President Barack Obama's economic team tried to keep Democratic allies negotiating the stimulus bill from limiting paychecks for executives at banks in need of a bailout. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and economic aide Lawrence Summers failed.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, inserted strict rules into the $787 billion economic stimulus package over the White House's objections. Dodd's limits on bankers' bonuses are significantly more aggressive than those sought by Obama or Geithner in recent days, with much fanfare.

Dodd, D-Conn., said the restrictions - an executive making $1 million a year in salary could receive only $500,000 in bonus money, for example - are necessary if Obama plans to ask Congress for more money to save the financial sector.

"It will never happen as long as the public perceives that there are people getting rich," Dodd said in an interview. "Save their pay or save capitalism."

That tone among Democrats flavored much of the discussion about how to write the stimulus bill, which the president could sign as early as Monday. Despite direct appeals from Geithner, Summers and White House officials, Democrats didn't budge, according to administration officials.

The Obama administration's proposed restrictions applied only to banks that receive "exceptional assistance" from the government. It set a $500,000 cap on pay for top executives and limited bonuses or additional compensation to restricted stock that could only be claimed after the firm had paid the government back.

The stimulus bill, however, sets executive bonus limits on all banks that receive infusions from the government's $700 billion financial rescue fund. The number of executives affected depends on the amount of government assistance they receive. But as a rule, top executives will be prohibited from getting bonuses or incentives except as restricted stock that vests only after bailout funds are repaid and that is no greater than one-third of the executive's annual compensation.

According to the White House plan to aid General Motors and Chrysler with money drawn from the $700 billion fund voted by Congress, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will temporarily oversee loans to the two ailing auto giants.

After Jan. 20, President-elect Obama will need to choose his own more permanent overseer. This person, identified as "the president's designee" in the failed Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, is now widely referred to as the "car czar."
 

The imagery and reality of a car czar is fraught with problems. First of all, under what authority will this person be able to orchestrate sacrifices required by the carmakers, United Auto Workers, bond holders, and suppliers to make the loan recipients economically viable and competitive by March 31? It is by no means clear what power, apart from personal suasion, such a person would have to resolve disputes and align interests among key stakeholders during the coming months.

Furthermore, arriving at a plan for economically viability by March 31, as stipulated by the White House, will not save loan recipients from bankruptcy unless the financial community judges the carmakers' debt to be commercially bankable. This final and most important judgment is not for the car czar, the White House or even Congress to make.

So, with little formal authority to force changes in a 50-year-old business model and an extremely limited role in certifying the economic viability of business plans submitted by loan recipients, how can the car czar truly be a czar?

What's even more problematic is that the concept of a bridge-loan program with or without a car czar has a dream-like quality in the absence of an economic stimulus program that gets fast traction and an immediate increase in the availability of consumer credit.

Unless the volume of car and truck sales recovers to the industry's current break-even point of 14.5 to 15 million units per year from its current run rate of around 11 million units, the Big Three cannot remain solvent--czar or no czar. There is no near-term financial problem facing General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ), or any other automaker, that a surge in volume wouldn't cure.

Suze Orman will be a guest on Larry King Live Tuesday.

She is a well-known personal finance expert, and host of The Suze Orman Show on CNBC.

Suze’s commentary is a Larry King Live Blog exclusive.

Last week I watched the CEOs of the big three automakers testify before Congress. Testify is being kind, as what they really seemed to be doing was begging for money. All because their companies refused to invest in what they had to know was true, for more than 20 years.

Those supposedly smart CEOs that you are programmed to believe are smarter than you, didn’t follow the simple law of making choices that are based on fact, on what is known. We have known for years that oil is a limited commodity, yet Detroit did not aggressively pursue higher fuel efficiency (and don’t get me started on the fact that Congress didn’t exactly push them in that direction). They saw their competitive edge erode to foreign car manufacturers, yet they didn’t manage their business to adapt to that competition. And in the process they turned off their main client: Americans, who refused to support products that they now judge to be of inferior quality.

