The Government Accountability Office (the people who audit the federal government) is already saying that the oversight of the $700 billion bailout is failing. And we're only a couple of months into the massive money grab. In particular, the GAO is saying that the Treasury Department has no idea what it's doing or how to make this bailout successful. (Hint: It's not going to be successful.)

The major criticisms of how the Treasury is handling the bailout include:

• Not having a system in place for verifying that banks receiving federal money are following the rules on executive compensation and dividends.
• Not having even basic internal controls in place.
• Inadequate staffing of the Office of Financial Stability, which was created to implement the bailout.
• No decision by the Treasury on whether firms getting federal funds will have to provide reports on their use of the funds.

Does any of this come as a surprise? Most of it is not surprising, although I find it amazing that the government might just let banks take billions of dollars without reporting back on their use of the money.

This bailout might become the biggest financial failure of our government. It's already been reported that the taxpayers are on the hook for far more than the $700 billion. Try about $2.5 trillion and counting. And the Treasury... the people who are supposed to be looking out for the taxpayers... are asleep at the wheel and not even doing basic monitoring of the bailout. That doesn't make me feel very good.

Tracy L. Coenen, CPA, MBA, CFE performs fraud examinations and financial investigations for her company Sequence Inc. Forensic Accounting, and is the author of Essentials of Corporate Fraud.

As GM waits in line for handouts for its struggling company, it's made it very clear that they still just don't get it. The company has been late to the hybrid party, Toyota and Honda have had top selling hybrids for years. So what does GM do? Develops the Chevrolet Volt.

The Volt only runs on electricity. The battery pack is recharged via either a wall-outlet, like a "regular" electric or plug-in hybrid, or an on-board generator. When running full electric, Volt can deliver about 40 miles of driving.

However, with its 1.0 liter turbo four cylinder driving the generator to recharge the batteries, range increases to 640 miles. This certainly is more with what is happening than the Hummer, but let's look at the price tag: $40,000 or so.

I don't know about you but I would never pay that much for a car. I like to buy cars for $10,000 or less that get more than 50 miles to the gallon. My next car will be the Honda hybrid that gets over 70 miles to the gallon and retails new for less than $20,000. GM still doesn't get it. People are looking for quality transportation at a low cost.

At this rate, it will be back at the trough for more bailouts.

Barbara Bartlein is the People Pro. For her FREE e-mail newsletter, please visit: The People Pro.

Banks and the auto industry are getting them, and Americans could use one of their own, so it seems right that "bailout" is the 2008 Word of the Year at Merriam-Webster's online dictionary.

Bailout, which the site defines as a rescue from financial distress, was chosen because it received the highest number of lookups on the site.

Other top words looked up by users this year also are grim and relate to finances: "turmoil," "trepidation" and "precipice." Words from the presidential race also were in the top 10: "vet" was No. 2, as in vetting or evaluating a vice presidential pick; "maverick" was No. 4, "socialism" No. 3 and "rogue" No. 8.

The publisher usually picks its word of the year by considering the number of lookups and whether certain unusual terms submitted by online users have slipped into everyday discussion, according to an Associated Press story in The Boston Globe.

That's how "W00t" -- spelled with two zeros -- used by online game players to express triumph or happiness, gained the top spot in 2007.

In 2006, the online dictionary users picked "truthiness" as No. 1 after it was coined by Comedy Central political satirist Stephen Colbert.

But this year Merriam-Webster switched its procedure to consider only the volume of lookups of particular words, noting that "bailout" and others were looked up so frequently that their importance couldn't be ignored.

Aaron Crowe is an unemployed journalist in the San Francisco Bay Area. Read about his job hunt at www.talesofanunemployeddad.blogspot.com

It's almost impossible to get your head around the numbers: $700 billion for "troubled Assets;" $25 billion for the auto industry. $300-some billion to bail out Citigroup.

With this last promise, the United States Government has now pledged $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers to try and rescue our financial system. That's Trillion. With a T.

According to Bloomberg, which has an outstanding break-down of the very big mess we're in, the amount of money pledged so far amounts to about $24,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. That sounds sort of tame to me, outrageous as it is. I guess all these numbers are making me immune to shock.

