On the eve of another do or die decision for the "Big Three" automakers, Congress is poised to act and Phil Lebeau of CNBC is hard at work interviewing automaker executives. Two of the more disturbing interviews were disturbing because of the ineptitude of management and the twisting of truths.

In a February 16, 2009 interview conducted on the floor of the Chicago auto show, a Ford vice President was asked to describe what he understood about the wants and needs of the American consumer. He promptly stated the consumer's desire first for fuel efficiency and then styling. Right on brother, he nailed that one! Next the interviewee turned to present his fleet's pride and joy, a Mustang GT500 and he exclaimed, it packs a 550 horsepower engine! Now aren't you thinking the same thing I'm thinking, --ah, what did he just say?

The second ridiclous and even more annoying interview was with the leader of GM, CEO Rick Wagoner. He was asked to respond to people who ask why they're coming back for more bailout He balked at that, saying people have it all wrong and his facts are that they didn't get all of the money that they and Congress had agreed to and they could come back for more. Well, his response is a little off the mark and maybe he should go back and check his recollection against the transcripts. To borrow a phrase, the inconvenient truth is that Congress didn't really want to fork over the money in December without a recovery plan, but they did with the stipulation that these automakers would come back in March with proof that they'd achieved a level of success as measured by positive net present value. Without that proof it seemed likely that Congress would have little choice but to allow the markets to decide the automakers' fates, because without some measure of success additional taxpayer dollars would be throwing good money after the bad.

Remember that it was these executives who had come before Congress on November 18 woefully unprepared. Watching those hearings you couldn't help but ask what these guys were thinking when they showed up looking for billions in taxpayer assistance with no plan to speak of. Remember question after question being deferred with answers like, 'we'll have to check on that', or 'we'll get back to you.' Other cute answers like 'we'll have to do the research,' and the most numbing of all, 'we didn't prepare anything on that.' They showed up in Congress for a second try on December 4th which did lead to the bailout money. But recall that in that instance the Congress emphasized that the money would come with strings attached. Congress asked that the American taxpayer dollars come with the promise that the automakers would work on a plan. We taxpayers thought this was a bit backwards at the time, because in any loan we've ever applied for the plan had to be presented first. But the belated plan was nevertheless a requirement for the automakers to show that they, in fact, had returned to a positive net present value by March. Ok, net present value is a very subjective number derived in a multitude of ways and basically easy enough to manipulate to tell a story of your chosing. In short, it's an estimate calculated using other estimated numbers. What's more, the agreement didn't place the more stringent and frankly more cut and dry requirement for the automakers to achieve net positive cash flow. That's one that everyone knew they couldn't achieved, too bad because that's one we can all understand. Yes, net positive cash flow is simply what happens when you spend less than your paycheck.

Bottom line as always, these top guys are ruining our industries. Maybe that's unfair to say, because maybe they've already ruined them or maybe they inherited the ruins of their predecessors. Whatever we do, whatever concessions we have to make, all of us, including the Congress, the American taxpayer, the labor unions and the hardworking suppliers must forever hold these top executives responsible and we should never forget that it was they who haven't managed well and, as evident by just two recent interviews, still haven't a clue. The stakes are very high and it's the bad management who must pay.