Kill the bailout: Will the real fiscal conservatives please stand up?
The battle over the Mother of All Bailouts is a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. A few fiscal conservatives like GOP Rep. Mike Pence are daring to stand up against this disaster. And where is GOP Minority Leader John Boehner? Chastising the Right not to oppose it because “This is not a time for ideological purity.”
What?! When is there a better time for conservative ideological purity than now — now that we face the most massive taxpayer rescue in American history spearheaded by a phenomenally wrong-headed, ChiCom-promoting, liberal Democrat-installing, Gore global warming alarmist?
Hell, yes, this is a time for “ideological purity.”
Ideological principle.
Ideological courage.
Here is GOP Rep. Mike Pence’s full statement opposing the bailout sent out over the weekend:
PENCE OPPOSES BUSH ADMINISTRATION BAILOUT PLAN
“There are no easy answers but there are alternatives to massive government spending”
WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Congressman Mike Pence released the following statement in response to the Bush Administration’s plan to bail out the financial market:
“Our financial markets are in turmoil and the Administration was right to call for decisive action to prevent further harm to our economy but nationalizing every bad mortgage in America is not the answer.
“The Administration’s request amounts to the largest corporate bailout in American history. Congress should act, but should act in a way that protects the integrity of our free market and protects the American taxpayer from more debt and higher taxes.
“To have the freedom to succeed, we must preserve the freedom to fail. Any solution to our present crisis must preserve our essential economic freedom.
“Congress should delay consideration of any legislation until the facts and competing solutions can be fully debated, consider alternatives to massive government spending and figure out how to pay for the solution through budget cuts and reform instead of more debt or taxes.
“Congress must not hastily embrace a cure that may do more harm to our economy than the disease of bad debt
“Before any bailout is enacted, Congress must set itself on an unalterable path to truly overhaul these Government Sponsored Enterprises from the top down and hold those accountable, in and out of government, who drove them, and our financial sector, to the brink of bankruptcy. Some important work is already underway, but additional reforms are needed. Even now, we read that the Treasury Department is using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase many of these bad mortgages while it seeks the authority to purchase them all. Congress should also ensure that these GSEs can no longer pose a systemic risk to the entire economy while placing them on a brisk schedule to be fully private companies with no guarantee of taxpayer support in times of trouble. And Congress should immediately repeal the Affordable Housing Fund, which will actually siphon off capital from these under-capitalized entities, in order to fund left-wing, third party organizations.
“Next, Congress must consider all available options to put our nation’s economy back on its feet. There are no easy answers but there are alternatives to massive government spending.
“Indexing the Capital Gains tax to inflation (which the Treasury Department can do without any help from Congress), or suspending it for one year, would release an enormous amount of capitol into our economy. Passing an energy bill that lessens the price of gasoline at the pump through more domestic drilling, wind, solar, nuclear and conservation would bring relief to family budgets and create American jobs. Establishing an entitlement reform commission to develop bipartisan solutions to the crushing weight of entitlements would strengthen the American dollar.
“These and other alternatives to a massive federal bailout must be fully considered and debated before Congress acts.
“Finally, any new expenditure of taxpayer dollars should be paid for with fiscal discipline and reform. If Congress decides to spend nearly 1 trillion dollars on a corporate bailout, it must find budget savings to prevent that cost from being passed along to the American people.
“We must address this crisis with forethought, creativity and fiscal discipline. Protecting the American taxpayer from higher debt and taxes and renewing our belief in the power of the free market must be our guide.”
Where’s your GOP representative?
Call ‘em: 202-224-3121.
Kill the bailout.
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
- Paulson Plan is Bad for the Economy | Axis of Right
- Michelle Malkin » Kill the bailout: Will the real fiscal conservatives please stand up?
- These Are the Good Old Days « Grand Rants
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Opposing the bailout plan — from the Right
- Babalu Blog
- The Mahablog » Is Anyone FOR the Bleeping Bailout?
- Public Finance: Which Road Shall We Take? « Pocket Change - Now Lint Free!
