Michelle Malkin » Here it is: The mother of all government bailouts

Here it is: The mother of all government bailouts

By Michelle Malkin • September 8, 2008 10:32 AM

Scroll for updates…severance for CEOs?

What I wrote in July:

I’ve long warned of the inexorable bailout frenzy in the wake of last year’s stimulus-palooza. The Fannie/Freddie rescue will make the Bear Stearns bailout look like chickenfeed.

Well, welcome to the MOAB nightmare come true.

Taxpayers will be on the hook for $200 billion — with a “B” — in capital and credit lines to both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And that’s just the starting estimate. When do government projections ever get it right? And when do they ever overestimate the cost to taxpayers?

Both parties will twist themselves in semantic pretzels to argue that this isn’t a massive, socialist bailout scheme. Cut the bull. It walks and squawks like one because it is one. This is more of the same profit-side, crony capitalism and loss-side socialism. Who benefits? Liberal corruptocrats like Jamie Gorelick.

And what do we get for our money?

The fundamentals of the housing market will not change. We’ll pay for government intervention to keep home prices artificially high, while helping the two federally-sponsored enterprises rescue some of the nation’s most toxic loans.

When I called for the “Suck It Up” solution to the housing crisis, I didn’t mean that government should suck up our money. Crikey.

***

Peter Viles at L.A. Land: “The larger question, it seems to me, is whether the government’s rescue brings some stability back to the entire financial industry, or just buys the government time before the next unprecedented, historic bailout of the next institution deemed “too big to fail.” Banks are sitting on piles of bad debt and are unable to raise money and increasingly unwilling to lend; does the Fannie-Freddie bailout change that?”

***

Paging Jim DeMint!

***

Update: Terrific…

The chief executive officers of Fannie Mae stand to collect millions of dollars in severance compensation in the wake of the government’s takeover of the mortgage giants, The New York Times reported. Fannie Mae’s Daniel H. Mudd could get $9.3 million in severance pay, retirement benefits and deferred compensation if his dismissal is “without cause,” the consulting firm James F. Reda & Associates told the Times. And Freddie Mac’s Richard F. Syron could get a package valued at $14.1 million after a clause was added to his employment contract in mid-July, the Times reported. Investors are objecting to the prospect of the big payouts, the Times reported, adding that whether the executives actually will collect remains unclear.

Posted in: Subprime crisis

Regular View

comments (103)

trackbacks (11)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#446517

On September 8th, 2008 at 11:25 pm, Surveyor said:

Ms. Malkin….

What is your take on Roger Holdings comments to CNBC?

“CEO: Fannie/Freddie Bailout Makes America ‘More Communist than China”

seems we may be, at least partly in agreement with Soros’ buddy Jim Rogers on this one.
#446518

On September 8th, 2008 at 11:30 pm, Surveyor said:

I should say that I agree only with his comments from the 2nd paragraph. The rest is liberal banter. I should have put emphasis on “partly“…
#446524

On September 8th, 2008 at 11:38 pm, torabora said:

The Onion just recently had an article on how the bottom 5% have a near monopoly on America’s empty aluminum cans. RMOTFL.
#446777

On September 9th, 2008 at 10:26 am, DBNinKY said:

On September 8th, 2008 at 5:37 pm, RobM1981 said:

Bill Clinton has not lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for almost 8 years now. GW Bush has. During Bush’s tenure, we gave him a Republican Congress and a Republican Senate.

Yes, but President Bush’s economy has had more successive negatives piled on top of it than any other in history, not the least of which has been the dot com burst, the attacks of 9/11, and two wars on terror; given the magnitude of such economic adversities, that we still have a workable economy speaks well of President Bush and his team of financial strategists at averting catastrophe and, perhaps, these supposedly limited stimulus payments and bailouts.

Let me emphasize, I do not support bailouts and stimulus payments, as they are long term commitments to short term fixes, but something has kept our economic ship afloat when everything I learned as a one-time business major says it should sunk like a rock.

I do not blame our woes on President Bush but, rather, thank him for not letting us go under, when others (Clinton) certainly would have.
#447469

On September 9th, 2008 at 3:34 pm, denver republican said:

Ugh.

The U.S. House of Representatives is discussing an auto industry request to set in motion at least $25 billion in government-backed loans to help beleaguered U.S. manufacturers retool plants to make more efficient cars and trucks, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on Tuesday.

Story here.