Former U.S. Treasury Hank Paulson was not subtle in his opening remarks Wednesday to a U.S. House committee investigating both the U.S. Treasury's decision to bail-out American International Group, Inc. (AIG) via 100% payments to its counterparties, and the U.S. Federal Reserve's quantitative easing policy.

Paulson, said had federal policy makers not acted to save AIG, a failure of the financial system could have ensued, and pushed the U.S. unemployment rate to a Great Depression-esque 25%, marketwatch.com reported Wednesday.

Today's jobless claims data came in strong enough that we would have expected further recovery, but the fears over all this CIT fallout weighed on investors' minds. Hank Paulson took his grilling. Homebuilders even started sounding less negative again. But then came reports that perma-bear Nouriel Roubini was finally throwing in the towel and showing that the recession would end. His report was what helped traders have comfort in buying stocks at the end of the day.

Here are the unofficial closing bell levels:

Dow 8,709.02 +92.81 (1.08%)
S&P 500 940.54 +7.86 (0.84%)
Nasdaq 1,884.66 +21.76 (1.17%)

Top Analyst Upgrades
Top Analyst Downgrades

An outspoken group of Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) shareholders has been calling for CEO Kenneth Lewis's head lately, with investors none too pleased by the bank's near-disastrous acquisition of Merrill Lynch. However, testimony is hitting Wall Street today that indicates Lewis was simply following government orders by keeping hefty losses at Merrill under wraps.

Lewis testified under oath before New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in February, asserting "it wasn't up to me" to disclose Merrill's fourth-quarter losses toward the end of 2008.

According to Lewis, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson pressured him to stay mum about Merrill Lynch's troublesome balance sheet. The regulators reportedly urged Lewis to proceed with the merger, warning that the deal's failure would "impose a big risk" to the nation's financial system.

Last fall, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson decided it would be good to buy the toxic waste off of bank balance sheets, so he persuaded the President and Congress to spend $700 billion to create the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

Once he got the money, he changed his mind and decided that buying toxic waste made no sense -- so he used it to buy big chunks of senior preferred stock in U.S. financial institutions (FIs). Why? I don't know, but it certainly was not to get lending going again.

This week, Texans watched a meteorite burn up in the atmosphere leaving a few glowing pebbles in the scrub for astronomers to recover. It turns out that when 3,000 people accepted positions in the Bush administration, they thought they were hitching their career wagons to a star. Now, it looks more like their careers were attached to that flaming out meteorite instead. How so?

With the national unemployment rate at 7.6%, the unemployment rate among those Bush appointees is 75%. Or put another way, only about 25% of those 3,000 folks have found jobs. It turns out that this unemployment rate is much higher than for former Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton staffers -- about half of which had jobs within a month of leaving their government posts.

In looking back over 2008, there is one piece of good news -- but it's a silver lining on a black cloud. What am I talking about? In 2008, the U.S. had the lowest inflation rate since 1954 -- 0.1%. Back in 1954, prices actually fell 0.7%. The 2008 inflation report is good news in one sense, and ominous in another.

The good news is that the price of gasoline fell so much. In December gasoline lost 17.2%, the largest monthly decline in records that go back 71 years. Overall energy prices also dropped by a record 8.3% as home heating oil and natural gas showed declines.

If only it weren't for the reason that prices were falling, this news would put a smile on my face. And the reason for the fall is that the economy can only grow if consumer spending grows. And that's not growing because consumers are making less money and they can no longer borrow to make up the difference. This means that demand is dropping for just about everything -- including gasoline.

The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is "getting a better return than most fund managers."

According to New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg "The TARP, for all its warts, has involved using tax dollars to invest in assets that will have a return to the taxpayer. In fact, the estimate to date is that the TARP has actually had a gain of about $8 billion, while recapitalizing the financial system. With this type of stimulus, there will be little, if any, long-term increase in the debt."

Wait, wait, wait: The estimate to date on the change in value of highly illiquid, difficult to understand "troubled assets" is that they're up 8%? How could anyone possibly know that they're "up in value"? Wasn't the whole point of the TARP that they were illiquid and too hard to understand and were thus such a burden to the banks that bought them that there was just no alternative but to make taxpayers buy them?

I have no idea what will come of the TARP program. I'm skeptical of its prospects because I don't why, if these assets are such a good deal, no one from the private sector was willing to step up and make a bid. But to say that Paulson is "up 8%" on hard to value assets that we bought a few months ago seems ludicrous.

A spokesman for JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) Thomas Kelly said his firm has not disclosed what it did with the $25 billion in emergency bailout money it has received. In fact, JPMorgan Chase is declining to provide any such disclosure.

