President Obama is hard to pigeonhole when it comes to dealing with this financial crisis the nation finds itself in. On one hand he says he wants to help homeowners stay in their homes, on the other hand he lends billions to the very banks that directly or indirectly created the situation to begin with.

He criticizes and rebuffs the corporations that built sand castles by backing derivitives that created the inflated housing and stock market, then when its time to step up to the plate and do something about it, he backs down to a moderate 'let's see if there's a constitutional way' of managing recalcitrant beneficiaries of the public trough.

The question remains, what's constitutionality got to do with individuals benefitting from public funds. As a government, procedures are in place when a contractor runs over budget to recover some losses through punitive fines and penalties. But, in the case of AIG, President Obama says he wants to find a better legal remedy than punitive taxes on a few millionaires. Well, Mr. President, I submit to you that a company receiving government funds is obligated to act in the best interests of the United States... not the corporation, and if it does not conduct its fidiciary responsibility, the company, its officers and employees are liable for that cost. That used to be part of every business contract. Duh!

Link here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090323/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy