I bank at one of the larger banking institutions in this country and have kept my account there for a number of years. My loyalty has been tested lately, though, on more than one occasion. I won’t go into all the details, except to say that my latest encounter was the doubling of the interest rate on my credit card for no apparent reason.

My problems, though, are minor compared to bank customers who have over-borrowed and cannot keep up with the required payments on their credit cards, loans, or mortgages. And therein lies the crux of the entire problem. For the past 25 years, consumers have been borrowing too much so they can enjoy the good life. State and local governments have been borrowing too much so they can provide more and more services. And now the U.S. Government is running huge deficits to help prop up a troubled banking system and a sinking economy.

Banks have received rather large sums of money to help them through their financial crisis. We all have been reading for the last several months about bank executives receiving large salaries and bonuses partially funded by the bailout money from you and me. It seems to me that bailout money ought to be restricted to help banks stay solvent and to provide much needed capital to make loans to you, me and businesses of all sizes.

I concluded long ago that banks loan out tons of money when the economy is robust, but then become fearful and make loans hard to get when the economy is tanking. It seems to me that this phenomenon exacerbates the economic cycle. Loaning more money when we really, really need it during economic downturns would make more sense and help the U.S. economy avoid the up and down cycles that are harmful to so many. What’s the solution? When times are good, banks and the rest of us should save for a rainy day.

While I’m on a roll … “Too big to fail” scares me. What is too big, and how is too big going to be determined? Will there be two banks that are too big, or will there be 100 banks that are too big? And what is going to be done about these banks besides pumping trillions of our tax dollars into “big” banks when they run into a problem or two. My solution? Go back to the good old days when banks did banking, brokerage firms offered brokerage services, mutual fund companies ran mutual funds, and insurance companies offered insurance.

Now we have financial institutions, like my bank, that offer all of the above and more. “Jack of all trades and master of none” comes to mind. Maybe we should break up our so-called financial institutions by restricting the services that they can offer. Oh no, did I say break up banks? My dad would roll over in his grave if he heard me offer that suggestion. But, as a customer, I would like to be dealing with an expert rather than a jack-of-all-trades. As an investor, I would prefer investing in a few stodgy old banks that pay hefty dividends on a regular basis, rather than financial institutions with questionable investments.

One final thought on how banks and financial institutions should be regulated in the future to prevent another financial crippling financial crisis. We have a lot of regulations already in place that would have helped keep us from getting into this current mess. If the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had diligently done its job, Bernie Madoff would not have gotten away with bilking hundreds of investors out of billions of dollars.

We even have banking guidelines that suggest that banks avoid investing in risky investments. Evidently, regulators found that the word “risky” is vague and didn’t know how to apply such a rule. OK, let’s add an amendment or two to prohibit banks from specifically investing in derivatives, credit default swaps and all similar gambling strategies that might be created in the future. And it goes without saying that all regulatory authorities should be well staffed and well funded to ensure that all regulations are fully enforced. Enough said!