WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Fairly or not, some critics say they can't help but see similarities between the Bush administration's hurried approach to the financial market crisis and its headlong plunge into the Iraq war.

"You can draw some valid parallels between the prosecution of the war under the Bush regime and the way the financial sector has operated in recent years," said Tom Schlesinger, head of the nonprofit research group Financial Markets Center in Howardsville, Va.

"It fails the most basic test of democratic accountability," Schlesinger said.

“ More questions than answers, and rising fear of 'government bungling that will cost taxpayers, big-time.' ”

On Tuesday, Washington kicks off the first hearings in which top officials will defend their prescription before lawmakers, who also are compelled by circumstances to take speedy action.

Some policy observers point to a "trust us" mentality in the administration's call to obtain sweeping powers that are scant on checks and balances on the executive branch. In addition, the White House is faulted with a failure to raise alarm before the situation spiraled out of control, forcing the mobilization of more troops and untold financial resources.

Outlining the administration's remedy, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson came up with a three-page plan to spend $700 billion on toxic mortgage debt that was very spare on key details.

It boils down to "give me the money and trust me," Schlesinger said.

James Angel, a professor of finance at Georgetown University, said the White House appears to be "flying by the seat of their pants."

Sidelined

Congress got little advance warning of the proposed bailout, as the Treasury Department waited until five days before lawmakers were set to leave town for the presidential and Congressional election campaigns. As a result, any discussion of alternatives has been sidelined.

In the eight years of the Bush administration, investment firms have, like the security contractor Blackwater, been subjected to slim or no oversight, Schlesinger said. Now comes another big contracting job.

Struggling to assess the cost of a financial rescue, analysts have honed in on the price the Treasury pays for seizing toxic assets on the books of financial institutions. The department has pledged to hire financial market experts to conduct the plan.

Treasury is talking about a plan that essentially would allow sellers to name their price for the securities. Under the plan, a so-called reverse auction, institutions that choose the lowest price -- say 50 cents on the dollar -- would win instead of a firm that wants 60 cents.

Price too low

Economists said there was a central problem to the Paulson plan. Most of the toxic waste in question does have some price, but it has been too low for the financial institution holding them to accept. So the government buyout would only work if taxpayers overpay for the assets.

"It is no wonder that the Bush administration is pressing to get the plan passed quickly before any real oversight can be brought to bear, because even the simplest due diligence suggests that it needs some work if the taxpayer's interests are to be even minimally protected and some real oversight brought to bear on the whole process," wrote Josh Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at MFR Inc. in a note to clients.

And that may be precisely what is most worrisome to economists who fear, as Angel put it, "government bungling that will cost taxpayers, big-time."

At issue would be what assets Treasury buys. "How much are they going to pay for them? How are they going to service those assets?," Angel said. "It is a trust-me operation. And this administration hasn't really earned a lot of trust by its execution in a number of areas," including crises like Hurricane Katrina and Iraq.

Despite the flaws perceived in the administration's proposal, there is a feeling that the train has left the station and Paulson is about to be empowered to take toxic mortgage loans off of the balance sheets of scores of financial firms.

Election season

As in the debate on whether to authorize the Iraq war, Democrats see little upside in opposing the bailout. In an election season, the leadership doesn't want to be painted as the party that did nothing to help restore calm to financial markets and everyone's 401(k) account.

So the price Democrats are asking the White House to pay is not very steep.

While Rep. Barney Frank, a key lawmaker, said the Bush administration and Democrats have agreed to additions to the plan, including creating an independent oversight board and aid for homeowners facing foreclosure, uncertainty remains over a proposal to allow the government to take an equity position in companies that participate in the U.S. program. See full story.

Some analysts see another Iraq parallel: The administration has been slow to understand the gravity of the financial turmoil just as it was slow to realize how difficult it would be to govern Iraq after toppling the government of Saddam Hussein.

"Paulson never seemed to grasp the seriousness of the situation, said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal think tank based in Washington.

Until just last week, Paulson consistently told reporters there was no need for massive government intervention in the mortgage crisis.

"This is Paulson's surge here," Angel said. "In much the same way the administration let the insurgency get out of hand, Paulson let this turmoil get out of hand. Now he is finally combating it by sending in enough troops to quell it."

After the nation's savings and loan debacle, many people made fortunes by flipping cheap assets they bought on the cheap from the Resolution Trust Corp.

"If the Treasury overpays for bad paper and then dumps it on the market, it is a recipe for plenty of hedge fund smoothies to make a fortune," Angel said.

On other thing is certain as legacy of both Iraq and the mortgage crisis, whoever is the next president will have to tackle many hard questions left unanswered by the Bush presidency.