Why doesn't the headline read, "Citi to be owned 34% by the government"??

This article is a tad bit worrisome. Apparently, Citigroup's plan for success is to just convert preferred shares (a fancy loan) into common stock (ownership) in an attempt to make the metrics work. Yes, this does save some cash because dividends are not obligated. But, what I'm more curious about, is how the government plans on A) Acting in its fiduciary capacity and B) unwinding its position. As a 34% owner of Citigroup, you'd expect anyone, the government included, to be active. However, the government has a pretty severe conflict of interest. What's to stop congress from passing laws that require the Citigroup government board members to vote in certain ways or push for certain things. More importantly, what's to stop those board members from doing things without the full force of law behind them. I guess, technically, the government doesn't own them, the US Treasury does. But that's an entity that's not exactly independent.

Hopefully, the press will push for more clear guidelines on the ownership responsibilities and plans for these entities. I wouldn't hold my breath though.