we're happy to have our money back, thank you very much

Banks complain that bailout funds require them to change their wasteful ways; want to give us our money back:

Financial institutions that are getting government bailout funds have been told to put off evictions and modify mortgages for distressed homeowners. They must let shareholders vote on executive pay packages. They must slash dividends, cancel employee training and morale-building exercises, and withdraw job offers to foreign citizens.

As public outrage swells over the rapidly growing cost of bailing out financial institutions, the Obama administration and lawmakers are attaching more and more strings to rescue funds.

The conditions are necessary to prevent Wall Street executives from paying lavish bonuses and buying corporate jets, some experts say, but others say the conditions go beyond protecting taxpayers and border on social engineering.

Some bankers say the conditions have become so onerous that they want to return the bailout money. The list includes small banks like the TCF Financial Corporation of Wayzata, Minn., and Iberia Bank of Lafayette, La., as well as giants like Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo.

First of all, NYT-ese translator on the "onerous" conditions:

• "put off evictions and modify mortgages" = Addressing both the macro and on-the-ground consequences of the banks' subprime disaster and stimulating the economy by putting a floor on foreclosures.


• "let shareholders vote on executive pay packages" = actually, it means what it says, but most people think that's a great idea and not onerous at all. Executives work for the shareholders, so the shareholders should get to say what their employees make.


• "slash dividends" = stop giving away our money to investors and use TARP for what it's supposed to be for: shoring up your capital.


• "cancel employee training and morale-building exercises" = cancel taxpayer-funded vacations to Las Vegas and Florida.

Second, if they want to give back the funds, I say, great. If they're in a position to pay us back, that means they didn't really need to be bailed out in the first place, doesn't it? And that probably means they shouldn't have gotten our money.

If the TARP funds are really "rescue funds," as Wall Street is trying to frame them, then they should go to banks that need to be rescued. And I'm pretty sure banks that need to be rescued are the ones that screwed up. As such, complaints that business-as-usual is not allowed for bailout recipients garners only a single Hollywood tear and the world's tiniest violin.