The two circumstances sort of symbolize the U.S.'s decade of descent, although opinions certainly will vary on what led to them. At minimum, they don't represent the most flattering moment in the nation's history.

Money manager Bernard Madoff, if proven guilty, will have substantially hurt, if not ruined, the financial lives of hundreds of investors -- from charitable organizations to Zsa Zsa Gabor -- in a $50 billion Ponzi scheme.

Meanwhile, on the heels of President Barack Obama's $500,000 compensation cap for executives and employees who receive federal government bailout assistance, criticisms have been voiced in and around Wall Street and in think tanks, with some executives complaining that the compensation is not high enough and/or that the federal government has no right to limit how much someone can be paid.

Let us know what you think.

It looks like tomorrow could very well become yet another "hang on to your hat Friday" or another edition of "As The U.S. Economy Turns."

Still, hopefully it won't become another 'down goes the Dow' day with an extended visit from our old friend, you guessed it, Dow 8,000. But analysts and economists haven't ruled the latter out.

The reason? The January 2009 jobs report, to be released by the U.S. Labor Department at 8:30 a.m. EST.

Following nearly a week in which a Fortune 500 company announced a major downsizing daily, and on the heels of December 2008's loss of 524,000 jobs, most professionals in economics and public policy circles are preparing for another sobering jobs report.

With the Obama administration's $500,000 executive pay cap for bailed out companies imposed, the more important and more determining question concerns how the American people respond.

Ironically, the public's reaction may hinge on how Wall Street and the broader financial community reacts.

Historically, Americans have opposed pay caps and generally looked unfavorably on government -- particularly federal government -- efforts to interfere with market-based valuations of talent / labor. In a nutshell, the public favors a minimum wage but believes "the sky's the limit" regarding compensation; if a board of directors, business partner or negotiated contract says you're worth $10 million a year in salary and bonus, then you deserve $10 million year.

The Senate is expected today to vote on the revised, second $350 billion TARP allotment, while the House Speaker also indicated she expects the U.S. Congress to approve the measure.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, indicated to ABCNews that Congress would approve President-elect Barack Obama's request for another $350 billion in bailout / rescue funds because this time it will be spent by "a president who will enforce the law." The House vote is expected to be close, however.

To block Obama's request, both the House and Senate must vote to withhold the money, assuming each chamber has the two-thirds vote to override a potential Obama veto.

On Wednesday, Senate Republicans won assurances from Obama administration officials that the administration would use the money for financial institutions, not for aid to auto manufacturers and other industries, Bloomberg News reported. Republicans have criticized the Bush administration's decision to lend $13.4 billion to assist the recovery of General Motors (NYSE: GM) and Chrysler.

Is tracking TARP money feasible?

Both Senate and House lawmakers have called on greater accountability and transparency to 'verify and track' where the money is going, but economist David H. Wang said that isn't feasible.

If you think change -- and big change -- in Washington won't start until the gentleman from Illinois is inaugurated on January 20, think again.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. and chairman of the House Financial Services committee, late Friday announced the new, proposed restrictions for the release of the second $350 billion in TARP funds, and some are stunners.

Under Frank's bill:

• The pay of executives employed by TARP would be capped in a standardized manner, regardless of what type of aid they received under the program. It would also make the pay limit provision retroactive to existing program participants.

"If they don't like it, they can give the money back," Frank said, referring to the retroactive limits on pay, Reuters reported Friday.

• The U.S. Treasury would have to dedicate at least $40 billion to reduce home foreclosures, with a plan developed by March 15.

Could 10 or 12 economically conservative Republican Senators prevent a Big Three auto rescue and the cessation of domestic auto manufacturing operations?

Indeed they could. Many of the conservative Republicans come from states where General Motors (NYSE: GM), Ford (NYSE: F) and Chrysler do not have a large manufacturing presence. Hence, there's likely to be little home-front pressure.

That fact, combined with the filibuster era - - whereby lawmakers routinely abuse the Senate's unlimited debate power to oppose any legislation that does not have 60 votes - - the total need to invoke 'cloture' or cut-off debate - - means a dedicated cadre of Senators has the political and procedure power to defeat any legislative item below the 'sweet 60.' Hence, in that sense a dedicated, numerical minority can undermine the will of the majority, the will of the people.

Now the real auto rescue debate begins

What's more likely is that the economic conservative Senators will use the filibuster weapon as a means to extract additional concessions from Big Three stakeholders - - primarily the United Auto Workers. And their goal is obvious enough: a UAW defeat will drive labor costs lower and represent another victory for those who believe the lower wages fall for the typical person and worker, the better. In this argument, wages are merely another cost in the production machine, and the less money allocated for this expense category - - as with any expense category - - the better.

Conversely, the UAW will argue that any attempt to weaken them - - or bypass them - - will hurt/eliminate the only organized power that the typical person and worker has at the bargaining table and in the American economic system. They'll also argue that a living and decent wage for all working Americans is the foundation for a strong, stable U.S. economy, with sustainable GDP growth.