They saw the marketing surveys; they knew they were losing ground to the competition, yet it sure doesn’t seem like they made the massive changes necessary to reinvent themselves for an evolving auto industry.

Yet, I firmly believe that as incompetent and clueless as they were, now is not the time to let the Big Three fail. We as a nation can’t afford the impact of all the lost jobs: both those employed directly by Chrysler, Ford and General Motors, and the millions more whose livelihood is linked to the industry.

Yes, we should all be mad and annoyed that we have to bail out these companies that have been run with an indifference to tackling what is known. My hope is that at the very least, any federal aid will come with serious requirements, oversight and regulations. What is needed is that these CEO’s finally get their heads out of the sand and make the known changes that have always been needed and start running these companies like this is 2008 not 1958.

In the meantime, as I was watching the Congressional hearing I was thinking about you, and how my wish is that you act far more intelligently than the auto CEOs this holiday season. I hope that you have the fortitude and foresight to make choices based on what you know is true today.

• You know you need to build an emergency savings fund that can cover six to eight months of living expenses; so you and your family will be okay if you are laid off.
• You know you need to get serious-finally-about tackling your credit card debt, because you understand how a high unpaid balance can mean big trouble in 2009.
• You know you need to invest more for retirement to have any shot at living comfortably later in life.
• You know you need to sit down with your child and discuss how much you can honestly afford to cover for college

If you honestly know all that, you will not spend money on holiday shopping that should instead be used to build financial security. If you know all that, you will take actions based on what you know so you never have to turn to anyone for a bailout (as if you could get one). Stop looking up to the CEOs of the world as if they are smarter than you. If they are so smart, why have they run their companies into the ground? I want better for you and your family. Focus on what you know you have to do to build security and you will give your family the most wonderful gift of all.

Happy Holidays.
– Suze

Wall Street had a strong start to the week, after President-elect Barack Obama outlined his economic stimulus plans and indications that Congress will help Detroit's automakers stave off bankruptcy.

Over the weekend, Obama outlined plans to invest in infrastructure, energy and construction projects to spur the U.S. economy out of its year-long recession and create jobs. The proposals came after the Labor Department said the economy shed 533,000 jobs in November.

The major averages started the day higher, as the Dow Jones industrial average gained 269 points, or 3.1%, to 8,904, shortly into the session. The Standard & Poor's 500 was up 31 points, or 3.5%, to 907, while the Nasdaq added 43 points, or 2.9%, to 1,553.

According to TradeTheNews.com, Democrats in Congress and the Bush administration have agreed to the framework of a deal that provide loans to General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ), Ford Motor (nyse: F - news - people ) and Chrysler, but not nearly the $34.0 billion the companies requested. Rather, the package is believed to be worth around $15.0 billion, and would help GM and Chrysler hold off bankruptcy until at least March, but may require management change. Shares of GM climbed 62 cents, or 15.2%, to $4.70 early Monday, while Ford gained 31 cents, or 11.4%, to $3.03. (See "Promises Of Rescue Come With Demands For Change.")

Still, the news out of corporate America was not all good over the weekend and Monday morning. More job cuts are on the way, from companies like 3M (nyse: MMM - news - people ) and Dow Chemical (nyse: DOW - news - people ).

3M announced over the weekend that it would cut 1,800 jobs in the fourth quarter, and on Monday morning the diversified company cut its 2008 earnings guidance to reflect the global economic slowdown. Shares of the Dow component were up 22 cents, or 0.4%, to $60.07, during the broad rally early Monday.

Dow Chemical said it will lay off 5,000 workers and close 20 plants in "high-cost" locations as part of its accelerated restructuring plans. The news sent Dow shares up $1.03, or 5.4%, to $20.03.

The outlook is also uncertain for MetLife, after the insurance company trimmed its fourth-quarter earnings guidance and said it could report a loss for the period. MetLife (nyse: MET - news - people ) still managed a $1.19, or 3.9%, gain, to $31.95.

