A Pennsylvania lawmaker is blasting JP Morgan Chase for accepting $25 Billion in TARP funds while planning to outsource thousands of U.S. tech jobs to India. And you thought AIG bonuses were a hot-button issue.My colleague Bob Evans and others have written about JP Morgan's plans to increase its use of India-based contractors by as much as 25%, partly to speed the integration of IT assets previously owned by Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns. Democratic Congressman Robert Brady, from Philly, calls the bank's plan to ship out jobs while drinking lustily from the public trough "outrageous."

"We would like to remind you that the taxpayers of the United States of America contributed $25 billion to your company to help stabilize our economy not send jobs overseas," Brady recently wrote to JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon.

"There seems to be a disconnect between some major financial institutions and the suffering of the everyday people who are losing their jobs," said Brady.

Brady's populist appeal makes sense, at first. Why should American taxpayers' dollars be used to hire workers in India?

On the other hand, JP Morgan and its buddies on the corporate welfare line need to operate as efficiently, and cheaply, as possible if they're to get out of the crater-sized pit they've dug for themselves. TARP in a sense makes us all shareholders in the companies that received funds, and the inexpensive labor offered by India could lead us to a higher return on our investment.

Before Congress acts rashly, and, say, hauls CIOs like JP Morgan's Guy Chiarello (himself no stranger to handouts) before a subcommittee and outlaws outsourcing by TARP recipients, it needs to weigh the real pros and cons of the issue. Government by sound bite is getting really old, really fast.

What do you think? Should TARP recipients be allowed to outsource?