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?

It's the end of an era. Former chair of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan's urbane outlook and exuberant approach to economics, has been usurped by hometown billionaire Warren Buffett, whose corn-fed approach to investment has always seemed stodgy even as it made him the richest man in the world.

For the 18 years that Alan Greenspan presided over the Federal Reserve, he was the darling of financial markets. Bob Woodward's biography Maestro celebrates how Greenspan, now 82, led the nation through one of the longest booms in history, expanding the economy and limiting inflation. For many people around the globe, the U.S.-led expansion was a time of increasing consumerism, comfort and security.

Few benefited more from Greenspan's decisions than Buffet, who during this period built his empire, Berkshire Hathaway, to one of the most profitable companies in the world with an average annual increase in value of 20% over the last 20 years and grew his personal wealth to $50 billion.

You would think that a country with the lowest savings rate amongst all of the other industrialized nations of the free world would do more to encourage its citizens to save money. After the US Treasury Department's announcement of higher I bond rates on November 3, you start to ask yourself: Should I spend my money, or save it and earn more?

On December 3, 2007 the US Treasury Department announced it would be reducing the limit on the amount of savings bonds an individual can purchase, to $20,000 annually, effective January 1, 2008. This means that one person can purchase up to $5,000 out-of-pocket of paper EE, paper I, electronic EE and electronic I bonds.

The limit prior to the change was a grand total of $120,000, (or $30,000 each type,) six times greater than the new limit.

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