- Has it really come to this? « The Old Right Daily
- Web Sites of Interest » links for 2008-09-22
- Thank God for Barney Frank | Altitude
- Thoughts by Steve
- Michelle Malkin » Kill the bailout: Newt Gingrich gets on board
- qwstnevrythg.com » At Largely: Even Michelle Malkin is having a cow over the Wall Street paper-coup…
- Best Solution for Financial Crisis « Scatterin’ O’ the Thoughts
- Michelle Malkin » Kill the bailout: Phones ringing off the hook
- Michelle Malkin » Illegal immigration and the mortgage mess
- The Democrats Did It | Faith and Facts
- The Democrats Did It! « American Truths
- The Democrats Did It «
- Kah Zoohl List
- Kill the bailout: Illegal immigration and the mortgage mess - INGunOwners
- $700 Bailout: See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil. « Republican Party of Jefferson County, TN
- Michelle Malkin » Kill the bailout: Call your GOP representative; Update: the deal details trickle out; On the rocks?
- Conservatism, Neoconservatism, and Economic Crisis | NeoConstant
- Michelle Malkin » Bailout-mania: If you didn’t see this coming…
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: GOP, Subprime crisis
Right Wing Nut House
» IS ALL THE ECONOMIC DOOM AND GLOOM JUSTIFIED?
Right Wing Nut House
» NOT EVEN A BONE FOR THE NETNUTSGateway Pundit
» Eric Holder Defended the FALN Terrorist Pardons (Video)Redstate
» Thus Begins The TerrorPower Line
» Obama to Delay Tax Increase?Stop The ACLU
» Left Already Disappointed With Choosing ObamaBelmont Club
» Bad mannersNewsBusters.org
» Kate Calling For Coup?NewsBusters.org
» Time's Halperin Scolds Press for 'Extreme Pro-Obama Bias'
Regardless of whether the government should be doing this, I’m merely challenging anyone that claims to know for a fact that this “bailout” will cost the taxpayer a dime.
Again, the assumption that this toxic waste (which is a good definition as it’s bankrupted numerous companies, and caused the nationalization of even more) has actual intrinsic value, like a commodity, is exactly the type of misinformation being fed to the complicit government buyers.
But the government is good at catching falling knives?
You seem to be struck with hive mind. I have no other explanation for your most amazing faith in government. You go right on ahead and trust Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Paulson and others. I for one, don’t trust any of them.
I agree that buying equities would very likely lead to taxpayer losses. However, these are not equities. Most real estate debt has some residual value. I’m just not sure why everyone is claiming that they taxpayer will overpay for any of this debt - especially since they don’t know the government’s offer yet!
Yes, EXACTLY. A big buyer is GREAT at catching falling knives. If the plan authorizes a large enough purchase, then the government may be that big buyer.
Great question. Thanks for helping me clear that up.
Please confirm that you are claiming that this debt has no intrinsic value. I’d love to have you state that with certainty.
Are you also claiming that the assets of a bankrupt company are worthless????
BTW, “toxic waste” is a bad definition for these assets for this type of conversation. Let’s pretend we’re discussing a distressed debt transaction - which we are.
I appreciate the economic insights expressed here. I learned a little today.
This bailout juggernaut won’t be stopped. So I reckon that we might as well hunker down and see what happens.
It’ll be interesting to see what the Law of Unintended Consequences has to say about this.
Fair enough. You certainly don’t need to believe that FDIC should exist.
You’re not 90+ years old - are you? Do you keep your money in your mattress?
Hyperbole. Good to see that you’re not flying off the handle.
WHAT???
Don’t blame any of that on the government. You didn’t read my post carefully. NONE of the airlines accepted the government’s “bailout” offer after Sept 11.
You can’t blame any of these airline problems on the government.
Corkie - You seem to believe government is the answer to problems. I see government as the problem.
Socialism has never worked. Collectivism has never worked and nationalizing industries has never been efficient.
