David Sirota has asked why a double standard exists between coddled bank CEOs and those that head up the nation's auto makers.  I believe a clear explanation exists...and one not based on conspiracy theories.

First, the government can't pull confidence out of the financial sector abruptly or risk a run on the banks. The reason all banks were given TARP money was to mask who was in real trouble (though that has become more transparent recently and now that information is not as critical because of the government backstop). If that hand is tipped, you have a run on one of the large money-center banks and the FDIC exposure itself from someone like Citi would be close to $700 billion. If two or more fail...well...

If a stark vote of no confidence is given, then you have a fairly massive unwinding. Yes, you have the some unwinding with auto makers but it typically doesn't go KABOOM...see next... 

Second, in the financial sector there is no Chapter 11 or 13 restructuring type of bankruptcy. By law, there is dissolution and liquidation by FDIC or the facilitation of a merger (read shotgun wedding) - in other words, just Chapter 7.  See Lehman for an example. We're out of merger options because of how they have weakened even once strong banks (see BofA and Wells by way of Merrill and Wachovia) and because of the uncertainty on what's on different bank's balance sheets.  So, GM and Chrysler can restructure and come back as something new and shiny. A bank just goes bye-bye. That's an important distinction. 

I believe the actions taken show some savvy.  Several bank CEOs have been asked to step down as part of the bailout process. These included the heads of Fannie, Freddie, and AIG.  The Citi CEO is also new though he hasn't shown to have garnered much confidence from investors. In addition, other CEOs were removed in the quick process of resolution as in the cases of WaMu and Wachovia.

That being said, don't think the banks have escaped anything. After the stress tests and PPIP assets sale attempts this sprint and summer a few will be nationalized if the conservatorship legislation goes through. At that point the government will appoint new boards and those boards will start firing people. But you have to do that as part of the discovery process. The PPIP and stress tests (really the PPIP) will start to reveal who is in real trouble.

Unlike the car companies, the banks don't have a short-term cash flow issue that makes their bankruptcy now as imminent (as it may have been several months ago).  They have a long-term solvency issue which when backstopped by the government can be unwound and managed more carefully. The banks would have such an issue almost overnight if there was a confidence issue.  You don't get 30 or 60 days to do anything if you are a bank with a massive confidence issue. Remember, banks are fractional reserve systems which lend out most of the money depositors put into them.  That $5000 checking account you had at WaMu is part of some crappy house that can't sell in Modesto.   A confidence issue for a bank is called a run.  Right now, depositors are not so worried - thankfully.  Only equity and debt holders are.  The car companies just chew through cash which is harder to deal with since you have to constantly throw money at the problem - not that that is horrible. It's just something you can't sit on as long.

But again, the bank will get their due.  First, not all the banks need the bailout money. The PPIP will force some hands to be revealed. Those that mark down their balance sheets now will likely do better under PPIP. Those that don't will reveal the true level of toxicity on their balance sheets.  Those banks will be dealt with based on how Geithner's legislation gets through...and you have an objective measure by which to determine who is and who is not truly solvent since right now that banks are saying their assets can't be properly evaluated (mark to market et al).

Finally, to assume the banks have gone unscathed would not be accurate.  Aside from the CEO changes mentioned above, even Hank Paulson attempted to make sure the bailouts and government involvement with the banks would be painful enough to serve as a disincentive for banks not keeping their houses in order.  I think people forget that Paulson bid DOWN the price for Bear Sterns.  He actually forced Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan to push his offer lower so that it would be more painful in order to send a message (and later got sued as a result).  He also let Fuld at Lehman fall on his face.  Paulson also essentially forced Wells Fargo to take TARP money to help conceal strong banks from weak ones.  This action forced a dividend cut on the part of Wells Fargo as part of the terms.    So, to assume the banks have all just been pandered to would not be considering the full context of what's been happening over the past 18 months.