One modest ray of light on the fiscal front for the United States: the U.S. Treasury, as expected, announced that total borrowing for the current quarter (October quarter) will be 43% lower, as a result of a reduction in money needed to help the U.S. Federal Reserve manage its balance sheet.

The Treasury said net borrowing will total $276 billion for October through December, compared to the previous estimate of $486 billion. The Treasury also projects a borrowing of $478 billion for the January-March quarter.

So much for the April federal revenue bulge 'whisper number.' The U.S. government recorded its first budget deficit in April – historically one of the best months, if not the best federal revenue month of the year – since 1983, as the recession dragged down receipts.

The deficit totaled $20.9 billion in April, compared to a surplus of $159 billion April 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department announced Tuesday.

Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News had expected the April deficit to total $28.0 billion.

Most investors know about the United States' anti-state political culture: in America it's private sector solution first, public sector solution second.

And, most also know that what state that does exist is anti-central government: it dates back to our federalist origination. We're even reluctant to call something 'central' for this reason: we have a central bank, but it's called the Federal Reserve, not the Central Reserve. And it's the Internal Revenue Service, not the Central Revenue Service.

Investors should not read too much into the Dow's nearly 400-point drop Tuesday. What they should concentrate on, in the view of a pair of economists, is the mechanism the U.S. Treasury uses to price toxic assets.

The above is the most important 'unknown' in the U.S. Treasury's financial stability plan, so says economist David H. Wang -- how toxic assets that are clogging banks' balancing sheets and restricting credit -- will be priced.

"Will the United States government set-up a clearinghouse? Or will they design some type of open outcry, or managed open outcry? These are the key unknowns," Wang said. "Treasury Secretary Geithner and his staff cannot rush this decision, but on the other hand they cannot take two quarters to developed it. They have to announce the structure of the pricing program within a couple of weeks. I cannot underscore enough the importance of this pricing methodology. It will be the biggest factor in whether the credit system recovers, or something much worse occurs."

On a day when the United States committed up to $2 trillion more in government financing and programs to unlock credit markets -- probably the federal government's largest, one-day implied commitment in history -- the dollar rose against the euro and British pound.

The dollar strengthened 1.2 cents to $1.3821 and a gargantuan 4 cents to $1.4488 versus the British pound. The dollar also rose about one-half cent to $1.1584 versus the Swiss franc.

Now, in theory, increasing dollar commitments by the U.S. government means more dollars in circulation, which means every dollar is worth less -- a sequence that should cause the dollar to fall against the world's other major currencies. Not Tuesday, and really, when you review it, not since the financial crisis took hold in October 2008, so says economist David H. Wang. And the reason is basic: the dollar's status as a reserve currency, and as a safe haven.

Every once in awhile during a crisis or an event, you run across a quote or an observation that sort of summarizes events on the ground, in a nutshell.

New York Times (NYSE: NYT) business journalist Floyd Norris articulated one such observation during a roundtable discussion with other Times journalists on "The Charlie Rose Show" on PBS Monday night.

Regarding the bank bailout plan, Norris said, "This is a case where justice and success don't come together."

It's a Washington, D.C. adage -- one that can help investors understand the public policy process -- and House Financial Services Chairman U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, among others, have said it a dozen times, if not more:

"Congress doesn't get credit for not doing something or for avoiding something," Frank has said.

Case in point: TARP I, the initial $350 billion allocation in Troubled Asset Relief Program funds. The initial allocation has been widely criticized as ill-conceived. Some of the money has apparently enabled certain banks to approve large bonuses, allowed others to complete acquisitions or position themselves for the same, or pay-down debt, while not resulting in what Congress intended the allocation to accomplish -- increase lending to businesses and consumers.

Washington Post business columnist and Pulitzer Prize-winner Steven Pearlstein reminds investors that a complex financial crisis will not be solved by a simple solution.

Hence, Pearlstein's offered a four-part solution that he believes will get the United States back on the road to financial health.

The first involves a limited guarantee against default by the federal government for packaged loans that circulate in the "shadow" banking system, such as the way Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) do with conventional mortgage-backed securities. The FDIC is working on plan to do the above, he said, funded by either bank fees or via a modest contribution from the $700 billion TARP.

Second, the FDIC, via a new program that covers $1,000 in refinance closing costs, should be able to encourage more banks to renegotiate at-risk mortgages, greatly reducing the number of home foreclosures that are at the root of the bad bond/toxic asset pipeline.

Comment: The view from here argues that had the FDIC under chairwoman Sheila Bair been allowed to implement a version of the above program a year ago, the U.S. would have been that much closer to reducing foreclosure rates. The previous presidential administration did not act swiftly on Bair's proposal -- an unmitigated policy error that the current administration inherited. Hopefully, the Obama administration will correct it.

Outgoing U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson stated goal was to have banks "deploy not hoard" TARP money as a part of process to loosen constrained credit markets.

In advocating such, the outgoing Bush administration hoped that banks would work with homeowners at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure.

Some banks have worked with struggling homeowners, offering alternate payment plans, loan forbearances, or even lowering the interest rate to help get these mortgages back in the non-delinquent category. Still, the practice has by no means been universal.