Members of Congress wanted Detroit's Big Three automakers to redo their homework before they resumed begging for a government bailout today. So how'd they do?

It doesn't matter. If a Senate Banking Committee on the matter Thursday was any indication, the failure of America's automakers poses such a danger to the economy that lawmakers seem less focused at this point on whether they'll give the automakers a bailout, and more so on how they'll do it.

"We're not going to leave town without trying," committee chairman Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said of their efforts to provide funding for General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ), Ford Motor (nyse: F - news - people ) and Chrysler.

That augurs well for GM's Rick Wagoner, Ford's Alan Mulally and Chrysler's Robert Nardelli as they prepare for day two of hearings before the House Financial Services Committee Friday. But by no means should the Big Three, their suppliers, dealers or the United Auto Workers union breathe a sigh of relief. If there's any group that can kick around ideas and take no action on them, it's Congress.

Still, for advocates of a bailout, the horizon is less cloudy than it was at the beginning of the week. For one thing, not a single witness at Thursday's hearing opposed the idea of a government bailout, though Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com, who was also on the panel, says he believes the companies will need $75 billion to $125 billion to avoid bankruptcy--not the $34 billion they have requested.

In addition, the automakers are all open to various propositions put forth by the senators Thursday. The most popular of these is the idea of a government oversight board or trustee to manage the bailout, akin to the group that handled the government bailout of Chrysler Corp. in 1979 and 1980.

They're also agreeable to an idea put forth by Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., to subject the auto companies to monthly benchmarking so the government can ensure the money is being used as it sees fit. The Big Three are fine with having the Fed regulate their financing arms and another body (probably the oversight board) regulate the manufacturing companies. And they're on board with the idea of giving taxpayers the most senior position when it comes to repayment of the loans, though Ford has a slight complication with this because the company has already mortgaged all of its assets. Nonetheless, Mulally says "there must be a way" to work around this dilemma.

U.S. automakers plan to reopen their union contract and may sell Saab and Volvo to the Swedish government as a way to pare brands

Ford said on Dec. 1 that it is considering selling Sweden-based Volvo, as the struggling U.S. automaker tries to survive the industry crisis. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

General Motors' (GM) board was meeting on Dec. 1 to review a plan that management hopes will persuade Congress to lend the company about $12 billion in public funds. Collectively, Detroit wants $25 billion in bridge loans. The plan includes moves that will cut executive pay, narrow the cost gap vs. Japanese carmakers, and review several of its brands for sale or cuts.

Sources say GM will tell Congress (BusinessWeek.com, 11/20/08) that it plans to reopen the labor agreement to negotiate a deal with the United Auto Workers that would narrow that cost gap. GM will also make a case that it is pushing hard to improve the fuel economy of its lineup. And it is looking at different strategic options for as many as four brands—Saab, Saturn, Hummer, and Pontiac. If any of them go away, namely Saturn or Pontiac, it would be done by slowly phasing them out over several years.

GM is trying to work out a sale of Saab, BusinessWeek has learned. For several months, GM has been shopping the brand to Chinese, Indian, and Russian carmakers, as well as to the Swedish government, sources familiar with the talks said. Saab Managing Director Jan Ake Jonsson and GM-Europe President Carl-Peter Forster have been leading the efforts to find a buyer, or at least get someone to take the company off GM's hands.

Taking a Loss

Meanwhile, Ford (F) said it is also willing to sell Swedish carmaker Volvo to raise cash while the company asks the U.S. government for a loan. Ford has been trying to sell Volvo for more than a year. It has even rejected an offer, says one industry source, from a Chinese automaker. Ford has wanted as much as $3 billion to $5 billion for Volvo, which it purchased from an independent holding company in 1999 for $6.4 billion. But both GM and Ford may now have to settle for a deal that pays them little in exchange for a majority stake by the Swedish government.

