Last-ditch efforts to forge an agreement to rescue the U.S. automakers fell apart late Thursday, Dec. 11, when union officials refused fast and deep cuts in worker pay. The collapse created the real possibility that General Motors (GM) and Chrysler will face bankruptcy in a matter of weeks, unless the Treasury Dept. acts to prevent it.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the Senate floor Thursday night that a refusal of the United Auto Workers, headed by Ron Gettelfinger, to agree to lower wages and benefits at parity with workers at Toyota (TM) and Honda (HMC) in the U.S. by a date certain in 2009 was the last sticking point preventing Republicans from supporting the bill.

"We were three words away from a deal," said Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who spent all day trying to broker an agreement between Republicans, the union, and the auto companies. Tennessee is home to a GM and Nissan (NSANY) plant, as well as a future Volkswagen (VOWG.DE) plant and several supplier facilities.

Officials from the UAW did not return phone calls at press time.

"It's disappointing that Congress failed to act tonight," the White House said in a prepared statement. "We think the legislation we negotiated provided an opportunity to use funds already appropriated for automakers and presented the best chance to avoid a disorderly bankruptcy while ensuring taxpayer funds only go to firms whose stakeholders were prepared to make difficult decisions to become viable."

"A Loss for the Country"

The Senate rejected the bailout 52-35 on a procedural vote after the talks collapsed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called the bill's collapse "a loss for the country," adding: "I dread looking at Wall Street tomorrow. It's not going to be a pleasant sight."

The bill called for $14 billion to be divided between GM and Chrysler, both of which are at the financial breaking point as the recession and consumer credit crunch have crippled their finances. The companies, anticipating failure in the Senate, have hired bankruptcy law firms. Ford (F) has said it doesn't need federal assistance now but has asked for a $9 billion line of credit in case sales deteriorate below the current level.

According to Corker, bond holders that conferred with lawmakers Thursday agreed to take a 70% writedown on debt they hold from the automakers, and to take half of the remainder in stock. GM has $42 billion in debt, not counting payments the company must make to the union's health-care trust in 2010. As part of the deal, the UAW also agreed to take half of its future $21 billion in payments to its health-care fund in stock. "The companies would have been stronger than they have been in 40 years, or headed for Chapter 11," said Corker.

Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) took a harsh and emotional tone with Republicans who voted against the bill. "Evidently the only thing that matters to those on the other side of the aisle is that workers make too much money," she said.

(CNN) -- There's no indication when -- or if -- the White House and congressional leaders will reach agreement on the Democrats' proposal to give troubled U.S. automakers a financial lifeline.

General Motors Corp. and Chrysler could get $15 billion in federal loans as soon as December 15, according to a working Democratic draft of proposed legislation and a senior Democratic congressional aide.

Meanwhile, one key GM official already is talking about the need for more help from the government -- even before this package's approval.

In an interview Tuesday on CNN's "American Morning," Bob Lutz, GM vice chairman of global product development, told anchor John Roberts that he expects the industry to go back to Washington next year for more money.

John Roberts: A lot of taxpayers are asking if you get this $15 billion collectively, what will you do to make sure your company won't fail?

Bob Lutz: Well, first of all, GM will only get a portion of that money and ... this is simply a bridge loan which will get us into the next administration, where we hope we can do something more fundamental. Because the main problem is the lack of liquidity and the lack of revenue flowing in as we're facing absolutely the lowest, lowest car market in history, and it's not just the domestics, the Japanese are all down 30 percent and 40 percent. Their inventories are piling up. You know, this isn't a question of Detroit is in trouble; the whole automobile industry is going to be in trouble

Roberts: You don't see Toyota and Honda coming to the government for a handout. But based on what you said there -- that this is just the beginning -- you're going to need more money next year?

Lutz: I think that's a reasonable assumption.

Roberts: How much more?

Lutz: At this point, you know, that's going to have to be discussed with Congress. We'll have to see. But this is definitely a bridge loan that will solve the immediate liquidity problem

Roberts: When you come to Congress next year and say, OK, you gave us $15 billion in December, now we need X amount of money, how difficult a sales job will that be?

Lutz: You know, I don't think anybody in Congress or the president-elect assumes that this is all the money that is going to be required to bridge this liquidity crisis that the American automobile industry is facing, and, again, it all depends on how fast we have an economic recovery. Again, let me restate this. At 10.8 or 10.5 million total market, we do not have a viable automobile industry in this country for anybody.
iReport.com: How is the automaker crisis affecting you? Should there be a bailout?

