The bailout appears poorly managed because there's little understanding why banks -- as a supplier of capital -- are getting priority; but the real priority -- food -- seems to have been lost in the shuffle. The time to debate this issue is now, not after the bill has been passed.

Not ready: "Check back after the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to see how and where your tax dollars are spent." [Emphasis added]

One problem is the appearance the US leadership is throwing money at a poorly defined problem. This needs to change.

We don't need to throw money at more consumers or pet projects. Once the money is spent, there will be no additioanl money to sustain the real requirements to sustain a recovery: A method to sustain operating cashflows. Falling operating cashflows isn't relevant when the existing cash levels far exceed the debts and the debt repayment obligations. The current approach focuses on throwing water on the fire, not in ensuring we construct the house in the right place.

The President focuses on whether we are or are not monitoring an incorrect list of priorities:

President Obama: "I know that some are skeptical about the size and scale of this recovery plan. I understand that skepticism, which is why this recovery plan must and will include unprecedented measures that will allow the American people to hold my Administration accountable for these results."

Let the banks and those who gambled go into bankruptcy. The real concern should not be with those who faciliated the gambling, but those who provide the most important national resource: Food. If the banks "cannot fail," then there should be good reasons -- not excuses -- for creating the current priority list. There is a priority list, right?

One error is to punish borrowers who have assets, cash, or securities which can service loans. The current approach appears to take a broad brush to all borrowers, regardless their fundamentals: The ability to service loans, even in the worst conditions. Those who can service loans should not be punished by reducing their access to capital or loans.

Farmers borrow money from any supplier of capital. The issue isn't whether the farmers have a problem -- they don't, because they have a product they can sell to service the loans. The question is whether the US leadership will, as they should, let the banks -- which are insolvent or have lost in the gambling -- go by the wayside because they cannot be trusted to responsiblty supply capital.

Capital Supply Problem Overshadowing Higher Solvent Capital Demand

Who cares about the suppliers of capital. The issue is whether the most important users of capital -- the farmers, producing food -- can continue with the most important job: Sustaining the food supply.

Why aren't we creating a lending system that will ensure the highest priority -- the food supply -- is getting the highest priority in accessing capital? Let the gamblers argue they should have a higher priority for food.

We need to focus on the real priorities for capital access -- not the supply of capital, but supporting those who have the most important and sustainable demand for capital: Food production. The answer isn't to increase the ability for people to access capital; but to ensure the prioritized demand for capital is given the support it needs.

We need a debate on which demands for capital should be given the greatest-to-least priority. Then we can discuss whether the US government should or should not support those requirements.