Citigroup is being bailed out as I write these words. Now, let's be clear: This is a good thing. But it also stinks, in a very deep, ingrained, infuriating way.

Bailing out Citi is a bit like putting out a fire in the house of a very irresponsible fellow down the street who lets his kids play with matches while he's sleeping in a hammock out back. You'd be very happy to see his house burn down, preferably with him in it, but you're afraid that the flames will spread through his unraked leaves to engulf the entire neighborhood.

At the very least, after the flames are put out, you want an investigation. You want arrests. You want to see someone held accountable. You want to see, pardon the expression, justice.

I say "pardon the expression" because I am speaking in an alien tongue here, at least as far as the recent spate of bailouts is concerned. The basic principle of equity, which is that the guilty will be punished and that he who causes pain will feel pain, is simply not a part of the equation in any of the bailouts of the big banks that have taken place this year.

In fact, I fear that the way things are going, nobody is going to be held responsible for any of the bank failures that are littering the landscape. I'm not talking about criminal action or anything like that, but simply the rather self-evident requirement that the responsible executives be punished, financially or otherwise, and that the shareholders get absolutely nothing. Zippo. Zilch.

The markets are celebrating the Citi bailout, which is good for all of our 401ks, but it is time for the public to feel a greater sense that justice is actually taking place. And no, restricting the dividend to a penny, a pledge to "comply with enhanced executive compensation restrictions," and tossing the taxpayers a few billion in preferred stock at 8 percent is not what I am talking about. That's a pinprick.

What's needed is more of a Saudi-style justice. A hand-chopping, not a wrist-slapping.

The government should make an example of Citigroup. It isn't, and it won't, but it should. So, this being pure fantasy mind you, let's consider what the elements of that would be:

Vikram PanditHe should be given two weeks severance and sent on his way. Oh, and he needs to cough back the ridiculous, we're-buying-a-hedge-fund-to-buy-the-people pay package that he received when he was brought into Citi in 2007. Nothing personal—I've met the man and find him to be thoroughly engaging—but Citi's descended into glorified panhandling on his watch. Why should he not suffer while thousands of people under him are being laid off? And lest one be put off by such a populist equation, how about this: Why should Pandit keep his job when John Thain, who avoided a bailout, loses his?

Citi's board of directors, including (especially) Robert Rubin

Fired, and must repay every cent they received while Citi was mismanaged. This is almost too obvious to mention, as is this: Can someone please explain to Barack Obama that one of his top economic advisers was in a responsible position at Citi—including chairman of its executive committee—during a period in which it was grievously mismanaged by people he supported?

Citi's shareholders

One of the most dismaying things I've seen is how Citi's common shares rallied 50 percent today after the bailout was announced. Citi's common equity should be reduced to zero, lest we abdicate the principle that bad investment judgments result in proportional losses. And believe me, when your company needs to be bailed out, lest it drag down the whole financial system, your common shares should not be worth squat.  

Now, I know that this is not a complete package, as some culprits (such as ex-C.E.O. Chuck Prince) are not covered, but it's a start. I also realize that this may be viewed as unduly vindictive by some. I can't see why that is.

Homeowners who made similarly bad judgments, by taking on mortgages that they could not afford, are being thrown out on the street. Thousands of Citi employees will be gracing the unemployment lines this holiday season, not because of anything they did but because the people who run their company are, and were, incompetent.

As I said, this is all, most likely, fantasy. The public is becoming accustomed to a two-tier system of equity, played out during each of the recent bailouts, in which the most egregious scoundrels escape scot-free.

Still, there's a slim chance that Obama will disregard the advice that I presume he is getting from Rubin, and give the public a small measure of justice. 

Even a tiny amount will do.