Of course give it a couple of days. It's bound to go much higher.

Barry Ritholtz at the Big Picture points out that the current credit crisis outlay is the costliest by far in American History, costing more than other big-government expenditures, including the Vietnam War, the Iraq invasion, the New Deal, the Marshall Plan, and the Louisiana Purchase (adjusted for inflation) combined.

So considering that this is a historic occurrence, being paid for on my time with my tax dollars, I do have a couple of questions -- and pardon me ever so much for my ignorance, being but a humble citizen and not a Master-of-the Universe:

1.) How is trying to spur lending to an over-leveraged and utterly tapped-out consumer going to help the economy?

2.) What's in it for us, the little people? How about something we could all benefit from, such as basic universal health care for all citizens. What's the reason we don't have it yet? Is it because it's "too expensive?" Or is it because it's too much like "socialism," which is patently un-American.

3.) And if that's the case, can you explain Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to me? What about all those bank takeovers? And guaranteeing $300 billion to Citigroup? Can you define "Free Market doctrine?"

4) Where is all this money coming from really? I thought the United States was now a debtor nation, and as such, doesn't actually have the cash for this kind of thing. Who are we borrowing it from? Or are we just printing money? Does that strategy ever end well?

5) I have a few irrational investments over the past few years that are now languishing on my credit card. I'll need a bail-out myself. The American Taxpayer is too big to fail, after all. Can I get Hank Paulson's email?

It should come as no surprise that all kinds of businesses and industries are trying to get a piece of the $3 trillion bailout mess. Why shouldn't they? The Treasury Department basically opened the checkbook and said, "Step right up, ladies and gentlemen." Too bad it was my checkbook, your checkbook, and the checkbooks of current and future taxpayers.

All week long, we've been hearing about how the U.S. automakers "need" some of the bailout funds. The frontrunner in the race to see which automaker(s) can receive money seems to be General Motors. The arguments in favor of bailing out the company? 100,000 jobs will be lost at GM. The company's 1,300 suppliers will be put at risk, along with their employees. Retirees stand to lose pension and health care benefits.

But why should the government bail out an industry that makes no sense? More cash for GM is like flushing money down the toilet. Sales are plummeting and the cash reserve is dwindling. Why? Because American car makers have cost structures to their businesses that are no longer viable. Between union pay, benefits, and retirement plans, the cost for GM (or either of the other domestic makers) is simply too high to be competitive.

Cities are the latest entities approaching the Treasury Department with their hands out, hoping for a piece of the $3 trillion bailout debacle. Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Atlanta are the first cities to beg for money, but many more can't be far behind. They'd be fools to not ask!

The reason the cities are asking for help? They say their tax revenue is down and their pension plans are ailing from the stock market drop. And their point is what? Isn't everyone feeling the pinch these days?

In times like these, all units of government should be looking for ways to drastically cut costs. Sinking more money into them is not the right move. These cities are crying bloody murder, saying they'll have to lay off employees and raise taxes. They may have to lay off employees, but I've always said that governments are overstaffed anyway. And raise taxes? No, that's not the only option. Massive spending cuts are the way to go.

Experts say the cities have little chance of getting any bailout money, but I'm not so sure about that. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is committed to doing whatever he wants to do with the money our lawmakers handed over to him, so anything is possible at this point. Where does all the bailout spending end? Your guess is as good as mine, but I think it's safe to say that there's going to be lots and lots of spending before the end is in sight.

Tracy L. Coenen, CPA, MBA, CFE performs fraud examinations and financial investigations for her company Sequence Inc. Forensic Accounting, and is the author of Essentials of Corporate Fraud.

We've all been referring to the federal government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) for banks as the "$700 billion bailout." But last night, BailoutSleuth, Marc Cuban's site created to follow the administration of the bailout reported that our government has spent a whole lot more than that to rescue financial services companies.

How much so far? Try $2.5 trillion.

This comes out as Bloomberg L.P. has filed a lawsuit to force the Federal Reserve to provide more information about which companies are receiving money and what assets have been pledged to get the money. Although the bailout was initially approved amid claims that there would be total transparency, the reality has fallen far short of that.

