Basically, this entire issue is a false dilemma. Of COURSE the correct answer is NOT to have a bailout in the first place, and let the bankruptcy courts determine assets and liabilities. The amount of the bankruptcy matters not.
Having said that, keep in mind that executive salary is not a static figure. Much of it is based on performance, in which case some executives performed well enough to earn substantial bonuses.
But in my opinion, in a perfect world NO executive would have a salary, and would be paid in performance schedules. In addition, executives should be required to hold and monitor a percentage of stock if their company is on the exchange in lieu of bonuses tendered by corporate boards.
But if government injects our money into their failed enterprise, then the focus does NOT shift toward making it most profitable, but adds ANOTHER stick into the gears: government mismanagement. In short, it becomes MORE IMPORTANT to placate the government than the customer, who already voted to diss the business in the first place by not buying enough product.
As bad as it sounds, it is ACTUALLY BETTER for society to have management spend as they see fit with the bailout money, rather than let Barack's minions control how the money is used, virtually GUARANTEEING the failure of the business...WHICH IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE DEMOCRATS IN THE FIRST PLACE!