Roberts: Yesterday, you took out a full page ad in the Automotive News Journal; it was a big mea culpa. I guess on GM'S part. You said in part we acknowledge we disappointed you. We violated your trust by letting our quality fall and our designs become lackluster. You also laid out a GM commitment to the American people. First thing, you said specifically we're committed to producing automobiles you want to buy and are excited to own. There are many people who might think that's just a fundamental tenet of free enterprise, and why should that be revolutionary?

Lutz: It isn't. I think people were expecting this sort of message. What we're trying to do with an ad like that is live down this legacy of the '80s. Everybody agrees that American cars of the '80s were not very good and were not competitive with the Japanese. But that was a long time ago.

We've now equaled the Japanese in productivity and quality, and speaking for General Motors we got Car of the Year with the Saturn Aura, Car of the Year for Chevy Malibu, Truck of the Year with the Silverado, Green car of the Year with the Silverado hybrid, and on and and on. Car of the Year with the Cadillac CTS.

Roberts: One more question, Bob, certainly, as a condition of this bridge loan, the government is going to appoint a car czar to oversee what you do with it. They will talk about what kind of models you should build, fuel efficiency you should get. There will be a government approval of any vehicles you make. Who would you like to see as the car czar?

Lutz: Wait a minute. We don't know if it will be a czar or overseer. I doubt whether this person would dictate the product policy.

Roberts: Certainly an idea they are talking about. Who would you be comfortable with as car czar?

Lutz: I wouldn't even -- other than myself? Unfortunately I'm not available because I'm still gainfully employed.

Roberts: Some people [are] floating the idea maybe [that former Massachusetts Gov.] Mitt Romney would be a good car czar. He comes down hard on you guys. His father [George Romney] ran American Motors for a time.

Lutz: Well, I hardly think that the automobile business is a genetic trait, but he would probably be satisfactory as would many other people.

American Autos Worth Saving And Writing Off

Jacqueline Mitchell, 12.01.08, 04:00 PM EST

Some cars are worth it to Detroit to keep building--others are to blame for the automakers' demise.

One of the chief architects of a plan to bail out the Detroit auto companies said today that General Motors Chairman G. Richard Wagoner should be forced to give up his post as a condition of receiving emergency loans from the federal government.

The worsening U.S. auto sales slump claimed another 2,000 workers Friday as General Motors Corp. announced layoffs at three more car factories.

The company said it will cut shifts at car factories in Lordstown, Ohio; Orion Township, Mich.; and Oshawa, Ontario, starting in February due to slowing demand for their products.

"It's all market driven, as all of our changes have been of late," spokesman Chris Lee said.

The layoffs amount to 2.4 percent of GM's North American blue-collar work force of 84,000. So far this year, GM has announced 11,000 factory worker layoffs in the U.S.

In Lordstown, where GM makes the Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5 small cars, 890 workers will go on indefinite layoff starting Feb. 2 when GM ends a third shift at the sprawling complex. The shift was added earlier this year when gas prices hit $4 per gallon and demand for small cars skyrocketed.

Also Feb. 2, GM will lay off 390 workers by cutting a third shift at the Orion plant near Pontiac. The factory makes the Chevrolet Malibu and Pontiac G6 midsize sedans. The Malibu had been GM's hottest seller, but demand has started to wane in recent months. No date has been set to bring the workers back because GM doesn't know when sales will return.

Another 700 workers will go on indefinite layoff Feb. 9 in Oshawa, Ontario, where GM makes the Chevrolet Impala large sedan. The company is cutting the third shift, also due to slowing demand, Lee said.

Unionized autoworkers are a favorite scapegoat for the problems facing U.S. automakers. Their job security guarantees and gold-plated benefits have surely cost General Motors, Ford Motor and Chrysler a bundle over the past few decades. Indeed, the domestics' historically high labor costs are among the reasons they haven't been able to compete with Japanese rivals, and why Detroit CEOs were back on Capitol Hill again Thursday asking for $34 billion in taxpayer loans to survive.

But the U.S. automakers probably would have collapsed by now if not for the concessions made by the United Auto Workers union over the past three years.

Once bitter enemies, the Detroit Three and the UAW have long since buried the hatchet and are now working together to close the wage gap with Toyota (nyse: TM - news - people ), Nissan (nasdaq: NSANY - news - people ) and Honda (nyse: HMC - news - people ) through various productivity improvements and more flexible work rules, for instance.

