Philadelphia wants a bailout, so does Phoenix. New York City relies overwhelmingly for its tax revenue (as does New York State) on Wall Street millionaires, and they don't have a lot of income to declare these days. Instead they have losses. New York needs a bailout.

California, Washington State, the list goes on and on. Everyone seems to need a bailout.

Detroit carmakers certainly do. I'll bet that a number of distressed newspapers that are covering all this would like bailouts. Soon someone will produce a T-Shirt with the inscription, "Where's MY Bailout?"

After the banks got relief--some of them--it became clear that we would soon have a very long line forming at the Federal Bailout Window. That now has happened. Obviously, this particular window is closing, however, if it hasn't closed already.

The stock market crash in September hit just at the moment the campaign promises, especially from the Obama camp, were flying forth at top speed. John McCain kept saying that he would not raise anyone's taxes, while Barack Obama said he would give "95 percent" of the people tax cuts and only raise taxes on those families earning over $250,000. Exit polls showed that people in that top category voted Democratic this year by large proportions, so, presumably, few of them will mind getting a stiff tax increase very soon.

The trouble is, the amount of money being earned above $250,000 per household is about to crater. You could take all of those people's income (leaving just a little to pay state and local taxes), and you still couldn't stop the runaway federal budget. Tax increases in a recession, moreover--the real Herbert Hoover lesson--would be counter-productive. Likewise, new tariffs on imports. Yet both those simplistic ideas have been part of the Obama plan for "change".

But the realities of "change" have now changed. The rhetoric of only a couple of weeks ago is already out of date.

Things could calm greatly if the President-Elect would get together with the current President and leaders of both parties to find a common ground on tax and spending policy. People on the far left will complain loudly if their favorite new projects are held up, but their point of view will have almost no political clout if the new president has a more or less united Congress behind him.

I am tempted to say that President-Elect Obama should adopt Sen. McCain's agenda--at least short term, until there is some economic revival, and new money, to be spent on all the promises that the Democrats have made. But, I can't say that, because even some of Sen. McCain's proposals of the campaign are too expansive for this environment.

But he was right that we don't need tax increases, we need tax cuts. We need some public spending (on infrastructure and the initial safety bailouts to provide liquidity for the financial system), but we also should expect serious belt-tightening by governments at all levels. After Ronald Reagan put through his reforms during the recession of 1981-83 the economy roared back, despite furious opposition from the Democrats and the media in the early years. In the end, as George Schultz told someone who asked about the condition of the country (I paraphrase), "The government is bad shape, but the country is doing great." He added that it had been the opposite under Jimmy Carter.

Barack Obama and his team have huge Congressional majorities. They can impose their issues and they can have the illusion of government "change". Then a recession could well become a depression. Some change.

Or they can get our finances under control and free the private sector to grow again. They also should hold off on new regulations that will make it difficult for businesses to start up and expand. Only then will there be substantial revenue wealth generated--however you want to spend it.