AP has reported that none of the 21 banks that received $1 billion or more from taxpayers is tracking, or at least willing to disclose how they are using the money. Let me be clear -- THIS STINKS TO THE HIGH HEAVENS!

What kind of deals did Treasury Secretary Paulson make with these favored financial institutions? The money would be very easy to track. Why wouldn't that be a part of the bargain?

Paulson obviously did not read Conservative bankers? Surely you jest!, but he should have. Of course, having former Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) CEO Paulson negotiate with his Wall Street buddies on behalf of the taxpayer is highly suspect. At a minimum we have the good 'ol boy network operating in full form.

The banks simply are avoiding what should be required scrutiny by pleading ignorance. I don't believe the money can't be tracked, or even traced now after the fact. What happened to the idea of more transparency? More cover up I fear!

The banks should be subject to full disclosure. The use of the funds should be subject to review. Government money should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Why all the secrecy?

PS: Personal emails I have been receiving and the initial comments indicate strong sentiment about this issue. I encourage those that care to forward this story to their elected officials and friends encouraging full disclosure -- as promised! Obama used the internet to help win the White House, lets use it to get someone to listen with an internet blast from all over the country!

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture and planning firm. He writes the columns Chasing Value and Serious Money.

Flying shoe-dodger, President George W. Bush, has a track record of rewarding the guilty. After the faked intelligence that gave him the ammunition he needed to invade Iraq in 2004, Bush awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom to CIA Director George "Slam Dunk" Tenet. And to reward the banks that got us into the current financial catastrophe, Bush rammed through Congress a bill that uses $700 billion of our tax dollars to pay bonuses to the executives who run those banks.

How did he do that? As usual, he did it secretively. The law that created the bailout bill includes provisions that limit executive compensation for banks that get bailout money. Specifically, the bill requires that banks report to the IRS any compensation above $500,000 paid to their top five executives. If that reporting does not occur, the IRS can impose tax penalties. Not only that, but there is no limit to what people below the top five can get paid -- so there never was any way to keep taxpayer money from paying millions to the traders and investment bankers who often get more than the CEO.

I have to hand it to Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson. He is willing to go in front of the country and admit that he made a mistake. I was there two months ago. Soon after he proposed the idea that the only way to save the financial system was to spend $700 billion in reverse auctions to buy toxic waste from financial institutions, I became convinced it would not work.

Why? Because there was no way to put a solid price on those assets. If the Treasury bid more than they were worth to the bank, then the taxpayer would take a loss. If the Treasury bid less than what the bank thought the assets were worth, then the bank would need to write off that loss against its capital. Since it would not be able to raise more capital, the bank would become a zombie.

The question is what to do with that money now that Paulson has realized that he was wrong. So far he's given away $159 billion to 24 banks. But there's nothing to stop them from using the money to pay $26.6 billion in bonuses. I think a cull and capitalize plan would work better. Such a plan would create a smaller number of very profitable and well capitalized banks -- and get rid of the rest.

It's only been a few weeks since Henry Paulson begged Congress for $700 billion to bail out Wall Street, but Americans already seem to be coming to terms with the mountain of cash that they have had to lay out. Then again, one can only maintain self-righteous anger for so long and, with the onset of winter, finding ways to pay for heating and Christmas trumps the desire to set fire to the local bank. Still, as today's outrage becomes tomorrow's history, it is vital that America find a way to package this episode.

The first struggle has been to come up with a name for the Wall Street meltdown (I still like "Bernanke Panky"). However, as that plays out, it's time to begin finding a villain to blame. This is tremendously important stuff. For history to be written, complex events must be boiled down to a single cause, preferably an individual who can take responsibility for everything. For example, as every schoolchild knows, LBJ caused Vietnam, Hoover caused the Great Depression, and Nixon caused Watergate. Never mind that these men were the products of their ages or that history is a complex process. Children need villains, history demands explanations, and Americans crave resolution. Never mind that millions of homeowners signed up for mortgages that they couldn't pay, that millions of investors blindly purchased worthless securities, and that the groundwork for this disaster was laid by Democrats and Republicans demonstrating an impressive, albeit bipartisan, ignorance. History must be written and blame must be laid. Chances are, it will end up falling on one of the following people:

It appears from today's Senate Finance Committee testimony that Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke are getting eaten alive on both sides of the aisle. Since the world has not ended since Sunday night passed without another weekly multi-billion bailout, it looks like their desperate pleas for unfettered authority to spend $700 billion of our money are not working.

