Former General Motors chairman and CEO Richard Wagoner was entitled to receive $23 million in retirement benefits as recently as last year, but after driving the company into bankruptcy and costing taxpayers billions, it's been decided that $23 million was too much.

Now Wagoner will be getting just $8.6 million over the first five years of his retirement, a benefits cut the company said is consistent with what other workers are taking.

But wait a minute: How many other GM workers are getting $8.6 million? Not many, but I guess the argument GM is making is that it's consistent on a percentage basis. But how many of GM's workers were as directly responsible for the company's downfall as Mr. Wagoner?

Richard Wagoner's retirement package has gone from hilariously excessive to ridiculously excessive. In that sense, there's no principled distinction between Wagoner taking $23 million and taking $8.6 million. If he had any character or desire to salvage what's left of his legacy -- and prevent his children from having to bear the name of an infamous villain -- he would have turned down all retirement benefits and directed that they be used for the benefit of the company's lower-level workers.

Then, Mr. Wagoner could say that the price of his character was at least $8.6 million. But for now, this retirement package will do nothing but buy him some nice foreign cars and cement his place in the annals of infamous executives.

Nearly four months after being pushed out as CEO, former General Motors head honcho Richard Wagoner is still officially an employee of the company. The reason? The company is still trying to figure out how much it has to give him to go away and keep his mouth shut.

The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that "GM is keeping Mr. Wagoner on staff -- albeit only technically -- as the government decides on pay and benefit criteria for the company's top officers, obligations that will be the responsibility of the new GM once it emerges from bankruptcy protection, company spokeswoman Julie Gibson said."

Wagoner could be eligible for pension benefits valued at around $20 million, but GM and the United States government have concluded that that's simply too much to pay someone for destroying a company.

It's not yet clear how much Wagoner will end up settling for but one thing is certain: It will be far, far more than he would receive in any merit-based system.

If Richard Wagoner gets a Greyhound bus ticket to haul himself back to Delaware, it will be way, way too much.

General Motors (NYSE: GM) disclosed yesterday that it had borrowed another $4 billion from the Treasury Department, raising its total indebtedness to us to $19.4 billion.

The New York Times reports that "G.M. originally said that it would need an additional $2.6 billion from the government to operate through June 1, but added $1.4 billion to that amount."

Whoops! GM underestimated its cash needs by an astounding 53.8%!

Normally, unions blame management for corporate problems and management blames unions. The truth? Both are usually right.

But the Associated Press reports that exiled General Motors (NYSE: GM) CEO Richard Wagoner is being defended as a "sacrificial lamb," "scapegoat" and "fall guy" by workers and union bosses.

"We knew someone was going to have to take the proverbial `bullet,' and it would have made it a lot easier to accept that had the CEOs of the banks also been required to give up their jobs," said Jim Graham, president of a union local in Lordstown, Ohio, where GM produces the Cobalt and Pontiac G5 fuel-efficient cars.

The comparison isn't entirely unreasonable: Ken Lewis and Vikram Pandit should have been dumped out on the street too, and it's a testimony to both appallingly bad corporate governance and poor oversight by the federal government that either of them currently has a job doing anything other than dogwalking.

But why defend Wagoner? By defending Wagoner's "leadership", people like Mr. Graham are essentially admitting that GM was essentially destined to fail because of overseas competition and its uncompetitive labor costs. If they want to deflect blame from themselves, they should be embracing the Richard Wagoner as The Man Who Ruined General Motors script. Otherwise, there's nowhere to point the finger but inward.

If you were the CEO of one of the most powerful companies in the world for a decade and, during that time, presided over the destruction of nearly all of the company's shareholder value and put the company in a position where it required a government handout to avoid bankruptcy, how much would you expect to receive after you retired?

If you worked at a normal company, you'd get zero. And you'd get sued. But at General Motors (NYSE: GM), Richard Wagoner will leave the company with $20 million in pension benefits and $535,000 in deferred compensation.

Depending on who you believe, Richard Wagoner is either positive a GM bankruptcy will lead to liquidation, or he's coming around to the realization that it's the best option.

Here's an Associated Press headline from yesterday: GM CEO says bankruptcy would cause liquidation.

Here's one from today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required): GM's Chief Softens View on Bankruptcy.

The ink is barely dry on the $13.4 billion in "loans" provided by the Bush administration at the end of 2008, but General Motors (NYSE: GM) is already talking about needing more. CEO Richard Wagoner says the company may look to secure additional government cheese in March -- earlier reports had suggested that GM believed the $13.4 billion would be enough to survive through 2009.

How does GM plan to demonstrate viability? It will need to secure broader concessions from the United Auto Workers union and, hilariously, try to convince bond holders to swap their debt for equity in one of the greater cash-burning machines in history. Good luck with that one!

