Though the hypocrisy of the Bush dynasty and Hank Paulson cannot be denied, the current plan to take a partial ownership stake in the bailed out companies is appropriate.
The current plan is for these ownership rights to be without voting rights. At first glance this might seem wrong, but it probably does make sense. However, do recall that the 'management' right of termination, for cause, is always open to the government.
And, FWIW, one that still needs to exercised against firms that the government does not have a stake in.
I am sceptical of those that call for 'regulation' as the solution. Frankly, the way things are working now we get to choose between getting defrauded by Wall Street republicans or Capitol Hill regulators.
The final solution is to put the control of assets in the hands of those best able to manage them, for an appropriate mix of public and private benefit.
Sure, Dems and Republicans are going to disagree on exactly what that balance is, and that is exactly what domestic issues in electoral races should be about.
Currently though we have idealogues on both sides dominating the processes by effectively arguing for more public control or more private. Statements that the private sector is unable to control itself or the public sector is inherently corrupt are, unfortunately, only self-fulfilling.
The important thing is individuals who can themselves balance the two with integrity and effectiveness. That, first, is a local question.
And why even with expansion of 'public' property rights, those rights need to be vested locally, not in the hands of D.C.
And everyone needs to be held accountable for their actions, at every level.