I think one of the biggest questions raised is what if?
4) What if it fails? The plan does not give any consideration to what would occur if this authority failed to solve the current crisis. Those reasons could potentially include risk from other private sector failures outside of mortgage-backed assets, international financial services failures, lack of willing sellers, lack of willing buyers, an understatement of the depth of the problem or the financial commitment needed to abate it, or even the fact that the program might work according to planned but produce no beneficial impact.
Leslie has the complete list.
Second, The Heritage Foundation says that any bailout must (1) restore the markets and (2) protect the taxpayers. They also call for any legislation to be free of other programs, projects and pork. They give a good analysis of the good and the bad in the current proposal, along with proposals that should NOT be included as Congress goes forward.
Third, we have this post, The Bargain for the Bailout, on The Next Right. Author Ironman speculates that, despite issues with the bailout, both Republicans and Democrats may find it impossible to vote against it. So he recommends some 'conditions' upon which to base a vote.
Some prominent Democrats must demonstrate a level of responsibility for this disaster before Republicans allow themselves to be roped into looking like die hard Dubya loyalists.
The quid: The chairman of the Senate and House Banking Committees---Chris Dodd and Barney Frank--must relinquish their chairmanships as a condition for Republican yes votes on the bailouts.