Wagoner also said that GM is still looking to find a buyer for Saab. The company has denied problems in generating interest in the brand among potential buyers -- I'll believe someone is interested in buying Saab when there's a done deal. Similarly, GM has failed to generate any serious interest in Hummer, despite trying really, really hard to find a buyer.

GM's management has been extremely optimistic in terms of its "forward-looking statements," but so far it's all been bluster. Government officials should keep that in mind when GM brass shows up in March to demonstrate a plan for viability.

Speaking on the Today Show, General Motors (NYSE: GM) CEO Richard Wagoner said that the company can restructure without cutting benefits to current retirees.

Is Wagoner completely out of touch? Of course! But he might be right on this one. GM's long-term success or failure will come from changes made in the company's current operations, not by rolling back previously agreed upon deals. But in the interview, he provided further evidence of just how important it is that he be replaced.

According to the Associated Press, "Wagoner also said despite criticism at the time, he never considered resigning during the bailout hearings in November and December, even if it would have improved the bailout's chance of passing."

So wait a second: Wagoner insisted that the bailout was absolutely necessary to the survival of the company, but wouldn't have been willing to resign if that had been necessary to make it happen? Did Wagoner seriously just admit that he would have let the entire industry go down the tubes to avoid resigning? Can somebody please fire this guy, immediately?

The fact that Wagoner has remained as CEO throughout this ordeal raises serious questions about GM's board of directors.

As though we needed another reason to be disgusted with corporate governance in the United States, here's a gem from The Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "So far this year, 46 outside directors who are CEOs or chief financial officers left the boards of 42 companies in three struggling industries -- financial services, retail and residential construction -- concludes an analysis for The Wall Street Journal by Corporate Library in Portland, Maine."

Directors at companies like Ford (NYSE: F), General Motors (NYSE: GM), Sprint Nextel (NYSE: S), and American International Group (NYSE: AIG) have been resigning, citing the huge amount of time required to be a director at a company faces extinction.

Oh where to begin. First of all, isn't it a little bit messed up to go along collecting a salary in the $150,000 per year range (which is what GM directors are paid) to go to a few meetings a year when times are good, and then head for the hills when the going gets tough? Isn't that like working for ten years as a security guard at a posh country club without incident and then calling in your resignation at the first sight of a burglar?

The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that General Motors (NYSE: GM) was recently in discussions to acquire Chrysler from Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm in the unpleasant position of owning that train wreck.

Once you learn the details, it's not quite as dumb as it sounds at first. According to the Journal, "Cerberus proposed a swap in which GM would acquire Chrysler's automotive operations, and in turn give Cerberus its remaining 49% stake in GMAC."

Given what a mess GMAC is, the proposal provides an idea of what Cerberus thinks of Chrysler's long-term prospects. It's a little bit like a few college students trying to trade 98 Degrees CDs for Dawson's Creek posters.

It's pretty much moot because the events of the past week have made a deal of this size impossible to put together, at least for now. But it's still interesting to think about. Given what a dump GM is, it's hard to imagine that an acquisition of this size and complexity would help matters. CEO Richard Wagoner (seen at right mulling the merger) already has his hands full.

GM insists that bankruptcy is not on the table. But so does every company -- until it files.

General Motors (NYSE: GM) and Ford (NYSE: F) want you to pick up their tab for their decades of excess and managerial incompetence.

The Associated Press reports that the Detroit automakers are likely to ask Congress for $50 billion in low-interest loans to fund modernization efforts, and help them build more fuel-efficient vehicles.

What a load of crap. In 2007, Ford paid cash-burning CEO Alan Mulally $21 million, and GM's Richard Wagoner got a 41% raise to over $14 million for the same year. In effect, our tax dollars will be subsidizing this pay for pulse orgy of bad governance. GM also paid out more than half a billion in dividends in 2007 -- if the company needs billions to invest in modernization, why didn't it cut the dividend a long time ago?

It appears that the auto industry has been counting on a bailout all along, and why not? It looks like they'll be getting it.

General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM) CEO Richard Wagoner earned $10.2 million in 2006, and will be receiving a raise in his $1.28 million salary, which was cut in half in February of 2006. While the $370,000 salary raise he's receiving is a pittance in the grand scheme of things for a company like GM, it does have important symbolic value.

This coming July, GM will begin negotiations for a new contract with the United Auto Workers Union. Here's the problem: Given the sacrifices that the workers have made over the past few years, how can anyone argue that they shouldn't receive a portion of what they gave up, just as Wagoner received 50% of his salary cut back for this year?

This looks remarkable short-sighted for Wagoner and the Board. Is the $370,000 raise (he earned $10.2 million including options and restricted stock in 2006) really worth the headache of hearing about during every negotiating session?