It sounds like a really good idea. But really, this is bribery. And it wouldn't have been necessary to give them everything they want if Geithner and pals put reasonable conditions on the bank bailout in the first place:

The Obama administration is developing a major initiative to tackle the economic and political problem of unemployment by getting federal bailout funds into the hands of small businesses.

The proposal involves spinning off a new entity from the Troubled Assets Relief Program that could give banks access to the government money without restrictions, such as limits on executive pay, as long as they use it to make loans to small businesses. But officials are not yet certain whether carving the program out of TARP would be the best way to lure banks to participate in small-business lending, said sources familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plans were not final.

As an alternative, officials are prepared to ask Congress to modify TARP itself, easing the pay limits and other restrictions that would be imposed on small-business lenders taking the money, the sources said.

Since the summer, the administration has been facing an uncomfortable dynamic in the economy. The ranks of the jobless have been growing, while big financial firms that got taxpayer bailout money have been thriving. In response, officials have been trying to recast TARP as aid for Main Street rather than Wall Street.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner told a congressional oversight panel Thursday that TARP would focus on aiding small-business lending, community banks and homeowners struggling to keep up with their mortgage payments, and he hinted at the new program.

Banks are "very reluctant to come and do business with the government and they're concerned that, if they come, they will be stigmatized and they will be subject to the risk of conditions in the future that might make it harder for them to run their businesses," Geithner told the TARP oversight panel. Solving that problem, he added, is "going to be something we cannot do on our own. It's going to require some help from Congress to help deal with those basic concerns."

Elizabeth Warren, who heads the oversight panel, chided Geithner for taking so long in setting up several other small-business lending initiatives, two of which were announced last spring.

"It's not news to anyone that small-business lending is important," she said. "Small businesses are closing every day. But Treasury has now announced three plans and clearly has not gotten the job done."

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1327)

PLAYS: (7386)

And the dumb keeps coming. CNBC's Maria, I just met a girl named Maria Bartiromo is so intent on sticking up for her Wall Street fat cat pals that she makes an idiot out of herself when she asks Rep. Weiner how come he doesn't use Medicare if it's all that!

Well, Weiner is half way to fifty so he's not eligible, but as we know facts are useless things when conservatives want to destroy something. Actually I wonder of she got confused with the other conservative talking point that says if the public option is so great, why doesn't the Democratic Congress sign up for it. Can you tell? I know it's hard to pin down the crazy.

Nico Pitney:

Earlier today, MSNBC's Carlos Watson hosted Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo for a discussion on health care.

At one point, Bartiromo was critical of the government-managed health care system in the United Kingdom. "How do I know the quality [of health care in the United States] is not going to suffer" with a public option? she asked.

Rep. Weiner reminded her that there already is government-managed health care in the United States -- namely, Medicare, the system created for Americans 65 years and older -- and that patients with Medicare report very high satisfaction rates.

Bartiromo's response to this argument was a true head-scratcher. In a mocking tone, she pressed the congressman: "How come you don't use it [Medicare]? You don't have it. How come you don't have it?"

Rep. Weiner, who turns 45 this week, tried to walk Bartiromo through it. "Because I'm not 65." But she was insistent. "Yeah... c'mon!" she exclaimed, laughing incredulously.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1128)

PLAYS: (7983)

Talk about ego and image control. Because of King James and the actions NIKE took, they've created a LeBron-Gate. It's so ridiculous.

The first mistake Nike made in the viral video mess that is LeBron-gate was trying to hide something from Gary Parrish. If you dropped Parrish in the middle of Afghanistan he'd emerge with Osama bin Laden's carcass in one hand, the details of John Calipari's new contract in the other, and a cell phone secured between his teeth. Nice work, Nike. Who did you think you were trying to fool, anyway? ESPN? The second mistake Nike made in LeBron-gate?

It underestimated the angry mood of the country toward arrogant mega-corporations who think they can do what they want, when they want. Nike believes that because it runs cute commercials and pals around with handsome athletes, it's no different from a sniveling credit card company or predatory bank.

To many people, Nike is the sports equivalent of those entities. By confiscating video of LeBron James getting his muscled-up head dunked on and subsequently acting like the release of the video is a threat to national security, the company confirmed what many have long believed: Nike is a ruthless corporation no different from other cutthroat companies.

Nike has, after all, been repeatedly accused of running sweatshops. More on that in a moment.

I mean, I'd like LeBron to sign on with the Knicks because they've stunk for so long, but this is Cheneyesque behavior.

There's something about James and Nike that makes this story more stringent than it ordinarily would be. There wouldn't be as much outrage if there were video of Dwyane Wade or Kobe Bryant getting dunked on. There'd be interest, of course, but James is the most arrogant and guarded superstar in the NBA and Nike is the most arrogant and guarded company in sports. That combination has turned this story from pedestrian to interesting and, until Nike releases the video, it'll stay that way.

It's Nike's corporate-ness which is at the center of this entire fiasco. It's not just the public enjoying watching a giant company feel the pain of stepping on the wrong end of a rake. No rational human being would ever be this angry over a simple dunk video. This isn't about the dunk. This is about rage over the actions of the wealthy and powerful.

What harm would it have done to King James' image? Nothing. Who cares if he got dunked on? John Starks had an incredible dunk on Michael Jordan. Who remembers that now?

Did that dunk hurt his marketing image? Of course not. People should not buy their products until they release the footage so they never do this again. It wasn't a crime scene. The way they handled this situation is Gestapo-like. Only NBA fans would watch it and nobody would care at all. It was just fine for James to have 60 Minutes film him doing amazing things and making him out to be, well, a King, but this is somehow unacceptable to him.