Congress last week decided to put off financial aid for the Big Three automakers, and that was the best decision it could have made because before we do anything we need to answer two questions: First, whom are we trying to save, and second, is rescue possible? The answer to the first question is the workers. The answer to the second question is no.

The illness of the U.S. auto industry has been years in the making. In the 1970s another spike in gasoline prices induced people to buy fuel-efficient cars from foreign manufacturers, and then for years Detroit fought government fuel-efficiency standards and ignored customers, many of whom found quality and value elsewhere. Toyota and Honda have advanced car technology and lead the market because they spent money on research and development and stressed quality. Chevrolet's Volt, a plug-in hybrid with a target 40-mile range on battery power alone, is a crash program that is an attempt to leap past the industry and is a considerable gamble, according to an account in a recent issue of The Atlantic.

U.S. auto companies have to cure themselves, and the prescription will not come from government oversight or any set of loan conditions. It's a long-term problem for a different set of executives. It's also a matter of long-term perception. Ford has improved its products to the point where its Focus sedan was one of the top picks for 2004 in Consumer Reports magazine and where people ranked Ford No. 2 behind Toyota in a 2007 brand survey by the magazine. Cash infusions won't substitute for the years of work which put Ford in that spot and which other automakers must undertake.

Advocates of government aid seem to be under the assumption that millions of jobs are at stake. That isn't reasonable. If one automaker falls those customers will go elsewhere, and that will help the remaining companies. Honda, Toyota, Chrysler and others may pick up abandoned workers, factories and suppliers because they are building cars here, too, and can use those assets. Nor is it necessary that the auto companies remain in their present form. GM executives may like their comfy spots, but it may be better for workers and customers if Saturn and Chevrolet were to become independent companies.

Another assumption of loan advocates seems to be that money will stop the pain. Yet in the last few months we've seen GM walk away from its Janesville plant and away from workers after accepting thousands of dollars in aid from the state. U.S. automakers have factories building what buyers don't want, and given that we must expect more plant closures, even with loan approval, because automakers must change their products in order to survive. In other words we may pay billions to subsidize some auto workers and executives and then pay billions more to help those laid off.

Yet we should not be completely immune to the plight of the auto companies. That's why Congress should repurpose the $25 billion in loans it recently made available to automakers to improve fuel efficiency. Let the auto companies use that to ease their short-term cash problems, and then let them survive or fail on their own. We will be farther ahead if we help our people survive the pain of factory closures and find new careers than if we try to stop a rusting giant from sliding the last few inches down the hill.