Paul S,
I am not sure what you point (s) is (are).
I will assume that you mean that government is now a shareholder/owner by virtue of the banks taking the TARP funds, some against their will. I don't know the nature and strings attached to the funds- are they loans, equity participations, or a combination. If so, other than by the power of the gun which government indisputably has, my answer would be that it should have the same say as any other stakeholder of similar nature and size.
You are mistaken that the masses are the taxpayers. As it is well known, over 40% of "taxpayers" do not pay any federal income taxes. I suspect that a good majority of these non-taxpayers are strong supporters of this administration. BTW, have you ever given any thought to the mathematical impossiblity of President Obama's promise that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut when 40%+ do not pay any taxes to begin with? Sort of like cutting welfare and education payments when actual dollar amounts of each are going up like gangbusters but not as fast as some of their special interest supporters would like. Like President Clinton's "it all depends on what the meaning of the word is is". Perhaps a tax "cut" for people who don't pay taxes has a now acceptable alternative meaning, but I digress.
Anyways, I would hope that the so-called taxpayer does get the return called for in the various agreements, though I wouldn't necessarily call it a return on investment. Anything that would keep Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, Rangel, and numerous others (Republicans included) out of the daily operations of these otherwise private sector institutions I am for. Isn't driving the quasi-governmental Fanny and Freddie directly into the ground enough? Really, they should spend their time investigating Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, et. al. and leave the private sector alone. Living and travelling like kings and holding hearings is what these guys do best anyways.
Adam,
I like Ms. Crow, the musician. Like with many entertainers, I don't take their intellect and opinions seriously. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not to impose them. But no, being invited to see her perform would not by itself keep me as a customer. On the other hand, 25 years ago I was offered the opportunity to play Augusta National by an Atlanta bank if I threw a relatively small piece of business their way (a toe in the door for them), but the deal did not make sense for my employer so I declined. I would wager that Ms. Crow's fee was relatively minor in comparison to total costs and the benefits derived from conducting such a successful, prestigious event.
Michael H,
That is one of the alternative ideas I noted earlier that has been tried several times and proven highly successful. Though historical results are no guarantee of future performance, I would rather put my money behind something that has been shown to work in the past versus an alternative that was a proven failure (not my words but FDR's own Treasury Sec.). Somehow the argument that it was a problem of not being bold enough doesn't hold water. I've played in too many wolf games and doubling, tripling, and quadrupleing down seldom had happy results. Even on the rare occasion when I've pulled it off, the sheer foolishness of taking such a gamble brought great relief but no joy. And I am talking about only a few hundred dollars, though it was my, not somebody else's money.
You do know that Mr. Laffer is considered an idiot and a person deserving nothing but ridicule by some on this site. Quite a chance you're taking to bring him up.
BTW, did he talk about Friedman's theory that one-time rebates and tax cuts have little stimulative effect? Only when rates are "permanent" do they have the desired effect on consuption, investment for production, and wealth creation.