No I’m not 90+ years old. I am old enough though to have parents who lived through the depression and I will they felt it full force. That mess was caused (or at least exacerbated) by government. My parents experience convinced them that government intervention (no matter how well intended) is a bad idea.
Further, I’d still argue that implementing FDIC is unconstitutional as well as it rewards careless behavior on the part of depositors.
It’s intention might be good, but I guarantee you it has a net negative effect.
FWIW - the oil market today weighed in. They see the value of the dollar falling by about 25%. (Oil was about $100 - today up about $25 - demand and supply didn’t change that much in one day so the only big change is the value of the dollar).
Fair enough. I don’t think that FDIC or agricultural subsidies are socialistic programs, but I understand that you do.
It seems as though you believe in pure laissez-faire. I respect that, however, I believe that a little regulation is a good thing.
I have to go back to the fact that nobody knows how these “distressed debt instruments” are calculated. Looking at the meltdown, the subprime mortgage market holds less that 20% of the losses, the rest are made up by toxic derivatives, credit-default swaps, and other stuff. We can assume that any property within these “distressed debt instruments” can be considered valuable, however now the government has to deal with the sale of the asset. In the case of real estate, now the government has a financial stake in the the mortgage market, and will need to get foreclosed property off its books. Good thing the government has just nationalized FNM/FRE - talk about political moral hazard.
So in the end, maybe you’re right, maybe the government could recover money as they now own the facilities for lending and insuring. However, the only way they could do it is by trying to re-inflate the housing bubble through lax lending standards, moral hazard, and massive amounts of inflation. In the end though, that all hits the tax payer much more than the money they waste buying these “distressed debt instruments”.
Wait a minute!!!!
You think that FDIC rewards careless behavior on the part of depositors?
What careless behavior is that? That they trust the banking system enough to have a checking/savings account?
The government doesn’t have to deal with the sale of properties. It can merely sell the debt on these properties to another party at a later date.
They didn’t, however, the proposed government backstop allowed the airlines to get financing where they couldn’t before. Much like the government backstop on Fannie and Freddie caused much of it’s risky behavior. Even if the government doesn’t give up the money, its guarantees can cause unintended consequences.
Keep in mind that property values don’t need to increase in order for the taxpayer to profit from this “bailout.” In fact, foreclosure rates don’t even have to decrease. Market sentiment regarding how bad this problem is merely has to reverse. The existance of a big buyer can have such the effect of such a reversal.
During the last recession Warren Buffet quietly bought $$ billions of distressed corporate debt - then he announced it. The result was a booming junk bond market. Well, Warren Buffet wasn’t big enough for this one - but the fed is.
Your statement is untrue.
The government never provided any guarantees to the airlines. The government’s offer was not a factor in any airline debt after Sept 11.
I’ll restate it again. None of the airlines accepted the government’s offer to backstop their loans. None of them made the concessions that the government required.
Well, I called my senator and told him to say no to the bailout. I think I am about ready to put him and my House Representative on speed dial. Obviously, I just got an office assistant, but they take down memos.
Corkie #110:
It’s good to see you’re a humorless twit. Calling a joke hyperbole is just about what I’d expect from someone who thinks that agricultural subsidies are not socialistic.
While I agree that unfetterd capitalism is a danger to liberty and the sensible regulation of markets is necessary, ag subsidies are, by definition, “socialistic” in that they represent a massive intrusion in the markets by government.
In effect, the government is dictating what to grow, what not to grow, when not to plant, and how much to charge for subsidized harvests. By granting some crops favored treatment and using subsidies for other purposes, the government is using its power to corrupt the individual decision making of farmers. This practice has contributed (although not entirely to blame) to the demise of smaller farms and Jefferson’s “yeoman” farmer.
Not socialistic? It sure ain’t capitalism. And a mish mash of the two is socialism by any other name.
Rewards careless behavior. YES
If there is “no” risk in depositing my money in a bank, my ONLY incentive is to deposit it with the bank with the highest interest rate regardless of the financial condition of the bank. Hence, the depositor doesn’t have to do any work and can be completely carefree as to any other financial consideration.