The union has made some major concessions. Two biggies last year: The UAW agreed to cap the cost of retiree health care through creation of an independent trust fund and agreed to cut wages in half, to $14 an hour, for new hires in non-assembly jobs (20% of the workforce). More concessions came this week when the union agreed to end a controversial "jobs bank" program, which pays workers even when there are no vehicles to build. The union also said it would allow car makers to extend their scheduled payments to the health care trust fund. Importantly, UAW President Ronald Gettelfinger also said the union is ready to renegotiate additional contract terms.

Now, the playing field is just about level--or will be once the economy recovers.

Detroit automakers laid out their worst-case business scenarios for Congress Tuesday, asking for up to $38 billion in taxpayer loans to survive the economic crisis and turn their companies around.

General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) is seeking up to $18 billion, Chrysler wants $7 billion and Ford (nyse: F - news - people ), which says it doesn't need a loan at the moment, is asking for a $9 billion line of credit--perhaps as much as $13 billion--in case the economy worsens.

The requests, filed Tuesday on Capitol Hill, were accompanied by extensive details of how the automakers plan to reduce labor costs, streamline products and restructure their balance sheets in order to return to profitability.

Chief executives from each of the companies will answer questions about their viability plans when they appear before Senate and House committees later this week.

America's carmakers have been steadily downsizing for years in an effort to become more competitive with foreign-based rivals. But the crisis that has brought at least two of them--GM and Chrysler--to the brink of bankruptcy is an opportunity to take more drastic measures.

Indeed, GM said it would cut its current stable of brands from eight to four--dumping Saturn, Saab and Hummer, and paring back Pontiac to a few niche models. GM also expects to reduce the number of dealers from 6,450 to 4,700 by 2012.

GM also plans to close nine powertrain, stamping and assembly plants in the U.S. by 2012, and reduce its total U.S. employment to between 65,000 and 75,000, from 97,000 today.

Detroit's long-overdue reckoning is here. With its cash vanishing at the rate of $2 billion a month, and with no bank in the world willing to lend it money, General Motors is headed toward bankruptcy or a government bailout.

On Thursday and Friday, executives from all three Detroit automakers will be on Capitol Hill arguing why it should be a bailout. Either way, assuming it survives at all, GM (nyse: GM - news - people ) will look a lot different than it does today: leaner and--keep your fingers crossed--more capable of competing with foreign nameplates. But you won't recognize what's left of the automaker William Durant cobbled together in 1908 and Alfred P. Sloan built into the world's largest and most powerful corporation.

Workers, suppliers and creditors will suffer. So will taxpayers. GM so far has asked for a bridge loan of $10 billion to $12 billion to allow it to pay bills until the global financial crisis eases, perhaps by 2010. But no one outside of GM thinks that this will be enough to get the company back on its feet. A more likely cost, we are told by Wall Street analysts, is between $20 billion and $40 billion. Congress and the Obama administration would probably be willing to sign the check in return for some environmental promises (making more small cars, for instance), some concessions by workers and the departure of the top executives.

Could the automakers forgo handouts and solve their problems via Chapter 11?

Not easily. A bankruptcy court could shrink liabilities for retiree health care, break contracts that protect auto dealers and order plant closings.

But judges cannot make workers accept lower wages and they cannot order customers into the showroom. A GM bankruptcy could drag down hundreds of suppliers and redouble existing worries about whether warranties will be honored.

GM's crisis is so dire that the company might well be able to achieve significant concessions without having to file for bankruptcy. This assumes, however, that management sheds its business-as-usual mentality.

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

The Detroit Free Press reported today that General Motors, in its attempt to put forth a workable restructuring plan to keep it from going bankrupt, is at least looking at killing off three brands—Pontiac, Saab and Hummer.

Everyone knows that GM is over-branded. The problem has long been that the company does not want to have to pay dealers to fold the brands it does not need as it did with Oldsmobile in 2001. State franchise laws prevent a car company from simply ending a brand. Closing down Oldsmobile cost the company around $2 billion.

It’s unclear how GM could avoid paying big money to shutter the three brands.

Hummer has been on the selling block for months. The automaker has circulated a document to prospective buyers, which have ranged from Russian business moguls to Turkish private equity groups.

Saab is not thought to have any hot buyers. According to past conversations with GM execs, Saab Cars has never turned an annual profit for GM. It has, at times, made money in Europe. But those gains have always been off-set by losses in the U.S.

