FUCK YOU, BANKS. YOU GUYS SUCK.

We’re All Bankers Now. So Why’s the A.T.M. Still Charging Us $2?

By CLYDE HABERMAN

Published: October 30, 2008

According to our math, not the most reliable of guides, each taxpayer in this country has a $1,785.71 ownership share in the banks of America.

This figure is based on the $250 billion that the Treasury Department is investing in banks to prod them to start lending again. We divided $250 billion by 140 million, which the Internal Revenue Service says is the number of individual tax returns filed last year. By our count, that gives every taxpayer a $1,785.71 stake in JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and the rest.

(In that 140 million, we are not including Charles J. O’Byrne, who resigned under fire as Gov. David A. Paterson’s top lieutenant. We can’t be sure that Mr. O’Byrne has fully recovered from what his lawyer calls late-filing syndrome when it comes to his taxes. Also excluded is Joe the Publicity-Hungry Unlicensed Plumber. Public records have shown that Joe suffers from Sticky Fingers Syndrome in paying all that he owes.)

Far be it for us to tell Henry M. Paulson Jr., the treasury secretary, or Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, how to manage $250 billion. They’re the brains. And they’re doing a heck of a job. Thanks to all that brilliance in Washington and on Wall Street, the rest of us now know how to make a small fortune: by investing a large fortune.

But as shareholders, we have thoughts on aspects of banking that seem beyond the scope of Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke. Call them small-bore issues. But they affect ordinary people every day.

Let’s start with something really easy. Is it too much to ask that all banks have pens that work on the counters with the deposit and withdrawal slips? In too many places, the pens are useless. How can people feel confident that their money is being managed wisely if those in charge can’t even provide a functioning pen?

As shareholders, we were going to suggest that the top executives of the banks forgo end-of-year bonuses, but Andrew M. Cuomo, New York’s attorney general, was ahead of us. He sent a letter on Wednesday to nine big financial institutions asking for information about their plans in this regard. It doesn’t guarantee that mega-bonuses are finished. But, really, why should we give a dime to executives who had to come to us hat in hand? Better to give an extra buck or two to the guy in the subway with an outstretched plastic cup.

How about a moratorium on new bank branches in New York neighborhoods? The tanking economy will probably take care of that anyway. But an ironclad agreement by the banks to halt further expansion would delight New Yorkers. Many are infuriated as they watch cherished local stores die and give way to impersonal bank outlets, often located within yards of one another. Enough is enough.

Why not forbid any bank receiving taxpayer money to purchase naming rights to sports stadiums and arenas? Citigroup is handing the Mets something like $20 million a year to call their new stadium Citi Field. Surely, the Mets do not need Citigroup’s money — not to mention yours — to keep failing to make the playoffs.

Might we end the procedure by which banks stiff you when you deposit a large check? Often, you are initially credited with only part of the deposit, and must wait a few days to gain access to the rest. Meanwhile, the bank is using the withheld portion to pick up a few bucks for itself. Check-clearance times have been speeded up in recent years. But why shouldn’t depositors be able to get at their money immediately, all of it?

For that matter, why must bank customers pay several times to retrieve cash at an A.T.M. (known to some as short for Always Taking Money)? If you use an A.T.M. at a bank other than your own, that bank usually charges you a fee. Fair enough. But your own bank also charges you for the same transaction. So you pay twice for the privilege — no, make that the right — to withdraw your own money. How is that?

As long as we have $1,785.71 at stake, can’t we ask that banks have recognizable names?

A few years ago, something called Sovereign Bank began popping up all over town. We’d never heard of Sovereign. Now, just as we’ve been getting used to the name, we learn that Sovereign has had it.

A full-page advertisement in Thursday’s paper announced that Sovereign had been taken over by a company called Santander. What in the name of the Bailey Savings and Loan is Santander?

Turns out that the full name is Banco Santander, based in Spain. Want to bet that Santander left out “banco,” except in very small type at the bottom of the ad, so that few would see right away that another piece of America had been acquired by a foreign institution.

Sovereign, we hardly knew ye. But at least you didn’t go by a dopey moniker like WaMu. That’s what Washington Mutual called itself before it, too, flopped. The name WaMu will soon be gone, whammo!

Here’s hoping the same doesn’t happen to our $1,785.71.

E-mail:haberman@nytimes.com