So yes - that does reward careless financial behavior on the part of depositors.
As far as my beliefs about financial regulation - the only regulation that needs to happen is to enforce honesty and transparency. If things are honest and transparent, the market WILL reward success and punish failure in the most efficient manner. At the risk of being absolute - “all” other regulation is arbitrary. (There may be more beyond just honesty and transparency but right this moment, I’m unable to think of them)
They certainly did, from the WSJ:
Not the $10 billion initially proposed. But that wasn’t needed as the government had already drawn a line in the sand, instantly increasing the airline’s credit worthiness.
I think there’s a big difference between the Federal government backing up a private institution with unlimited funding, and actually taking risky (understatement) assets off the books of the private sector. Most likely the value will decrease in the eyes of the market, not only as the massive losses hidden within are realized, but as the government works off political, not market forces.
I respect your position on capitalism. However, keep in mind that it’s easy to be a purist when you’re not the one actually in charge.
I support much of the existing Antitrust laws. I support many of the Securities laws. I support FDIC. I support…
Yes, I guess I’m a socialist.
One basic problem with the bailout is that no shareholder in their right mind would hang onto their stock in any financial services company.
Equity in these companies falls as a result. The companies become wildly overleveraged and…the government in all its Paulsonian wisdom believes they have to step in and bail it out.
We’re not smarter than the market. To think that Paulson/Bernanke or a congressional subcomittee or the SEC or anyone humans in government can magically produce regulations that will improve this situation is ridiculous. Once these fools move on to the next shiny object, the market will respond to the situation and settle back down into some sort of equilibrium.
AIG should be left to die. It was good enough for Lehman Brothers. Shockingly, the world didn’t end when they went belly up.
This culture we have, where winning is all “me me me,” and losing is all “us us us,” has got to stop.
Politicians are nothing but the reflections of our spoiled, selfish, childish desires. If they were worth a damn, they’d be more like stern parents or hard-nosed DI. We could all stand to do a few fiscal push ups.
and yet none of the those laws and regulations prevented the mortgage mess!! doesn’t that give you a hint???
I stand corrected. I forgot that the program was used for the airlines which weren’t able to continue as a going-concern.
I also didn’t realize that the taxpayer turned a profit on that program, too.
Overall, I’m happy you read that WSJ article.
For everyone: On the WSJ blog today.
Yes, let’s repeal the Sherman Antitrust Act, all the country’s securities laws, and end FDIC.
Ron Paul had some good stuff to say the other night:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qLefrvxbq8
why not?
they’re not working very well now are they? and your solution is more laws, which haven’t worked in the past…ok.
could it be that the ’security’ offered by the FDIC and the latest bailout, is illusory, and will result in greater inflation, less buying power, etc?
I agree with you 100%. However, you must agree that it might be a bit difficult to actually draft a bill which would define and enforce these concepts. You also might start to think of a few others once you start writing.
Actually, repealing the Sherman Antitrust Act is a reasonable thing to do. But it doesn’t go far enough. Eliminating the FTC should be on the list, too.
if you think about it, the FDIC has basically made it ok for banks to fail, does anyone really care about the solvency of their bank when the government will take care of them? there used to be an FSLIC which went bankrupt during the saving and loan crisis, would the FDIC be any better?
would a better solution be to have private banking insurance companies? that way they might have actual reserves to cover losses, instead of more IOUs (govt bonds) as the FDIC does…and the insurance fund ratio is more like .08%. That is, for every $100 deposited under FDIC, only about eight cents are backed by reserves.
I’ll let you research the merits of these regulations for yourself.
Personally, I think it’s bad to allow companies to fix prices. Personally, I think it’s bad to allow big companies to practice predatory pricing against innovative competitors. But, maybe I’m alone about this here.
If you were in charge, would you repeal all these regulations?
