I am considering leaving Big Law for the IRS Chief Counsel. For Tax folks - that tend to be a bit geeky about the subject matter - this is a prerequisite to being a technical expert in a certain tax-related field.

The $80k+ pay cut for the 3-year commitment that I am looking at may arguably be worth it in the long run as DC is a very tax intensive town, and a large majority of tax partners are ex-government (IRS, Treas, Hill). In essence, when you come out, the employer's are buying your Rolodex for inside contacts.

In short, if you have a tax problem, who would you rather have represent you: (i) someone that has been on the 'inside' and knows how they think and the process works, or (ii) someone that hasn't - - everything else being equal?

The Salary tables are posted at:
http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/

The systemic market-based problems existed, in similar fashion, in the 1987 market cash. The 87 crash was a confidence issue as well, and the I-banks were close to failure. Therefore, Glass-Steagall may have something to do with this, but it may have happened regardless.

AIG was too big to fail because of the counter-party consequences (ie, Main Street). The same is the case of FNM and FRE.

As a note, the failures largely as a result of liquidity, and not insolvency. If the gov't 'bails out an entity, the liquidity issue is resolved, and once the liquidity can be restored, the government can get the funds back. Therefore, the use of taxpayer funds may result in a return of the funds to the fisc at a later date. If the funds are lost, they likely when to the benefit of the taxpayer by preserving reasonable mortgage rates (FNM.FRE) or stable insurance coverage. I think this can be distinguished from the War.

But that's just one perspective.

I have been a 12 year Republican - and I am embarrassed for the party for shooting down this Bill.

I think I just turned Democratic.