I’m no economist, but I read a number of them, and it seems like consensus deems Paulson’s plan a pretty bad idea. For more here’s Krugman, Kristol (?), Mallaby, and CAP. There are many more quoted in the first article.
The basic thrust though, for those undesirious of reading, is that Paulson’s plan calls for the essentially accountable use of an unprecedented sum of taxpayer dollars to purchase bad, impossible to value debt, which may or may or not solve the problem and will almost guarantee no taxpayer remuneration. In addition, the plan does nothing to address the root cause of the problem, namely that 1 in 10 Americans are facing foreclosure. This makes the plan not only misdirected, but also inequitable in its narrow aim to help only shareholders and those who made bad investments and not homeowners who made similar mistakes. But of course, it’s more complicated than that, so read the links.
And also, dare I mention the how previous Bush Administration calls for broad and an unaccountable uses of executive force have turned out?