In his e-mail newsletter, hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson said he isn't buying it: "Goldman's sure got a lot of cojones saying that it was never in any danger. What a crock! Had AIG not been bailed out, a global financial meltdown would have ensued that would have taken down Goldman in a matter of days ..."

And on the matter of whether Goldman exerted undue influence on government policy? Tilson also is skeptical of the denials: "So Paulson talks to Blankfein 24 times in 6 days at the height of the crisis, and plays an instrumental role in channeling $13 billion of taxpayer money to Goldman via the AIG bailout ... yet Paulson is claiming no conflict of interest and Goldman is saying they didn't need the money and were hedged. Yeah, and I'm Bjorn Borg. ... Look, I recognize that these were unprecedented times, the entire world financial system was on the brink and, by and large, Paulson and others deserve immense credit for staving off Armageddon -- but it pisses me off that Paulson and Goldman are trying to rewrite history, that debt holders were protected at most bailed out institutions, and most of all that Goldman is now earning a fortune and paying it out mostly to its partners, while taxpayers are left holding a nearly $200 billion loss on AIG alone. I'd be in favor of a temporary windfall profits tax on any firm that got bailed out to help taxpayers recoup at least a small fraction of those losses ..."

Any hedge fund manager who makes Bjorn Borg references in his e-mail newsletter is a personal hero of mine. But Tilson's latter point is interesting -- and one that I suspect most people would agree with. Goldman Sachs benefited from the bailout of AIG -- and we received worthless AIG stock in exchange for that, and Goldman continued to pay out massive bonuses. A temporary windfall profits tax just might be the way to go.