"Thanks but No"

strong-arm (v): 1. To compel by pressure or threats. 2. To domineer or drive into compliance by the use of threats or force.

From the euphemistically-titled article in yesterday’s U-T, Bof, Citigroup prodded by regulators:

With a crucial deadline looming in the federal bank bailout program, Washington regulators are pressing some unwelcome prescriptions upon two of the nation's largest lenders.

One by one, allies of Ken Lewis, the embattled leader of Bank of America, are bowing to pressure from the Federal Reserve and leaving the board. The bank named four new directors with financial experience yesterday, a shake-up that could further weaken Lewis' hold on the company. More board changes are expected.

On the same day at Citigroup, anxious executives moved to quell talk that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was pushing to replace the chief executive, Vikram Pandit. Citigroup's board discussed how to cope with the situation in a series of meetings this week.

Whether Lewis and Pandit can hold on is uncertain, and even regulators are at odds about what should be done. But as banks prepare to report to regulators on Monday about their progress in strengthening their finances, and in some cases their managements and boards, it is increasingly clear that officials are trying to exert some control over Bank of America and Citigroup.

Gee, do you think the situation described above may have anything to do with the fact that a) banks want to get the hell out of the TARP program as soon as possible and b) these same banks are reluctant to enter into an FDIC-sponsored program to help sell-off the toxic assets they currently hold… especially when the banks appear to be raising sufficient capital on their own without more government money?

According to linked article, that the free market is able to outperform a government program has baffled many experts, especially those in the goverment. Wait a minute... can they really do this without us?