Each side is likely to offer exaggerated business and economic statistics in favor of their arguments, in a Washington process known as 'rhetoric for dollars' that frequently accompanies appropriations bills and government loans. The economic conservatives are likely to argue that UAW total compensation costs are 'wildly above' those for auto workers in Japan and Germany. The UAW will likely argue that it's already made 'major concessions' in previous contracts, without noting that work rules haven't changed that much.

With passage of the rescue bill, and the U.S. Treasury's upcoming actions to stabilize credit markets through a variety of tools/mechanisms, one area that is likely to experience negative consequences is the dollar.

Simply, more dollars borrowed (or more dollars printed) almost always means each dollar is worth less. Economist Richard Felson said a gradual, orderly decline in the dollar "would be expected, and is almost considered the default response, given increased U.S. government borrowing." The dollar closed Friday down about one-half cent to $1.3775 and $1.7713 versus the euro and the British pound, respectively.

Central banks monitoring dollar's level

However, leaders of the world's major industrialized economies will not, in Felson's interpretation, accept a sudden and/or inordinate decline in the dollar. "Along with increased stress on the financial system, 'brutal' currency movements, as [European Central Bank President Jean-Claude] Trichet has said, throws everything out of whack by making it hard for companies to project costs of foreign operations," Felson said. "For these reason and others I believe the major central banks will intervene to support the dollar, should the U.S. Treasury's extra borrowing or the U.S. Federal Reserve's extra lending for the bailout lead to too large or too quick of a decline in the dollar."

Much has been written about the add-ons or 'pork' in the rescue package passed by the U.S. Congress and signed President Bush.

The add-ons, which increased the bill's projected cost by $130-$165 billion, depending on the analysis, have been viewed as another example of "special interest lobbying," "sneaky ways to get pet projects passed," "ripping off the taxpayer" and/or as simply un-American.

Well, the truth is, add-ons in the United States have taken place in every Congress since the nation was founded. Further, no one really knows who made the first legislative "deal," but to say that senators in ancient Rome or officials in Greece, did not trade votes for projects or patronage would be a stretch.

"Democracy is the worst system ...

Of course, it's much more ethical -- some would call it virtuous -- to propose a bill, then get a large majority to render a decision on the program/policy/law solely on its merits, driven by whether the bill is in the nation's interest.

And likewise, add-ons/pork can increase federal spending by substantial amounts, which makes it harder for the federal government -- or any government, for that matter -- to live within its means.

Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf inquires, do Americans understand their financial and economic system?

Anger at Wall Street's - - and regulators' - - lapses is justified, but at the end of the day to oppose the rescue package is at once self-defeating, contradictory, self-punitive, and borders on nihilism, Wolf states. Take your pick regarding which is the most damaging.

Congressional representatives, particularly conservative Republicans, but also others, opposed the flawed rescue plan as a bailout for the rich, and as a statement against 'socialism.' Socialism? Yes, the plan is flawed, Wolf states, but the ruin that will result from rejecting the plan will destroy the legitimacy not of socialism, but of the market economy. Exactly what are the packages' opponents fighting?

The Congressmen/women also say that they are 'taking a stand for Main Street and against Wall Street.' A contradiction, Wolf writes. Wolf: Wall Street and Main Street are streets that meet. That is what streets do.

Then there is the future. What is the opponents' alternative? The loudest voice here appears to be 'let the market sort things out by itself,' under the assumption that the damage, costs, and negative consequences really won't be that bad. Wolf: This is not prudent, if the early 20th century's experiences are a guide.

AT&T Chairman / CEO Randall Stephenson said Tuesday that his company was unable to sell any commercial paper last week for terms longer than overnight.

"Your ability to plan for investment is obviously affected. You kind of don't know what your cost of capital six months from now is going to be," Stephenson told The AP. "We'll just be very guarded, cautious in terms of where we invest, very guarded and cautious in terms of hiring and capital spending. We'll see where this situation goes."

Economist David H. Wang told BloggingStocks Wednesday AT&T's (NYSE: T) challenges selling commercial paper underscore the nature of the financial crisis and the need for lawmakers / policy makers in Washington to act, "with all deliberate speed."

"When a cash-rich giant like AT&T, the corporate equivalent of an 850 Tri-merged FICO score, has trouble selling commercial paper longer than overnight, a bell should go off in your head," Wang said, adding that he does not own shares of any telecom company.

With the U.S. Senate expected to debate and vote on a revised bailout/rescue bill in the next day or so (famous last words), two revisions the world's greatest deliberative body should incorporate are bank recapitalization options and funding to refinance mortgages, economists say.

BloggingStocks' Peter Cohan has written extensively on the need to recapitalize banks, and economist Richard Felson concurs. However, Felson argued that the revised rescue bill should give banks and other institutions the option of either offering their distressed/bad debts to the U.S. Treasury in its reverse auction or accepting a mutually agreeable investment by the U.S. Treasury into the institution.

