There's a new day dawning out there. Some analysts are proposing that bankers should be paid in toxic assets. Among the chief proponents of this idea are Vince Farrell of Soleil Securities and Jim Rodgers of Rodgers Holdings.

Now this seems to be a fine idea. The bankers, with their greed and excess speculation, took down our financial system. The U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve had to pledge $12.2 trillion of your money to bail out these ... (you finish the sentence as you see fit). Can you imagine what $12.2 trillion is like? Do you have any idea what this money could have done for our country?

If I could be reincarnated, I would come back as a banker. The world revolves around them. They get multi-million dollar bonuses, live in Fifth Avenue apartments, own spreads in Greenwich, CT, and summer in seaside cottages in the Hamptons. When their money-making schemes go awry, taxpayers bail them out -- and even pay their bonuses!

But we already knew that. What I did not know, until I read this, is that banks also get the kid glove treatment from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) when it comes to audits. In fiscal 2008, the financial services industry got audited at a 9% rate -- less than half the 19% audit rate for all other industries that fiscal year.

Is banking getting off easy because it's so much more virtuous? Not at all. In fact, recent IRS audits reveal that banks under-report taxable income at a far higher rate than IRS audits of the four other industry groups. And this doesn't even include Swiss banks like UBS (NYSE: UBS) which have been helping clients dodge U.S. taxes for years -- it just paid $780 million in fines for those sins.

As a young investment banker, one of my favorite parts of the job was designing and ordering the "deal toys," or "tombstones" at the end of the deal. My coup de grâce: a Lucite model of an open book, executed in yellow, to commemorate the syndication of a large loan for the publisher of yellow pages phone directories. A few large companies create all the tombstones for investment banks across the U.S., and most investment bankers would sooner give up town car rides home after 8 p.m. than their deal toys.

This week in the New Yorker, sad news: investment bankers haven't been calling companies like Icon Recognition, partially because they haven't been closing deals, and because of budget cuts. At Goldman Sachs, associates have been informed they'll have to start paying for their own deal toys.

While I was an investment banking analyst, we too suffered at the hands of the 'no deal toys' memo. The managing directors and vice presidents offered to chip in and pay for the Lucite doohickeys out of their own pockets, so key are they to the morale of fragile bankers and their clients. Also, nothing says "hands off, this is MY company" like a row of deal toys with your logo proudly displayed on the credenza of the VP of Finance of your client. Before we'd figured out which credit to charge the expense to, however, management had backed down and graciously decided to bill the client for the toys.

Phew! Icon Recognition, take heart: your bankers will be back. In the meantime, maybe you should look to some other industries for professionals whose tender egos need frequent reinforcement of a hard plastic nature. Maybe politicians?

How many billions are Paulson and Bernanke asking for? Seven hundred billion dollars. Now that's real money! And the administration is touting this new program as if they knew what they were talking about.

We have heard folks wondering how and why Treasury Secretary Paulson should be given the power and discretion to do as he sees fit with this bailout money.

We have heard people speaking about the pain and the injustice, along with the doubts and reservations about the concept of giving away so much money.

Actually giving this handout to companies that have demonstrated such corrupt thinking and irresponsibility (see SEC opens the gates and the world drowns) is a supreme injustice given that their decisions led to the collapse of once-mighty financial industry titans. See Lehman Bros 158-year sad ending for just one example.

Has anyone asked how the Treasury came up with that number? Can someone explain the difference between $700 billion and a blank check?

Some of you will remember this story from last November when the door to our current world-wide financial industry meltdown was just beginning to crack open. At that time, we were facing tens of billions of dollars in losses and write-downs, but now we have witnessed hundreds of billions of dollars of the same and the government is telling us that it will take another $700 billion to shore up the industry.

Naturally, most of the people that got us into this mess are receiving golden parachutes as they abandon or are ejected from their burning empires. President Bush has been in over his head for years and turned a blind eye, (I think blind in both eyes) see: The George W. Bush economic plan? The shame does not end with Bush, though he has shown no leadership on the subject.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, said of the recent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout, "Americans deserve to know if this proposal will help keep mortgages affordable, stabilize the markets and protect taxpayer interests."