Many banks have not participated in mortgage modifications -- even those banks that received TARP funds. For example, a Palm Beach conference sponsored by Sandler, O'Neill & Partners revealed how many banks are using their TARP money, The New York Times reported.

The U.S. Treasury, U.S. Federal Reserve, FDIC's joint decision Friday to inject $20 billion into the Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) and guarantee $118 billion in assets provides another case study. Bank of America's shares fell 80 cents to $7.52 in Friday afternoon trading.

[ Earlier, my BloggingStocks colleague Peter Cohan provided an analysis of the bail-out's cost to taxpayers. ]

Economists and other public policy wonks love the theoretical and they love 'taking the other side' in arguments.

Hey, they can't help it: it's the stuff they were trained to do - - the stuff they love. And, after all, it's frequently a major source of their income.

And my economist and policy wonk colleagues and friends are no different.

Now, on the surface, it looks like yet-another taxpayer bailout of bad decisions by bankers, mortgage lenders, and borrowers. In other words, another "profits - - the bankers win, losses - - the U.S. taxpayer foots the bill." Further, because it occurs on the heels of the Bank of America's buy-out of Merrill Lynch, it looks like, in some sense, U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing a financial institution merger.

It's not as bad or as large as it looks is how one economist put it, but try convincing U.S. taxpayers of that.

The U.S. budget deficit soared to a record $485.2 billion in the federal government's fiscal first quarter, (October-December 2008), the U.S. Treasury Department announced, as the government implemented its financial system stabilization plan.

The December 2008 budget also increased to $83.6 billion from $48.3 billion a year ago.

Further, the deficit is on-track to total more than $1 trillion this year, fiscal 2009. The Congressional Budget Office (pdf) is projecting a $1.2 trillion deficit for the current fiscal year.

In addition, the $485.2 budget record for fiscal Q1 already exceeds last year's budget deficit for the full year of $454.8 billion.

These days, investors large and not so large are following the financial markets more closely than they have perhaps in decades. Is the U.S. recession worsening? Are there any more problematic banks? Is the market bottoming? There's a lot to assess, particularly if you have a 401K.

In times like these investors/readers turn to the likes of Warren Buffett or George Soros to analyze the financial and economic state of things.

However, today we turn to another trusted source, for time-tested counsel, advice, and wisdom: Lawrence Peter 'Yogi' Berra, retired Hall of Fame catcher for the New York Yankees, owner of 10 World Series championship rings and author of 'yogiisms' - - incisive malapropisms that reveal eternal truths.

Those who know Yogi know that his northern New Jersey home is accessible via two different routes, starting from a fork in the road. Hence, when Yogi gives directions to his house he says, "When you come to the fork in the road, take it."

Yogi's adage applies to economics, as well. When you come to the (economic) fork in the road, take it.

The United States is coming to an economic fork in the road, of sorts: it can get to its destination - - economic recovery - - by one of two paths.

The first would involve primarily using the Federal Reserve and quantitative easing. The Fed has already said it will purchase more than $600 billion of private debt, including commercial paper, mortgage-backed securities, and other asset-baked securities. (In order to cover potential losses associated with the Fed's purchases, the U.S. Treasury has set aside $20 billion in TARP funds authorized by Congress.) However, while additional quantitative easing in the aforementioned commercial segments (especially mortgage-backed securities) may trigger an increase in economic activity, such as an increase in mortgaged-based home purchases, it may not represent the segment where the Fed wants the extra growth to be.

The typical American's tolerance for federally rescued banks and other institutions that continue to award bonuses? Very little.

Three-quarters of Americans say Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), Citigroup (NYSE: C) and other bailed-out and taxpayer-assisted companies should cancel all bonuses this year, a new Bloomberg News / Los Angeles Times poll shows.

Further, a majority of respondents also said the U.S. government should have a voice in how these companies are managed, while two-thirds favor tighter financial sector regulation. The poll was conducted December 6-8.

Economist Richard Felson said it's understandable that Americans would express concern about bonuses in financial institutions that accepted federal assistance.

"Awarding bonuses does send the wrong signal. It's also arrogant in the view of many citizens. In our nation, hundreds of thousands of taxpayers are being laid-off with no federal assistance to cushion their loss of income, and down the street a bank executive of a bank who received federal bailout money could be collecting a $300,000 bonus. It gives the appearance of the federal government paying for these bonuses . . . paying for large compensation despite these business flops," Felson said. "It's an arrogant and incorrect policy."

A cardinal rule of Washington is don't tick-off anyone chairing a committee essential to your operations.

Well, it looks like this U.S. Treasury Department has done just that.

U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd and U.S. Rep. Barney Frank have just about had it with the U.S. Treasury Department and its implementation of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

Dodd, D-Connecticut and Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Frank, D-Massachusetts and Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said this administration's Treasury department may not get the second half of the $700 billion TARP financial rescue fund, as they are upset at how the program is being run, Bloomberg News reported.

"I would be a very hard person to convince that this crowd deserves...the next $350 billion," Sen. Dodd told Bloomberg News.

Further, Rep. Frank said Treasury has ignored "clear Congressional intent," and that at the very least he wants to see that some of the new money was going to used for home mortgage foreclosure relief, Bloomberg News reported.