This editorial is a not-entirely-successful attempt to conflate two different topics of discussion: FB's valuation (and Goldman's market-making involvement therein), and the dangers of leverage in the financial sector.
It's quite likely that Goldman would have made this play with FB regardless of its current special access to federal dollars, thus making the two topics incidentally and not fundamentally related.
I would say that it is very likely Goldman would have made this play regardless of it's federal guarantees. The difference - and the author's point - is that there is less systemic risk in this scenario because Goldman would get the $450M through the equity markets rather than through the debt markets.
The author's point is that we have created a system where risk capital is being financed through debt rather than equity.
Indeed. The last hit piece the NYT ran on this topic explains why: this deal is likely to make Goldman, Facebook, and all the investors who buy into Goldman's SIV a lot of money.
Also, this deal is peripherally related to bailouts at best. Goldman will not require a bailout even if they lose their entire $500 million investment (i.e., if Facebook goes bankrupt tomorrow, which is exceedingly unlikely) - Goldman has a market cap of $90 billion.
It's quite likely that Goldman would have made this play with FB regardless of its current special access to federal dollars, thus making the two topics incidentally and not fundamentally related.