Where were Bush and Dodd when the foundation for this crises was being developed See: SEC opens the gates and the world drowns.

The entire political system is jam-packed with conflicts of interest. Here are Senators Dodd's contributors by firm and industry as reported by OpenSecrets.org:

• Top 5 Contributors, 2003-2008: Citigroup Inc. $310,294, SAC Capital Partners $282,000, United Technologies $263,400, American International Group 224,678, Bear Stearns $205,600.
• Top 5 Industries, 2003-2008: Securities & Investment $,245,796; Lawyer/Law Firms 1,976, 063; Insurance $1,416,972; Real Estate $1,262,791; Commercial Banks $850, 544.

In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman offers an explanation for the cause of the mortgage meltdown. While I think he comes close to the mark, he misses an important point: bankers will respond to incentives.

I would love to have the talent that warrants the platform Krugman has -- to opine on economic and political matters on the pages of the New York Times. Krugman uses that platform to suggest that the reason for the bad mortgage loans is that bankers "haven't been forced to give back any of the huge paychecks they received before the folly of their decisions became apparent."

My view differs from Krugman's. There is no way bankers will give back their paychecks after they've negotiated their contracts just because Krugman wants them to. In my view, the real issue is that bankers are like any other person and they will respond to incentives. If their pay was linked to both the costs and benefits of the loans they made, then they would care about the risk that the loan might not be repaid.

Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) volatility Elevated into EPS, Risk Exposure & Outlook. GS is expected to report EPS on 9/20. Wachovia Corp.(NYSE:WB) say's "Lack of mortgage and Chinese exposure distinguish GS." GS September option implied volatility is at 50; October is at 45; above its 26-week average of 35 according to Track Data, suggesting larger risk.

Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) MS is expected to report EPS on 9/19. MS September option implied volatility is at 48; October is at 41; above its 26-week average of 33 according to Track Data, suggesting larger risk.

Bear Stearns (NYSE: BSC) is expected to report EPS on 9/20. Aquarian Investments holds a 6.97% stake in BSC for investment purposes. BSC Chairman & CEO James Cayne is 72. BSC Chairman of Executive committee Alan Greenberg is 79. WB say's BSC "shares are currently 1.2x book value compared to its historical average of 1.6x." BSC September option implied volatility is at 71; October is at 63; is above its 26-week average of 43 according to Track Data, suggesting large price movement.

Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH) is expected to report 3rd quarter EPS on 9/18. WCHV say's LEH's "Q3 started strong but ended real weak." LEH September option implied volatility is at 76; October is at 62; above its 26-week average of 40 according to Track Data, suggesting larger price risk.

Countrywide Financial-(NYSE-CFC) Put volume & implied volatility Spikes on sell off. CFC, the largest U.S. home mortgage lender, is recently down $3.16 to $21.40. CFC call option volume of 98,035 contracts compares to put volume of 191,635 contracts. CFC September option implied volatility of 141 is above its 26-week average of 55 according to Track Data, indicating larger price fluctuations.

ExxonMobil-(NYSE-XOM) September implied volatility of 31 above 26-week average of 24. XOM is recently up .65 to $83.76. Crude oil futures are up 1.02% to $73.12 according to Bloomberg. XOM September option implied volatility of 31 is above its 26-week average of 24 according to Track Data, suggesting larger price fluctuations.

Countrywide Financial (NYSE: CFC) volatility decreases as share price stabilizes. CFC, the largest U.S. home mortgage lender, is recently up $1.30 to $28.04. CFC call option volume of 10,877 contracts compares to put volume of 17,814 contracts. CFC August straddle is priced at $4.20. CFC September option implied volatility of 98 is above its 26-week average of 47 according to Track Data, suggesting larger price risks.

General Electric (NYSE: GE) volatility of 25 above 26-week average of 19. GE closed at $39.10. GE over all option implied volatility of 25 is above its 26-week average of 19 according to Track Data, suggesting larger risk.

Bear Stearns (NYSE: BSC) over all volatility of 61 above 26-week average of 33. BSC closed at $113.81. BSC over all option implied volatility of 61 is above its 26-week average of 33 according to Track Data, suggesting larger price movement.

Daily options Update is provided by Stock Specialist Paul Foster of theflyonthewall.com.