Here's how BailoutSleuth comes up with its total:

• $170 billion for banks who sold preferred stock to the government
• $150 billion given to AIG -- $85 billion initially, another $25 billion, and another $40 billion
  
• $2 trillion in emergency loans from the Federal Reserve to banks under 11 different programs that are separate from the TARP program, and which didn't require approval by Congress

I've been against the whole concept of "government bailouts" of private businesses from the start. The theory was that we, as consumers, needed the government to prop up failing businesses because they were so vital to our economy.

My personal theory has been that we need the free market do the work. If companies made bad investments or bad business decisions, then they should have to live with the consequences. If the companies still have value but are headed toward death, let another company (via the free market) decide that and purchase the company with its own funds.

Having the government intervene in all of these bailouts seems to just prolong the pain. The companies receiving money don't seem to be making the kind of drastic changes they need to rehabilitate their businesses. There are just more handouts every time we turn around.

Following the taxpayer-funded bailout of American International Group (AIG) tales of spa trips, canceled spa trips, hunting extravaganzas, and executive bonuses have been irritating consumers nationwide.

Whether you consider the "bailout" to be merely a loan to get AIG through hard times or corporate welfare (or something in between), the fact is that taxpayers are helping save the company.

It's no surprise, then, that ordinary folks like you and me are awfully interested in how AIG is spending its money. After all, when we go through rough financial times, we usually cut back on all the extras. Good news came Wednesday that the former CEO Martin Sullivan will not receive $19 million in severance payments (for now, anyway) and a $600 million pot of bonus money won't be distributed.

These two items might be chump change in light of the almost $123 billion in credit lines the government has made available to AIG, but even holding back on this spending (which amounts to less than 1% of the total the government has offered up) sends an important message: If you want taxpayer help, you better be willing to cut any and all corners necessary to be a responsible recipient of the money.

As if one trip to a luxury spa resort wasn't enough for American International Group (AIG) following its taxpayer-funded bailout, the company had plans to do it all over again.

50 AIG managers were scheduled to do a deluxe retreat at the Ritz-Carlton resort in Half Moon Bay. The company said it was going to host 150 top-producing agents for educational purposes.

The cost of this "educational opportunity?" Ritz Carlton rooms go for $300 to $1,200 a night, plus high costs for meals, drinks, and entertainment. If the earlier trip is any indication, this whole extravaganza could cost the company around $500,000.

Outrage from taxpayers has led management to cancel this outing, and lawmakers are relieved. Some defended the trips as standard fare for high-level producers for insurance companies. The independent agents win these trips by selling a lot of insurance products. Yet it seems excessive in light of the taxpayer assistance required by AIG.

With taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars of loans made to AIG to help keep them in business, the company needs to find another way to give incentives to the sales force. Standard industry practice or not, these trips don't go over well during a time when belts are being tightened by the little guys. The cancellation of the trip is good news for now. Let's see what AIG comes up with next.

Tracy L. Coenen, CPA, MBA, CFE performs fraud examinations and financial investigations for her company Sequence Inc. Forensic Accounting, and is the author of Essentials of Corporate Fraud.

If we ever needed an argument against using taxpayer money to bail out private companies who made bad decisions and are teetering on the brink of extinction, this is it.

Less than one week after the U.S. government forked out $85 billion related to the American International Group (AIG) mess, the AIG executives took a little jaunt to a California spa and spent $440,000 on their stay.

The executives stayed at the exclusive St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, and plunked down $139,000 for rooms, $147,000 for banquets, $23,380 spa services, plus other expenses for alcohol and entertainment. A normal two-night stay at the St. Regis with a "health and wellness" package costs $1,200. Quite the bargain, especially for a company begging for taxpayer handouts.

The U.S. government passed a $700 billion economic bailout package in an effort to stabilize the flailing banking sector. So far, it hasn't worked as hoped and the financial crisis has deepened since the law was approved. That's the bad news.