Creating options for stressed banks

"This will give banks more options, and in my view more incentives to participate in the rescue plan. If the plan just contains asset purchase provisions some banks may balk at the prospect of selling some assets at a fire-sale price of 10 cents or 15 cents on the dollar, and that may prevent some distressed assets from being removed from the system, delaying the financial system's recovery," Felson said. "Offering to buy a stake in the bank offers another recapitalization option."

The dollar was mixed early Wednesday as talk that a revised bailout bill is heading toward the U.S. Senate for a vote met with concerns that the U.S. economy will enter a recession regardless.

The dollar rose about one-half cent to $1.4036 versus the euro and three-quarters of a cent to $1.7730 versus the British pound, but fell about three-tenths yen to 106.10 versus Japan's yen.

Raising dollars vs. economic fundamentals

Currency Trader Andrew Resnick said the currency market is in a tug-of-war between raising dollars and U.S. economic fundamentals. "If the U.S. economic fundamentals were the gauge, the dollar would be falling because the U.S. is in poor shape," Resnick said. "But banks are hoarding cash and there's a global trend toward raising dollars, which is bullish for the dollar."

"It may seem strange to want more dollars from the country with the biggest financial and economic problems, but the dollar is still the world's reserve currency and in times of fear there is a flight to safety, which in the currency market is the dollar," Resnick said. He added that he was presently flat or had no open currency trading positions.

Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein does not mince words: too many people just don't get it.

Moreover, yours truly is not one to alarm, and typically views 'sweeping and dramatic statements' with a journalist's skepticism and a scholar's critical review.

But when the best economists you talk to, and business executives, and others in financial and investment circles, start reaching the same conclusion, from decidedly different vantage points, the dramatic statement begins to take on more weight, becoming more compelling.

'The reality of the facts on the ground'

Further, as Pearlstein incisively points out, there are reasons why a considerable portion of the American people are not 'getting it' regarding how serious the current situation is. Politicians are more concerned about ideology, partisan posturing, and teaching people a lesson -- if you can believe that they could be so irresponsible (my astonishment added, not Pearlstein's). Financiers have been very slow to admit to greed, arrogance, and incompetence. And foreign government leaders still view the financial crisis as 'an American problem.'

But none of the above changes what Pearlstein, and what my closest economist colleagues (David H. Wang, Richard Felson, Peter Dawson, M. Chandler, and Glen Langan) all argue is "the reality of the facts on the ground," to borrow a phrase from Israel's former Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ariel Sharon. Namely, that a massive, global deleveraging is taking place, and that absent a systemic rescue/intervention by the U.S. Government, in conjunction with interventions by other governments around the world, the world risks the bursting of a credit bubble that threatens to bring down the global financial system.

The U.S. Congress' rejection of the $700 billion rescue bill generated a predictable response from private banks late Monday night. The cost of borrowing rates surged the most on record as banks were increasingly reluctant to lend to one another.

The London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, rose an astounding 431 basis points to 6.88% Monday night, Bloomberg News reported Tuesday.

Meanwhile, the Euro Interbank Offered Rate rose to a record 5.05%, reflecting cash hoarding, rising fear, and a breakdown in normal trading.

Economist David H. Wang told BloggingStocks he expects overnight interest rates to remain abnormally high until the U.S. Congress passes a rescue bill, or U.S. and international leaders find another mechanism to get bad assets out of the financial system.

"There's plenty of liquidity in the system. The problem is no one is lending to one another, and that's fear, basically. Until we implement policies to reduce and eliminate fear, the fear problem is going to grow and there will be more bank failures and other failures," Wang said. "There is no end in sight for this crisis until the psychology has been changed."

New York Times Chief Financial Correspondent and Columnist Floyd Norris, appearing on the "Charlie Rose" talk show Monday night on PBS, offered an insight that sort of summed up the financial crisis, the need for a rescue bill, and the reason a considerable portion of the American public doesn't like the rescue package.

Floyd Norris said: "At times it does appear that Wall Street is saying 'Bail us out or the U.S. economy is ruined.' And, if you're a citizen of the U.S., it's perfectly normal to be upset and angered by that. The problem is, what Wall Street is saying is true."

No time for perfection

The rescue bill, even the expected, revised rescue bill by Congress, will not be perfect. And yes, it will help some on Wall Street, including (unfairly) those who 'gamed' the system, or whose business mistakes, dubious securitization frameworks, or just plain greed helped create the crisis in the first place. But the nation does not have the luxury of taking six months to compose and pass a 'perfect' bill. The nation needs a rescue package, imperfect though it may be, to stabilize the financial system. And it needs it now.

Should you, the typical investor be upset about that? Sure, it's o.k. and it's a natural response to be upset, but don't let that emotion lead you to believe the nation or the financial system would be better off without a rescue bill; it won't be. And it's not possible to prevent Wall Street institutions from being involved in the solution -- at this time-pressured, critical juncture, they have to be. As The Times' Floyd Norris noted, Wall Street knows it, we know it, everyone knows it. So accept it, and move forward with the necessary work of getting a rescue plan in place.