Why is it when private investors invest billions of dollars they will receive preferred stock to protect their investment and when the taxpayer invest billions of dollars our politicians cannot get us any guarantees?

We are told that our financial institutions are burdened with toxic paper from loans that are in foreclosure or near foreclosure and plummeting house values have made these loans extremely under valued. We are then told that the taxpayer must supply billions and billions of dollars to these institutions in order to stop the downward spiral and rescue our economy.

These financial institutions take our bailout money and spend it on luxuries, bonuses, acquisitions, mergers and foreign contracts. We are then told extravagant expenses are necessary in order to retain top executives. If these executives are so skilled then why are the companies that they manage performing so poorly? These so called executives have taken our money from our deposits, run these companies into the ground then take our bailout money and spend it on themselves all while telling us they are so talented that they are worth every penny. We are told it takes top dollar to retain skilled executives, even in a down economy when there is no place for them to go.

The availability of talent to run a large financial corporation is so limited that these executives must be handsomely rewarded regardless of how poorly their companies are performing yet our country can be run by someone who is fresh and new. Do these financial institutions really need to draw from the same stagnant pool for executives? Is running a large financial institution that much more difficult than running a country? Perhaps we need a better system of electing corporate officials than through proxy. Imagine signing away our right to vote for our elected officials.

Corporate executives are not the only ones to blame for the downfall of financial institutions and our economy as a whole. Our elected officials had a hand in this mess too, after all, if banking regulations were not relaxed then the corporate executives could not have taken advantage of the regulations. No this is not a party issue nor an opportunity to point fingers. Our founding fathers placed enough checks and balances in our government that it took both parties looking out for special interest to contribute to this mess.
Our politicians opened the door for corporate executives to take advantage of the system and these executives stretched their balance sheets to the limits.

Now it is up to the taxpayer to bail out these institutions and our economy in the process. Financial institutions have already received billions of taxpayer dollars with very few restrictions and are wanting billions more. The general public has had to endure stories of exotic spending sprees, corporate bonuses, corporate takeovers and payments to foreign institutions all at taxpayer expenses with funds that were suppose to be used to stabilize the housing market.

Our elected officials could have put safeguards in place to protect the taxpayer's investment but once again they decided to side with special interest. Corporate executives did not initially want to sell these toxic assets to the government in exchange for bailout funds. They claimed it would either be too hard to put a value on these assets or the loses would be too great. Instead they wanted taxpayer funds to virtually spend as corporate executives see fit. The government originally tried to hand them a blank check of taxpayer funds.

When a private investor provides funding to a corporation to help stabilize the balance sheet the private investor is given preferred stock to protect their investment. When the corporation is stable it will buy back the preferred stock from the investor including any interest and incentives that were negotiated. The investor believes the corporation will recover and be rewarded for assisting in that recovery.

The taxpayer could have gotten a similar deal for bailing out financial institutions but our government hands our money to these institutions without any guaranteed protections. The government could have required preferred stock in these institutions in exchange for bailout funds. This would have guaranteed the taxpayer's money with interest regardless of the change in price for common stock. When the economy stabilizes the financial institution would purchase the preferred stock back from the government. As long as these institutions recovered the taxpayer gets paid back. These institutions can't fail or so we were told. In fact our government told us they were too big to fail, that's why we had to bail them out.

This latest proposal does not appear to be much better. In exchange for additional taxpayer funds financial institutions will refinance troubled loans at lower monthly payments while adding additional years to the loan. Financial institutions will receive operating funds up front while making more money in the long run over the life of the loan. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. Financial institutions (special interest) gets to make money on both ends while the taxpayer is once again left with no guarantees. Where is the incentive for big business to operate within their means?

Our government could have treated our bailout money as a private investment, come to think of it, isn't it? Shouldn't the power in negotiations belong to the entity that is doing the providing and not the entity that is doing the asking? Our elected officials are suppose to be working for us.