The good news is that there is a lot more than help for just banks in the 451-page legislation. Lawmakers added hundreds of other "sweeteners" to make the bill more popular with the public. See if you can benefit from any of the following provisions:

More insurance for bank deposits: Now your bank deposits are protected up to $250,000 for each account. Formerly, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) backed your deposits up to $100,000. The increase is temporary, but is likely to be extended.

AMT Reform: Fewer taxpayers are going to get hit with the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax, a parallel tax code that was originally intended to make sure wealthy people paid their fair share of taxes, but which has increasingly slammed middle-income earners. Basically, unless you make more than $100,000 for single taxpayers or $175,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly, you shouldn't have to worry about the AMT due to the change.

It seems that many of our congresscritters took advantage of the public outcry for a quick passage to pack a bunch of pork into the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. It seems ridiculous, but members of Congress took advantage of a bill meant to save the economy to fund questionable programs in their home states. While many contend that the pork was needed to get enough votes for the bill to pass, you'd think the threat of martial law would have given senators enough reason to pass the bill without the added fat.

Taxpayers for Common Sense compiled a list of the Top 10 pieces of pork stuck into the bailout bill, the most ludicrous listed below.

1. Tax break for manufacturers of wooden arrows used by children -- Cost $2 million
2. 7 year tax extension for Race car Tracks -- Cost $100 million
3. Tax incentives for film and TV production companies -- Cost $478 million

These are just a few of the crazier examples of pork attached to the bailout bill, the rest of the list encompassing billions of dollars in expenditures is sure to turn your stomach.

Not all pork has to be bad, there are many other extras added into the bailout bill which in my opinion fall under the bacon category, as in pork that tastes good!

Even though I don't have nearly as much to lose in my retirement account as my elders, the sad state of our economy has still had an effect on my life plans, but not all for the worse. I share many of the same concerns as they do regarding the strength of our economy and the overall health of our financial institutions but by virtue of my youth I see fewer immediate downsides and a silver lining inside the gloomy forecast.

Since we didn't get caught up in the fever of home ownership that swept America recently, my wife and I aren't in the position to lose our home because of the rising interest rates that many others were hit with. Even though we dodged the subprime bullet, one of my biggest concerns is that when we are ready to purchase a home in the near future we won't be able to get a mortgage with favorable terms thanks to constricting credit.

As far as retirement goes, I'm still socking away as much as I can in the hope that I make out well when the upswing happens, but I'm worried about being called upon some day to finance the retirement of my older coworkers as well as the remnants of the bailout package. Speaking of employment; I'm not losing sleep over my livelihood as a result of the current crisis because two of my three jobs are in higher education, an industry which I think will fare better than others.

While I am concerned that it may be harder to get a mortgage in the near future, the current housing slump means that we may be able to purchase a house sooner than we had anticipated. With sinking housing prices and several forms of government incentives, it's likely that we'll be able to purchase a home that fits both our needs and wants without overextending our reach.

All things considered, I'm concerned but not distressed by the current financial crisis. At 25 I have plenty of time to build my retirement savings and have multiple sources of income, none of which are attached to the banking industry. I have my worries about the financial well being of my older family members, the overall health of the economy, and the leadership of the country; but I am confident in myself and my generation's ability to cope with the current situation.

My wife's finally on board, but for a while, she kept asking me, "Why are we bailing out these failed banks and businesses?"

And I've heard the same thing, from friends and family, or just by watching the news, when a reporter will stick a mike in front of some random person on the street, who replies "Why should we do this?" Or better yet: "They got into this mess. Let them get out."

And it's not just the random people on the street who are against the bailout. CNN commentator Lou Dobbs, for instance, is adamantly opposed to it, and plenty of politicians are against it, as we learned when the House of Representatives narrowly defeated the bailout package.

Look, I'm not an economist, but I lean towards thinking we should listen to economists, just like we tend to listen to the other experts out there. If my plumber gives me advice about a faulty sump pump, I tend to do what he says, just as I do if my family doctor prescribes a medicine because my immune system has stumbled into some fun malady like bronchitis.

So if you're wondering what some of the arguments are for supporting the bailout, here's what I hope is a helpful round- up of reasons why bailing out Wall Street will help Main Street.