I find it interesting that the solution is more government regulations, when it is the government’s regulations that caused this mess.
lets engineer a crisis, and get more power by ’solving’ that crisis…
of course who decides when a company ‘fixes’ prices? and who decides when a company is a monopoly? it all comes down to who has political power, and on whose behalf they decide to use it.
as I have stated before I would repeal the community redevelopment act, which CAUSED this crisis, and SOX, which is a waste of time.
but yes I would elminate a great many regulations, since they haven’t worked now have they?
Wow. The FTC, too? I hadn’t thought much about it. I like the fact that they punish companies for lying in advertisements, but maybe you can brief me about the upside.
the bottom line is that we may have ‘fixed’ this crisis, but papered over the real problems, and allow a greater problem (hyper-inflation) to occur in the future. forbidding failure is the surest way to guarantee it.
I assume you’re talking about companies colluding to fix prices, right? Sounds terrible and anti-consumer.
And predatory pricing to keep out competitors? That’s very anti-consumer, too.
And price gouging because there’s no competition? Awful and greedy.
So, companies, under existing law can be found guilty of pricing too high, pricing too low, and of pricing the same as their competition. I’m surprised we allow anyone to stay in business.
But I’m sure the regulations are fair and wise and easy to understand and are equitably enforced. Regulation is such a pristine and wonderful public good.
It’s worked wonders in the current situation, too. By all means, let’s have more of it to correct the problems we didn’t foresee.
Sure they have. When is the last time you heard someone complain that they lost money investing in a snake oil company? When is the last time a young, innovative company was forced out of the market by a big competitor that decided to give their products away for free until the young company was dead?
Don’t throw the babies out with the bathwater.
Wow! It’s quite a bit of work trying to convince many of you that the sky isn’t actually falling.
all those billions lost in the market in 2000 were just monopoly money huh? a lot of those companies were snake oil companies…and all the regulations didn’t stop the scamming and the losses when the NASDAQ crashed…and its never come close to recovering.
you mean like when microsoft got rid of linux and Java? don’t know, you tell me.
what I don’t understand is your faith nin the very government that gave us this problem…and your solution is more of the same….and you expect different results…a definition of insanity…
#125 Corkie
Are you such a goof that you confuse sensible regulation with socialism? Why the strawman? Can’t your arguement stand scrutiny unless you misrepresent what I said about subsidies - which, of course, is not “regulation” in any way shape or form but government payments designed to skew the market toward a “desired” goal.
To make a list in this thread of misstatements of yours like the one above would take too much time. You are a classic troll - uninterested in responding to others while raising strawman after strawman to avoid engaging in discussion.
Begone!
Maybe you should help conservativesRus draft the language for his “honesty and transparency” regulation.
Unless of course you favor nothing to something which is not perfectly, “wise and easy.”
So fraud can only be enforced and punished by a bloated federal agency? And we know they enforce these laws fairly and equitably. After all, big nanny government has unlimited resources and manpower to protect us all from false advertising and mislabeling of products.
Are you assuming, corkie, that I think a regulation is necessary?
Why is the alternative to the absence of government regulation “nothing”?
Oh, I don’t believe the sky is falling either. I believe that AIG is falling. And it should be left alone to complete its hard landing. Sucks, but such is failure in the world of business.
The argument against letting them plummet to the bottom is that eye-glazing stuff about AIG holding huge portfolios of defaulting mortgages and the fact that government policies created those securities (what an ironic name) to be held in the first place. Therefore, because this is a government created problem, the government should bail them out.
Well, the nonsense has to stop somewhere, or it will continue, probably at an accelerated pace, until the sky actually does fall. Regulation won’t help. It’ll be as effective as giving a flu shot to a corpse. But that won’t stop politicians from claiming that since the shot, the corpse hasn’t gotten the flu. Hooray for Big Government!
I’m always open to hearing new ideas. Do tell.
Well, many on this board believe that the government’s plan is the end of capitalism. Which to many of us is the equivalent of a falling sky.
Ever here of a company called Microsoft?
Yes. What’s your point?
Microsoft did not win the browser wars by having a better product.
The forced out the smaller capitalized firms.
Sooooo…the regulation you desire seems not to have worked.
