When I was a young man, back before the Civil War, I didn't own stocks or bonds, nor did I make much salary.

That was when I rather enjoyed stock market crashes. I imagined they were God's way of punishing those who profited from the sweat of others while grinding the faces of the poor.

But now that I'm older and wiser (and living some off the sweat of others while grinding the faces etc.) I'm not so sure.

I'm semi-retired these days (still not much salary) but I do have stocks and bonds that I'm using to finance a pleasant ride into the sunset. Stock market crashes force me to realize that my sunset home might be a rooming house with microwave privileges, lavatory down the hall.

So, as much as it goes against my egalitarian liberal instincts, I now hate stock market crashes, like the one we're having at the moment.

They are unfair. What have I done to deserve losing thousands of dollars from my retirement accounts in a matter of hours?

Did I buy risky high-flying stocks in hope of making a quick killing? No.

Did I borrow money at interest rates I couldn't afford in order to buy things I didn't need? No.

Did I lend money to people who didn't have proper collateral, who had little chance of paying me back? No, and no.

I put my savings in a bundle of conservative investments with an eye toward keeping them a long time. I was not a speculator; I was an investor.

So why is this happening to me? One minute I was going along, singing a song, the next I was being held upside down by my ankles out of a 10th-floor window.

Don't tell me it's nobody's fault; it's somebody's fault.

And I want them held to account. I want them punished. I demand justice. And, while you're at it, I'd like a pound of flesh too.

Which is why I found the initial Bush proposals for the bailout of our financial industry unacceptable, if not ludicrous.

Not only did it give the Secretary of the Treasury virtual czar-like control over our financial system -- "I'm from the Bush administration and I'm here to help you?" -- it levied no penalty on the people who got us into this mess. It instead gave the Secretary $700 billion of taxpayers' money (need I remind you that they're "hardworking" taxpayers?) to reward these varlets by buying up their devalued paper at inflated prices.

That's the Wall Street version of the Philosopher's stone -- the ancient alchemist's dream of turning lead into gold -- a scheme that would privatize profits and socialize losses.

To which Congress, much of which would like to be reelected, has said: "No way!" despite the best efforts of the Bush administration to stampede it into acquiescence. Conservatives and liberals alike have gagged on it.

John McCain supported the concept of a bailout (as did Obama) but added that "no C.E.O. of any corporation or business that is bailed out by us, that is rescued by American taxpayers, should receive any more than the highest paid person in the federal government" ($400,000).

Not good enough. CEOs of companies that accept a bailout should be forced to sell their homes -- all of them, including the chalet in Aspen and the villa in Tuscany.

The yacht? The government confiscates it and uses it to give rides to kids from the Make A Wish Foundation.

The pay? Instead of 400-thou-a-year, how about $400-a-week, about what we pay entry-level soldiers to risk death or dismemberment in Iraq?

In return the government would provide these top dogs public housing -- one-bedroom, 1200-foot units complete with rats and graffiti -- for free. Hey, we're not heartless.

Those who refuse the bailout, should their company go under, would be liable for criminal penalties for malpractice.

That might not save the economy but it would put a smile on the faces of a lot of investors.

Donald Kaul is a retired Washington columnist for the Des Moines Register. He covered the capital for 29 years. dkaul1@verizon.net