The NY Times today posted a whinge from banks about how they don’t like the strings attached to their bailout money.  Turns out they like free money, but not when it requires them to make real sacrifices.

“On Tuesday, Signature Bank of New York announced that because of new executive pay restrictions in the economic stimulus package, it notified the Treasury that it intended to return the $120 million it had received from the government only three months ago”

In my opinion, this is the greatest development of the economic crisis thus far.  If attaching difficult but reasonable restrictions makes banks think twice and thrice about accepting bailout money, than the public at large wins.  If the banks decide they can survive without the bailout money (and can justify that to their shareholders) it proves they didn’t need it in the first place.  So only the banks which *really* needed the money would accept it — and thus increased efficiency.

I would take this a step further and extend this principle to other forms of government assistance.  For example apply this to all corporate welfare, not just for bailouts — I’d like to see ADM whine about executive pay restrictions.  And even unemployment and welfare recipients, what about a requirement to suspend fast food, cable tv, tobacco and alcohol purchases while on the Dole?  I say this without malice, but it may be a good incentive for some who perhaps don’t really need government money.  And those who need it (corporate or individual) they can still get help when they need it and are prepared to make some sacrifices.

So, let’s see some more whining!!