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.

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?

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.

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.