There's anger in the air. I'm angry.

It turns out that a majority of our lawmakers and White House insiders knew about the AIG bonuses before they fained outrage for the cameras last week.

They either knew and lied, or they didn't read the law they passed which specifically provided for said bonuses. The bill passed with the bonus provisions, the majority ruled.

Now they want a redo.

Which is worse, the lying, followed by the fake outrage, or not reading the law before voting on it?

I am as scared by the ignoramus as the liar. Neither has the greater good as his or her priority.

We're going way too fast here. Billions here and billions there and there doesn't seem to be anyone able or willing to slow this thing down.

And is anyone actually reading the legislation getting passed?

It's all done in the name of the economy.

"We need to get the credit markets lending again."

That's what I hear daily.

But I don't think it's true and I ask you to consider the following.

Some background facts: 1) I have a first mortgage and a home equity line of credit from Countrywide Mortgage 2) I have a credit card (never used) from Bank of America. 3) Bank of America owns Countrywide. 4) Bank of America received $15 billion in bailout money.

Does Bank of America want to get the credit markets lending again? Well yes, and no.

In January I got a letter from Bank of America with checks attached to it. The checks were sent so, in the banks words, I could "access your funds with ease."

I wasn't interested in this unsecured credit line against a charge card, but I kept the material because of the stated interest rate - a whopping 24.99 annual percentage rate. I couldn't believe that rate was legal; I saved the offering for proof.

So for 24.99%, the answer is yes - Bank of America is willing to "get the credit markets lending again" - even a totally unsecured loan. I'm not a banker, but I'm guessing that's a pretty profitable loan - one to build an entire business on - one with which to fund a lot of year end bonuses.

But for 3.5% - no, Bank of America is unwilling to "get the credit markets lending again." Not even for a secured loan, a home equity loan with a lien on real estate.

Last night I received a "Dear John" letter from "too big to fail" Countrywide/Bank of America. I was informed that as of March 17 the bank has elected (their word) to "suspend further draws against your account."

Gee, since the suspension of my credit was backdated or retroactive, the letter goes on to say, I'd better be in touch if I've written (bounced) any checks since their decision to cut me off at the knees.

The stated reason for the suspension of credit was that the bank had zapped my residence with their "Automated Valuation Method" and the humble abode was looking all the more humble.

We've heard so much about banks being "too big to fail." That's the reason for the billions upon billions. But now we need to coin a new phrase, a phrase to describe a credit climate where an unsecured loan at 24.9% is more desirable than a 3.5% secured loan.

Drum roll please...

"Too small to bonus."

If Countrywide/Bank of America can borrow from Uncle Sam at 0% and lend to me at 24.9% - well there will be no need to hide those bonuses. And perhaps that's the sole driving force motivating the decision makers. But a secured home equity loan, already in place, that's too small to bonus and reveals as false the mission statement of "getting the credit markets lending again."

Banking crises? Says who? It looks like they're going to come out of this just fine.