I’m no economist, but instead of giving these banks a “get out of jail free card,” it ought to more like “we’re taking you off death row and putting you on lifetime probation.”

I can understand the need to keep markets liquid for the greater good of the global economy. But I can’t comprehend how anyone can defend, for example, letting executives who were supposedly overseeing these failed banks–people who have already gotten filthy rich off the backs of others–walk away with a single cent of public money. There need to be consequences for bad behavior built into any bailout.

I also have the same kinds of reservations about this bailout bill that I had (and still have) about the awful FISA legislation.  Namely, it gives Secretary Henry Paulson sole discretion to use up to $700 billion public dollars as he and he alone sees fit.  Again: no oversight, no courts, no questions.

“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

AND it’s being rushed through without close public scrutiny. Patriot Act? Iraq war authorization? Have we learned anything?

Of course the economy is complicated, and I don’t pretend to gave a comprehensive understanding of it.  But I do know that complex problems DON’T have one solution and one solution only.  There must be real and reasonable alternative solutions to the bailout bill in its current form, but I haven’t heard anyone in the media asking experts what those solutions might be. I also haven’t heard any news reports about the possible consequences of taking on $700 billion in debt–just that whatever they are, it’s not as bad as a global economic meltdown.  I need to know what’s in the box before I buy it… Not that we have much choice in the matter.