President Bush's bailout of General Motors and Chrysler prevents an economic calamity, for now, and dumps the responsibility on his successor to enforce the vague terms.

In agreeing to lend the automakers $17.4 billion, Bush really had no options. GM and Chrysler would have run out of money by the end of the month, a failure that could have resulted in the loss of up to 3 million middle-class jobs next year.

On top of the 2 million jobs lost this year, such a blow would have deepened a recession that already is the worst in a quarter-century.

Bush's decision against forcing the automakers into bankruptcy is the right one. In this tight credit market, consumers would be especially wary of committing to a high-cost product from a bankrupt manufacturer.

Much of the agreement resembles the deal that fell apart in Congress. Firms must provide warrants for nonvoting stock; debt owed to the government would be senior to other debts; firms must allow the government to examine their books; and the automakers must not issue new dividends until they pay back the government loans.

As necessary as this bailout was, the agreement falls short in protecting taxpayers. The goal is to guarantee the automakers' viability by March 31, or the loans could be revoked. But it will be left to President-elect Obama to decide whether the automakers are meeting a squishy definition of "viability."

The deal requires the companies to lower their debt by two-thirds via a debt-for-equity exchange. It also calls for the companies to reach agreement with the United Auto Workers to cut wages to levels that are competitive with what foreign automakers pay their nonunion employees in the United States.

These targets are nonbinding, and could be changed by the Obama administration. The automakers can make different arrangements with the union, as long as they explain how a Plan B would lead them to profitability. Given all the urgent problems piling up on Obama's agenda, he's not likely to press the automakers very hard.

The loan deal places limits on executive compensation and forces the companies to sell those infamous corporate jets. Unfortunately, it does not require the companies to replace the management that has led them to this sorry day.

Despite the weaknesses in this agreement, the automakers and their stakeholders — unions, suppliers, dealers — can make it work if they recognize it for what it is. It's their last chance for survival.

Without this temporary lifeline, they'd go under in a matter of weeks. Even with this aid, they still could fail within a few months unless all parties are willing to make significant concessions and restructure a game plan that has failed miserably.

— The Philadelphia Inquirer

n n nIt's understandable that gay rights activists would be hot about Barack Obama asking California Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the inauguration invocation. The evangelical superstar opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions.That's the position held by 32 percent of Americans. Given that a roughly equal number of those polled support full marriage rights (31 percent) or no legal recognition for same-sex couples (30 percent), that makes Warren a moderate on the question. But that's not good enough for many gays, who think his views disqualify him from offering an inaugural prayer.Like it or not, Warren and his brand of religiosity is thoroughly mainstream, and Obama was smart to offer him a place of honor at the historic event.Obama disagrees with the Saddleback Church pastor on some issues and has said so (though Obama also opposes gay marriage, while supporting civil unions). Yet the president-elect emphasizes areas of common cause, especially the popular minister's efforts mobilizing evangelicals against AIDS and poverty.In fact, conservatives who fault Warren for agreeing to pray at Obama's swearing-in probably have more to worry about, given that he symbolizes a new generation of evangelical leaders who don't demonize Democrats.Good to both of them for standing up to extreme elements in their bases.