The response to the financial institution regulatory reform proposal introduced yesterday by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has been striking. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Bankers Association, small banks and state attorneys general, left-leaning economists and analysists, and members of Congress, even the man with the max Street cred, Jim "I reiterate -- I am embarrassed by these guys. Thank heavens, no matter who wins the White House, they will soon be gone" Cramer, have trashed the plan unceremoniously. The Paulson plan has been dissed on a number of grounds. It regulates already-regulated institutions, not ones lacking and needing regulation. It will weaken state banks. The plan could have been released anytime over the last several years and would not have changed a thing regarding market conditions today. It blithely declares that "market discipline is the most effective tool to limit systemic risk." And so forth. Secretary Paulson is a bright man who understands financial market operations as well as anyone. His tenure at Treasury has, surprisingly, been as marginal thus far as those of his predecessors Paul O'Neill and John Snow. Treasury is facing its first full-blown crisis since the Asian contagion of a decade ago. This is Paulson's moment. OK -- so what does Paulson's proposal accomplish ? Is it:

• A. an effort to disguise the administration's laissez-faire approach to the crisis?
• B. a smokescreen to distract from such "interventionist" initiatives as the Frank-Dodd bill?
• C. an April Fool's errand?
• D. all of the above?
• E. none of the above?