http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121202057232127889.html?mod=googlenew...

Does this not seem like excessive government involvement?  It seems
like Paulson basically decided that BSC would die by agreeing to
finance their buyout but not allowing them access to the window.
Agreed, BSC had a deteriorating capital position that threatened
business...but their assets weren't deteriorating.  Is there any
reason, from a government standpoint, that Paulson should have gone
with funding a buyout rather than the other option?

You mention "excessive government involvement", such as senator dodd
on the the Senate Banking Committee; He was the one in charge of
questioning the Federal Reserve and JP Morgan to make sure that the
American people and investors were not being taken advantage of.

I believe excessive government involvement originated this deal.

Please Read - very interesting coverage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/business/04scene.html?ref=business

" Mr. Dodd has deeper ties to Bear Stearns. Since 1989, Mr. Dodd has
received $350,000 in contributions from Bear Stearns, one of the
highest of his total donors, and putting him among the top
Congressional recipients of political contributions from the firm.

During his brief run for the presidency, his most prominent supporter
on Wall Street was Warren Spector, a former co-president at Bear
Stearns.

And in 2001, he wrote a letter to President Clinton in support of a
pardon for Edward Downe Jr., a former Bear Stearns director who
pleaded guilty in 1994 to insider trading.  "