A saner alternative

Now that all five big investment banks -- Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley -- have disappeared or morphed into regular banks, a question arises.

Is this bailout still necessary?

The point of the bailout is to buy assets that are illiquid but not worthless. But regular banks hold assets like that all the time. They're called "loans."

With banks, runs occur only when depositors panic, because they fear the loan book is bad. Deposit insurance takes care of that. So why not eliminate the pointless $100,000 cap on federal deposit insurance and go take inventory? If a bank is solvent, money market funds would flow in, eliminating the need to insure those separately. If it isn't, the FDIC has the bridge bank facility to take care of that.

Next, put half a trillion dollars into the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. fund -- a cosmetic gesture -- and as much money into that agency and the FBI as is needed for examiners, auditors and investigators. Keep $200 billion or more in reserve, so the Treasury can recapitalize banks by buying preferred shares if necessary -- as Warren Buffett did this week with Goldman Sachs. Review the situation in three months, when Congress comes back. Hedge funds should be left on their own. You can't save everyone, and those investors aren't poor.

The rest of Galbraith's plan is infrastructure renewable energy investment to help pull us out of the inevitable coming recession. All of this makes great sense.

Sure, it doesn't directly bail out irresponsible assholes on Wall Street, and there may be problems with this plan smarter people than me can identify, but it's clear that alternative solutions to a $700 billion giveaway are available and should be debated and considered.

The White House and/or Congress should release the full details of the Paulson presentation so that we (and smart economists) can get a true measure of the problem, and so that saner alternatives can be fully explored.