We're still waiting for an answer to the US bail out crisis.

The Republicans are trying to scupper the process for dogmatic reasons. I sincerely hope its rebounds very badly on McCain. Being associated with those who seek to destroy an economy for reason of their own petty commitment to markets which have so obviously failed should seriously harm him.

But the crisis also gives real chance to those reasonable people who want to impose sensible constraints on any deal to protect the US taxpayer who will be funding this. I've already offered my version. Robert Reich has his own version in the Guardian this morning. There's a lot of overlap. I guess they'll forgive me for reproducing them:

¬? The government (that is, taxpayers) must receive an equity stake in every Wall Street financial firm proportional to the amount of bad debt it shoves on to the public. So when and if shares rise, taxpayers are rewarded for accepting so much risk.

¬? Executives of Wall Street firms must relinquish stock options and this year's other forms of compensation, and agree to future compensation linked to a rolling five-year average of the firm's profitability. Why should taxpayers feather their already amply feathered nests?

¬? All Wall Street executives must immediately cease making campaign contributions to any candidate for public office in this election cycle or next, all Wall Street public affairs committees (registered fundraising bodies) be closed, and Wall Street lobbyists curtail their activities unless specifically asked for information by policymakers. Why should taxpayers finance Wall Street's outsized political power - especially when that power is being exercised to get favourable terms from taxpayers?

¬? Wall Street firms must agree to comply with new regulations related to disclosure, capital requirements, conflicts of interest, and market manipulation. The regulations will emerge in 90 days from a bipartisan working group, to be convened immediately. After all, inadequate regulation and lack of oversight got us into this mess.

¬? Wall Street must agree to give bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of primary mortgages, so homeowners have a fighting chance to keep their homes. Why should they lose their homes when Wall Streeters receive taxpayer money that helps them keep their fancy ones?

Wall Streeters may not like these conditions. That's too bad. These aren't times for those going bust to argue.

What I do know is the time for argument is limited: a deal has to be done. But the result cannot, must not and I sincerely hope will not result in further private gain from public capital (whether the states of that of public companies). That's the problem we're addressing. It cannot be the solution.