Saab is one of two Swedish car companies with limited interest from both consumers and investors. Ford, too, tried to sell Volvo earlier this year, and found no takers willing to pay Ford’s asking price.

Both Saab and Volvo have a problem of not being quite luxury. Both premium brands have long had followings of people who place safety above all other vehicle characteristics. Saab has also attracted some performance-oriented buyers as the company has long offered turbo chargers in some of its models.

Volvo is on track to sell about 82,000 vehicles this year. Sales through October were down 28%. Saab is on track to sell about 20,000 vehicles this year. Sales were down 32% through October.

Earlier this year, GM CEO Rick Wagoner said GM did not have too many brands.

Pontiac has been starved of hot new products for two decades. The current lineup consists of the Vibe (a twin of the Toyota Matrix and engineered by Toyota, built at the joint-venture NUMMI plant in Calif.), the G6/G5, Pontiac Torrent (twin of the Chevy Equinox) and the G8 sedan. The G8 has been well received by auto journalists since its debut last year, but the large sedan category is so soft and sleepy that few have noticed. The Pontiac Solstice roadster convertible, while also well received by journalists, is such a niche product that it can’t hold up the whole brand.

Pontiac sales are on track to sell around 280K to 290K vehicles this year. Sales through October were down 21%. A hefty percentage of Pontiac sales, though, are fleet sales to rental agencies.

At the core of GM’s problems is that it does not have, and has not had, enough resources to feed eight brands with unique products, and then the resources to feed each brand with unique and competitive brand campaigns. Every industry analyst and consultant has told GM management that for 20 years. It is one of the reasons that Pontiac, Buick and Saturn in particular have had a revolving door of brand campaigns—each new brand chief groping in the dark for a new big idea that will kick-start bigger interest in these product portfolios.

The contrast with Toyota and Honda is astonishing. Toyota manages a 14.9% market share (throughOctober) with just its one brand. Yes, it has added Scion and Lexus. But the Toyota brand is amazingly efficient by putting so many efficiently produced vehicles under its flagship brand. Ditto Honda, whish has a 9.8% share.

Hummer, Pontiac and Saab together only manage a 2.5% share of the U.S. market, and I’m willing to bet at least .5 of that is rental fleet.

Nah….GM doesn’t have too many brands.

A few years ago, ad agency Deutsch, which currently handles advertising for the Saturn brand, cooked up a brand positioning for Pontiac that focused on the gritty side of Detroit, and surrounded the brand with music reminiscent of Bruce Springsteen. The strategy was centered on performance, street rods and American car culture. But the decision was made that while the positioning was attractive, GM couldn’t fund a product program that would live up to the ads.

GM has been merging dealerships into a single network of GMC/Buick/Pontiac stores wherever it can. That way, each dealer can manage a single showroom of products that has depth and breadth of sports cars, sedans, SUVs and trucks. But that strategy also depends on supporting three different, attractive brand strategies.

If GM can execute this plan, that would leave it with Chevy, Cadillac, Saturn, Buick and GMC. One of the arguments for keeping Buick is how well it sells in China. The Chinese are mad for the Buick brand. I’m not entirely sure, though, that GM would lose sales in China if it killed the brand in the U.S. Sure, some brands are global. But I’m thinking Buick would do just fine in China without U.S. sales.

Now, we are down to Chevy, Cadillac, Saturn and GMC. GMC sells well, and GM execs have long said there is now reason to kill it. There are a flock of consumers who go for the “Professional Grade” nonsense. GMC is, after, all just a slightly stepped of version of Chevy trucks and SUVs.

There is much argument for killing Saturn, too, leaving GM to concentrate in the U.S. on Chevy and Cadillac as the company. Indeed, without the GMC/Buick/Pontiac sales channel, I don’t know how you would support GMC as a brand, unless you engineered a rapid consolidation of retail distribution perhaps selling GMC through Chevy or Cadillac dealerships.

But, as I said earlier, the big barrier is the state franchise laws, which give dealers a lot of legal firepower to get paid off if GM moves to shutter these brands. It seems like a reach that it would just close Hummer anyway as it still sees a market to sell the brand. GMC/Pontiac/Buick dealers would surely miss the sales volume from Pontiac. But is a GMC/Buick network really worth keeping long term?

As GM faces its near-death experience, asking Congress for survival money, it has to make some moves that tell analysts and legislators that is doing the things to fix its operations that everybody in the room knows it has to do.