With the growing sense that the financial crisis is serious, but manageable, there are opportunities to step back, rethink and adjust the government's response.

The $700 billion bailout plan for the financial industry was passed in a time of near panic and few conditions were attached to the federal aid. But the request for $34 billion by Detroit's automakers was met by harsh criticism from members of Congress. The proposed federal aid package, which was passed by the House but defeated by the Senate, had plenty of strings attached.

It's reasonable to ask why the two bailout requests were handled so differently.

Most people agree that the troubles facing Detroit's Big Three can be blamed on poor management as well as inflexible (at least until recently) unions focused on short-term gains for workers that posed long-term threats to their employers.

But the harsh public criticism and tough conditions that were part of the proposed Detroit bailout debated in Congress have raised eyebrows. It's not that harsh criticism and tough conditions were not deserved; it's that the much larger $700 billion bailout of the financial industry lacked the same tough talk and conditions.

Congress and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson appeared to be in panic mode, practically throwing money at WallStreet. But when automakers sought help two months later, members of Congress scolded management and labor over past failures and proposed tough terms and conditions.

Many people are asking why the same tough talk and conditions did not accompany the $700 billion bailout package for Wall Street.

Leading members of Congress have called for the chief executives of the Big Three to resign, and if that didn't happen, Congress demanded the executives work for $1 a year.

Why didn't Congress make the same demands of AIG, Citigroup, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Why didn't Congress press for the removal of Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, from the board at Citigroup, where he reportedly pushed the bank into highly risky investments?

Writing in the New York Times, columnist William Kristol said, "Detroit has many sins to answer for...but there is a kind of undeserved disdain, even casual contempt, that seems to characterize the attitude of the political and media elites toward the American auto industry."

Kristol continued, "It seems to me that the financial big shots haven't been treated nearly as roughly in Congress or in the media as the auto executives, who have done nothing remotely as irresponsible as their Wall Street counterparts."

Kristol is expressing a belief shared by increasing numbers of Americans.

It was mostly greed that put Wall Street investment firms, the big banks and insurance companies in the position to need a $700 billion bailout. There is some evidence of greed in Detroit's troubles, but it's mostly poor management and change-resistant unions that are to blame for the carmakers' troubles.

While there were few strings attached to the $700 billion bailout, there are likely to be regulatory reforms that will bring more governmental oversight.

A congressional panel has been established to evaluate the effectiveness of the $700 billion bailout for the financial industry. And it is expected that the panel's evaluations could impact the release of the roughly $350 billion from the original package that remains uncommitted.

According to one report, the panel is asking Treasury officials to "describe whether the money used to inject capital into the banking sector is a 'giveaway' or a 'fair deal.' "

But even with the oversight panel asking questions of the Treasury Department, the automakers faced a much different environment.

To demonstrate that it will be just as tough on Wall Street as it is on Detroit, Congress should impose tougher sanctions on the financial world in exchange for the remainder of the $700 billion aid package The public would welcome tougher conditions and punitive actions aimed to those in the financial and mortgage industries who extracted massive profits from pushing risky home loans or selling exotic financial instruments.

Nobody is expecting Detroit to get federal loans with no strings attached or no oversight. But most people are eager to see that profiteers from WallStreet and in the mortgage industry will be held accountable — and suffer financial and legal consequences for their actions.