Part of the problem for both automakers is that members of Congress who are opposed to or reluctant to granting government loans to the automakers said in last month's Capitol Hill hearings that they were against any of the money going to overseas operations or jobs. As long as both Saab and Volvo are wholly owned and losing money (BusinessWeek.com, 5/6/08), the companies cannot make that promise.

Volvo will have about 18,000 employees by yearend, and it lost $458 million in the third quarter alone, as its sales declined 24%, to $2.9 billion.

In a statement issued on Monday, the Swedish government said it was willing to consider its options and was talking to the carmakers. "The Swedish government has to be worried about this," says David E. Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. "In the case of Saab, they won't want to lose that facility in Trollhattan [Sweden]."

GM has about 5,000 employees in Sweden, most of whom work in the Saab factory in Trollhattan, where the 9-3 and 9-5 models are built. GM has shelved plans to build the 9-5 at its plant in Russelsheim, Germany, since the brand's future is under review.

Congress to Detroit: What's Your Plan?

If the Big Three automakers can't come up with a radical plan that will satisfy Congress, they can kiss the $25 billion bailout goodbye

The Ford Flex rolls off the assembly line at an assembly facility in Oakville, Canada. Simon Hayter/Getty Images

By David Welch

After going to Capitol Hill and begging for a $25 billion bailout, the three chief executives of General Motors (GM), Ford (F), and Chrysler have been sent away with a request for a "plan" by members of Congress. And if they want to get the taxpayers' money they so desperately need, they had better come up with something good.

The problem is, there's not a lot they can say that Congress, specifically Senate Republicans, wants to hear.

Many people, inside and outside the industry, believe the Big Three need to make wrenching cultural and strategic changes if they are to survive. One is former Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill, who sat on the GM board from 1993 to 1995. "This is not going to work," O'Neill says, "unless there is 100% change [in Detroit]."

Which brings us to the question: How can government give Detroit a bridge loan while ensuring that the companies do more to be competitive? While the automakers offered nothing new in Washington, GM sources say President and Chief Operating Officer Frederick A. "Fritz" Henderson has talked almost daily with United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, discussing different things the two sides can do to cut costs. For its part, Ford says it can last into later next year, and Chrysler has been seeking a buyer.

UAW Calls for Concessions

In the meantime, government, labor, and the automakers need to come up with a plan that Congress will buy. Otherwise, bankruptcy is a possibility. If that happens, buyers would be turned away and revenue would plummet, Henderson said in an interview on Nov. 18.

But here's the tricky part. According to one Big Three lobbyist, Democratic congressional leaders don't want a plan that slashes jobs and cuts union benefits. Republicans think that's a great idea. With no clear direction from Washington yet, here's what a smart bailout package might look like. Let's start with the union. There's no question the UAW has made huge concessions over the past three years. The union cut more than 100,000 jobs and agreed to a new $14-an-hour wage for new workers (half the rate of veteran employees), as well as a health-care deal that will make GM much more competitive with Toyota (TM). Detroit will reap that savings mostly in 2010.

But there's a big problem. None of the companies can hire new workers because they have to retire the veterans first. Plus, sales are too low to justify new hiring so none of them have been able to realize the savings, says Henderson. For GM, he says the company can find its breakeven point even at sales rates as low as 11 million or 12 million vehicles a year, but it will take time and any new action must be negotiated.

To see these companies through to 2010—and send the message to Congress that management and the union are serious about helping to build the bridge—the UAW could agree to cut to Toyota-level pay and lower benefits at least until the loans are repaid. The good news is that UAW chief Gettelfinger indicated at a news conference on Nov. 20 that he'd be willing to do something. "The UAW is at the table," he said. "We welcome all stakeholders to make concessions."

White-Collar Perks Under Scrutiny

So the union is prepared to make cuts if Congress demands it. UAW workers in domestic plants make $29 an hour while Toyota workers make at most $25.