I was just watching the hearings and Paulson and Bernanke are looking like they have no idea what they are talking about. They keep mentioning how 'market mechanisms' will help people want to buy toxic waste when such mechanisms failed before their proposed $700 billion plan. They want to hire people from Wall Street to run 'reverse auctions' which will ask banks to compete to sell their toxic waste -- whoever is willing to sell for the lowest price wins.

This is an idea that comes from Bernanke because he thinks auctions work, based on academic research. But the simple fact is that the banks will need to write down their assets and raise capital if they sell below book value. So they will not participate in the auction.

The New York Times reports that Hank Paulson's desperate plan to use $700 billion of your tax money to buy toxic waste from banks could wipe out their capital. Either that or it could saddle taxpayers with losses that could hit unprecedented levels. To avoid this unpleasant choice, I have an idea -- I call it Tax Shield Preferred (TSP) -- that could provide capital to banks that sold their toxic waste at below market prices.

And make no mistake -- that is what Paulson's plan proposes to encourage. He wants financial institutions (FIs) that hold mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) to participate in so-called reverse auctions which will reward the FI willing to accept the lowest price with a part of that $700 billion. If an FI had booked its MBSs at 60 cents on the dollar and it sold them for that price to Paulson, then if their market value was 20 cents on the dollar, the taxpayers would take that a bath on the 40 cent difference. On the other hand, if the FI sells its MBS for 20 cents on the dollar to Paulson, then the FI takes that 40 cent loss as a reduction to its capital.

To explain the significance of this, I will have to do something a bit painful -- use some numbers. For example, if an FI holding, say, $10 billion worth of MBSs on its books and $8 billion worth of capital sells those MBSs for 20 cents on the dollar, it would need to take an $8 billion loss on the sale. Technically, this would leave the FI with no capital. And it's hard to see how that would help solve the problem. This is where TSPs come in.

Hank Paulson said that "the American people can be very, very confident about their accounts in our banking system," according to AP. This means you should be very, very skeptical about the truth of that statement. And that's because there is a good chance that Washington Mutual (NYSE: WM) will fail and take the Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC's) reserve fund down with it.

How so? WaMu's failure could cost $20 billion or more, and the FDIC's fund has $45.2 billion in it, according to AP. If that WaMu cost is right, no problem. Unless, as Wilbur Ross predicted, there are 1,000 bank failures before this is all over. If so the FDIC would need to raise more money to pay off all the deposits in the failed banks. But there's plenty of money available, right? Just this morning, the Treasury sold securities -- dubbed a Supplementary Financing Program -- to pay for its little $85 billion loan to buy American International Group (NYSE: AIG).

And with WaMu getting its credit rating downgraded to junk, who will want to do business with it? Will another firm want to step in and buy it before it files for bankruptcy? That would be nice because if it costs much more than $20 billion for the FDIC to rescue it, we are going to see inflation spiking as our government prints more and more money to bail out all these failed financial institutions. And that won't make Americans feel confident about their banking system at all.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He owns AIG securities and has no financial interest in the other securities mentioned.

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (NYSE: LEH) is likely to file for bankruptcy today. The reason is that the Treasury and White House are smarting from criticism of their $29 billion bailout of Bear Stearns and the $200 billion to $800 billion Fannie and Freddie nationalization. Neither of these moves has stopped the serial sell off in the shares of investment banks and other firms saddled with crumbling real estate assets. So now the powers that be have decided that they'll tighten up their moral standards and refuse to bailout Lehman.

As I posted, the basic problem is that Wall Street thinks the Treasury will cave in and put money into the Lehman bailout. But despite reports of a proposal to hive off the good part of Lehman from the bad part -- financed by other Wall Street banks -- such a resolution does not appear likely. That's because Wall Street does not want to risk its slim capital shoring up Lehman's bad part -- $85 billion worth of commercial real estate and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). These banks rightly fear that they would lose their investments and sink the entire industry in the bargain. In addition, these bad bank financiers don't want to provide the backstop to enable the winner of the bidding on the good bank to surpass them by picking up Lehman's assets cheaply.

Assuming that plan does not work and that the government refuses to step in to finance the bad bank, this leaves two basic options: Lehman files for bankruptcy or other banks liquidate Lehman in an orderly fashion. Bankruptcy might be a relatively orderly process. According to FOXbusiness, "if Lehman entered into bankruptcy protection, the brokerage units would enter Chapter 7 liquidation and a court-appointed trustee would liquidate the firm's assets and give customers back their money. Generally, securities a customer holds at a brokerage firm are legally the investor's property, and aren't exposed to the claims of the firm's creditors." A bankruptcy would likely wipe out Lehman common shareholders.