The Bush Administration is nothing if not consistent.

America was attacked on 9/11 when intelligence already gathered under the auspices of the U.S. Constitution was ignored ("Bin Ladin Set to Attack") -- but the Bush Administration thereafter engages in fullscale decimation of the principles of the Constitution and asserts that the idea of respecting the Constitution is "so pre-9/11". Bush invokes his administration's own incompetence as some kind of justification for destroying the constitutional system.

Now, when the fiscal consequences of the absurdly abusive non-supervision of the Bush Adminstration are laid bare, what is the Bush Administration's proposal? Why, grant open-ended absolute regulatory power to Bush's selected minister, of course. "The problem we have created justifies entrusting us with absolute power".

Thank goodness at least somebody has a problem with this; I'll take the help of even the Malkins of the world on this one. I don't even want a Democrat appointee to have this kind of unfettered discretion. But the sheer chutzpah of Bush on this needs to be slapped down.

Now, not being an economist, I do have one suggestion and I don't think I've seen any reference to this concept: Why shouldn't any corporate/Wall Street/Banking participation in any government largesse/bailout here be conditioned expressly upon recalculation/resetting of underlying residential mortgage balances to current market values? Seriously. Isn't what is being discussed essentially a lifeboat for those who have purchased, pooled, traded, taken commissions, etc. on basic residential mortgages? And the people -- the "little people" -- who hold those individual mortgages are still signed on to payment structures tied to assessed values that have dropped 30% or more as a result of the collapse of these structures? Now, if those homeowners remain subject to those same loan terms even after Wall Street shores itself up at the government trough, won't those homeowners still end up defaulting at continuing rates?

Most states have "antideficiency laws" in place, enacted out of the last Depression. Such laws are premised upon the legislative determination that lenders are better able to evaluate and absorb the risk of adverse market conditions and, therefore, such laws generally restrict a lender's recovery upon a homeowner's mortgage default to the then-current market value of the property; if the market has fallen, the lender cannot sue the homeowner for a "deficiency" between the amount received at a foreclosure sale and the face amount of the original loan. However, lenders still retain the ability to destroy a borrower's credit rating on default, and the fact is that residential borrowers still "owe" the original full amount until they go through the actual and drastic step of foreclosure.

Why not allow the economy to recover fully, at all levels, by re-setting the entire "equilibrium" at the current market instead of just neutralizing the debts that have been incurred by those speculating on the market made possible by residential loan packaging without consideration of those who make the packages possible (the residential homebuyer)? If those who want to be forgiven for speculating on the value of residential loan packages were required to accept the risk inherent in their speculation (which antideficiency laws have long required) and recalculate residential loan balances based upon current, rather than original, residential market conditions, then the cycle of homeowner defaults might itself be corrected at the same time the existing Wall Street shortfalls are being plugged by infusion of Chinese (opps, I meant US) bailout money.

I'm less worried about recovering Wall Street bonuses and golden parachutes than I am about recovery in the housing market. And I haven't heard a word about how what is being suggested is supposed to help the actual residential housing market. Oh, wait, "trickle down". Is that it again?

not realize they are fish, or that they are in a barrel?

Don't really know what else to say about TIME, except I'd rather they be a little less defensive and a little more useful.