush administration has decided not to take away with one hand what Washington just gave Detroit's automakers with the other.

Instead of finalizing new fuel economy rules for cars and trucks, the White House will leave that job to incoming President Barack Obama.

Obama should follow George W. Bush's lead and reconsider the timetable for implementing the stricter fuel economy standards. Having just agreed to give the automakers $17 billion in taxpayer assistance, it makes little sense to strap them with an additional $47 billion regulatory burden. Instead of squeezing automakers, the new president ought to think about a higher gasoline tax.

Automakers are disappointed that Bush did not put in place the new rules, preferring the devil they know to the one they don't.

They agreed to the tougher standards largely to avoid even harsher rules from the incoming Democratic administration. They also fear Obama will make good on his promise to allow California and other states to set their own tailpipe emissions limits, which would cost the industry another $85 billion.

Obama has made saving jobs and stimulating the economy his top immediate priority. He obviously now understands the fragility of the domestic automakers and the importance of returning them to health.

The chance of recovery for the Detroit Three automakers will be greatly diminished if Washington continues to layer on expensive regulations. The industry ought to be allowed to concentrate on developing cars and trucks that will return it to profitability, rather than on meeting government mandates.

That doesn't mean Obama has to back off his goal of reducing the impact of automobiles on the nation's energy consumption.

Last spring's sudden spike in gasoline prices provided a useful reminder of how prices affect auto demand. When per-gallon costs approached $4, consumers turned in greater numbers to smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, of which there are plenty now in showrooms.

Rather than overburden automakers, Obama should consider a floating gasoline tax that would keep the price high enough to encourage less driving and create a stronger market for the smaller vehicles Washington is demanding.

The tax would have the added benefit of providing funds for the massive infrastructure spending Obama proposes.

Instead of funding the rebuilding of roads and bridges with deficit spending, he could pay for the projects with revenue generated from the higher gasoline tax.

How he handles the fuel rules will be an early test of where Obama places his priorities. Is he willing to damage the economy and put more jobs at risk to carry out an aggressive environmental agenda, or will he take a more pragmatic approach?

The answer to that question could end up being as important to Detroit as was last month's bitter debate on the federal loan package.

REPRINTED FROM THE DETROIT NEWS