The best comment so far on Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.’s 200-page plan to restructure government financial regulation came from Laurence Summers, treasury secretary under President Clinton.

“It’s probably a bad idea to spend too much time debating the organization of the fire department while the fire is still burning and no independent investigation if the cause of the fire has yet been completed,” said Mr. Summers, as quoted by The Wall Street Journal.

The fire is still blazing, with the world’s biggest banks having already written off more than $200 billion in loans that have gone sour. The trouble began last summer with the implosion of the American subprime mortgage market and has spread to other investments. Since the collapse and government-backed buyout of Bear Stearns last month, speculation is rife as to which big investment bank will be the next to fall.

Enter the Paulson plan, the Bush administration’s main effort to show that it is doing something about the raging crisis. But, as Secretary Paulson acknowledges, it is aimed mainly at averting future crises, not dealing with this one, and mostly “should not and will not be implemented until after the present market difficulties are past.”

In brief, the plan, if enacted by Congress, would combine some federal bank regulatory agencies, ease the present regulation of the stock market, and make the Federal Reserve System the chief regulator of financial markets. Among the details, it would let insurance companies choose federal rather than state regulation and regulate hedge funds (but only lightly).

One proposal is a mortgage commission that would set new standards for mortgage brokers, whose fast and loose behavior helped trigger the mess. Congress may consider the matter this year.

In proposing the commission, Secretary Paulson seems to be acknowledging that underregulation of the mortgage industry helped trigger the crisis. When the housing bubble burst, many homeowners were caught in mortgages that they never should have bought and that they no longer could afford.

If underregulation was the culprit, Mr. Paulson seems reluctant to abandon the historic Republican disdain for regulation. He said the plan would not necessarily prevent future financial crises. He went on: “I don’t think any regulatory system is going to change that. I think we rely very, very heavily on market discipline.”

Business groups so far tend to support the plan, and a statement by Rob Nichols of the industry group Financial Services Forum shows why. As quoted by Thomson Financial News, he said he looked forward to “working with Treasury, members of Congress, and regulators on reforms that will enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. economy and maintain the delicate balance between appropriate regulation and the need for a more flexible and efficient system of financial supervision.”

Thomson Financial News commented that “words and phrases such as ‘reviewing,’ ‘working with,’ and ‘delicate balance’ are polite signals that the industry would resist stronger regulation.”

That means real reforms remain unlikely.