There is a well-known joke in political science that shows an elected public official sitting in his office, suddenly running to his balcony when he hears a large group of citizens heading off to a rally in the distance. He looks at them and says: "There go my people. I better go out there and lead them."

If the initial analysis of the U.S. Treasury's $700 billion bailout plan is any indicator of public sentiment, it looks like the people may be way ahead of their public officials -- or public officials are way behind -- depending on your perspective.

There's a sense that the people who will pay for the potential bailout/intervention -- typical citizens -- aren't getting enough in return. These critics say the U.S. taxpayer should get an equity stake as collateral for the loans they may make to various banks/companies, and that the taxpayer should also share in the profits, should they occur.

Further, some question why the taxpayer is being used to bailout the very institutions that were factors in the start and growth of the financial crisis in the first place.

Still others argue why the U.S. Treasury is clamoring to secure hundreds of billions of taxpayer money to prop-up financial institutions and isn't doing more to help homeowners refinance their mortgages to lower rates, and in the process prevent foreclosures that were a major factor in the development (and continuation) of the financial crisis.

And others are wondering why CEO/executive salary caps can not be put in place. If a CEO or an executive doesn't want to participate in the bailout program for fear of not getting a large payout or golden parachute, even though it's in the public interest to do so, why should it be in the public interest to grant his/her company a loan?