Last July I suggested that Citigroup (NYSE: C) should cancel its $400 million deal to put its name on the new New York Mets stadium. Although previous CEO Chuck Prince inked the 20-year deal, I called for it to be canceled after Citi posted $17 billion in losses for the first half of 2008. Not surprisingly, it took more than my blog post to push Citi to cancel the $400 million deal.

After getting $45 billion in government bailout cash and another $305 billion in loan guarantees; and canceling the delivery of a $50 million corporate jet, it comes as no surprise that Citi is beginning to realize that times have changed. But as I suggested last July, there is a rich history of companies naming stadiums after themselves and soon ceasing to exist. For instance, there used to be a stadium in Houston named after a little energy trading firm you may have heard of -- Enron.

Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Ted Poe sent a letter to new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner last week asking that he demand that Citigroup (NYSE: C) withdraw from its 20-year, $400 million contract for the naming rights to the New York Mets stadium.

"At Citigroup, 50,000 people will lose their jobs. Yet in the boardroom of Citigroup, spending $400 million to put a name on stadium seems like a good idea," said Kucinich. "The Treasury Department, which forced Citigroup corporate executives to give up their private jet, should also demand that Citigroup cancel its $400 million advertisement at the Mets field and instead begin to repay their debt to the taxpayers."

If a $400 million naming rights contract from a company that's on government welfare doesn't seem ludicrous to you, it should. The notion that the $20 million per year will generate enough earnings for the company to offset the cost is a pretty silly one.

But maybe there's a compromise: Since all of us provided cash to Citigroup, maybe it should be given a name that's a tribute to grotesque mismanagement at the company: "Citigroup's Arrogance Arena" perhaps? Or how about "Failed Bank Field." The possibilities are endless, and definitely something that should be put in an online poll with one vote per taxpayer. If we're going to bail out the banks and still let them buy naming rights to baseball fields, we should at least have some fun with it.

It's been quite a journey watching so many professional sports arenas in the most recent decade take on corporate sponsorships. Just look at any collegiate or professional football arena and you'll see sponsorships and corporate names and logos plastered everywhere. Although the sports industry sold out a long time ago, the effect has now largely worn off. That is, until college football bowl games begin and we start hearing about the "FedEx Orange Bowl" and the "Chick-Fil-A Bowl." What nuttiness.

Are corporate sponsorships coming to public schools then? That seems the next logical step, and it may be closer than you think. Instead of "Frederick Douglass High School," we may soon see "Tostitos High School" or something similar. Does this sound ridiculous to anyone? I'm all for corporate sponsorships, and I can understand the need for funds for some public school systems that are strapped for cash. Selling out to name sponsorships, though, seems completely inappropriate for any type of non-collegiate public school district.

I am sure many of you disagree, and those that like the idea of a state lottery subsidizing public school systems will make the same connection here. My question is this: Where does it end? I'm not sure we need private enterprise naming everything in the public venue when establishing fiscal responsibility makes more sense than the "easy fix" of selling out. But hey, for a price I'll let General Motors (NYSE: GM) or Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) plaster a huge corporate logo in the middle of my yard, as long as they keep the grass mowed. Meh.