For the most part, regulation does not work. It inflicts far more damage than it does good.
The other browsers were terrible. For example, if Netscape was better, then it would currently have more market share than Firefox (which is less than half its age.)
Anyway, I know that you weren’t trying to imply that regulations need to be tossed simply because they’re not 100%. I also know that you aren’t claiming that regulations should be tossed despite a positive cost-benefit analysis.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but I’d need to consider your alternatives.
Look, I agree that much of our existing knee-jerk regulation is terrible. SOX is a great example of that.
However, many of the business laws we have are good and necessary. Do you disagree with the existance of patent and trademark laws?
Overall, I think regulations need to be reviewed separately. Many can be improved and many should be scrapped.
No surprise here - this is just one of the many the reasons “conservatives” make smart people sick.
They only believe in socialism when it suits their purpose.
The new conservative saying should be:
“We privatize profits; we socialize losses.”
let me guess you’re a liberal. its easy to tell…liberal = liar.
Actually, Ilovemycountry, that isn’t a conservative mantra. It seems to be a government mantra, regardless of the political party.
I do believe that real fiscal conservatives would have losses remain private. And real fiscal progressives would have both sides of that mantra socialized. But if you are a pragmatic, save your bacon kind of politician, whether Dem or GOP, you say what you said.
The metaphor I’ve always liked is that they’re the pigs and the humans inside the farmhouse and we’re the lowly farm animals peering in from the outside. And, just like in the classic story, we can’t tell them apart.
Spencer, I agree that Ron Paul makes you want to stand up and cheer when you see him on TV or read his quotes. I’d even advocate for him to be Sec. of the Treasury, except for the fact that I found out how he keeps that “zero” pork rating in Congress.
When he wants money for his TX district, Dr. Paul lobbies all the other Congress Critters like mad to get their votes. He gets their “ayes” and votes “no.” Voila! Excellent rating continues. That smarmy fact just turned me off. However, I can see some sort of oversight post in this bailout mess.
While I find the continuing economic discussion here fasctinating (especially Corkie’s, though I disagree with him/her), I will point out that under certain circumstances strategic considerations that are well within a federal/national government’s sphere of influence can override normal economic considerations.
Take, for example, the agricultural subsidies that happen in this country. Do we need those in the United States? I doubt it. However, look at Japan. Their agricultural industry is highly subsidized, as well as protected with tariffs. It is protected due to the strategic concern of not having Japan dependent on foreign foodstuffs any more than it already is.
In this sort of situation, some sort of intervention into the economy can be argued from legitimate interests of the national government. However, this type of issue should rarely show up in an economy as diversified and overall self-sufficient as the United States. Amusingly, in the one glaring area that this should apply (energy production), the exact opposite seems to be the case.
‘fascinating’, sorry, ugh.
How much of the failed subprime loans (the ones that went into default) were loans given to illegal aliens?
If we had started building the border fence on September 12, 2001, and finished it within 18 months, would we have had this issue?
Were the changes Clinton made, and then the encouragement of massive numbers of illegals to come to the US and get mortgages, all part of a bigger plan?
The Marxists have been trying for 160 years to bring our Capitalist society to its knees. Has massive illegal immigration helped them get to the point where they actually have a shot at doing just that?
As a true conservative, the only reasons I post on this site are about money and immigration. RINO’s aka Neocons have failed the Reagan party. Socialism runs rampamt with this bailout. Be an upstanding citzen and screw you, just keep paying your taxes and shutup.
I missed this yesterday.
Be careful with the Troll accusations. You’re diluting the value of the term by labeling me with that.
I didn’t create the strawmen. Other commenters claimed that all regulation was bad. Forcing them to be specific with an example is not a strawman. You should learn the difference.
Folks:
You want old-time, paleo-conservative fiscal responsibility?
Give your congressperson a call:
Congress.org
Capitol Hill Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
“Dear Senator/Representative:
You MUST reject the Paulson/Bernanke plan for bailing out and propping up reckless banks at taxpayer expense. This is madness to ask us, the taxpayers, to cover the liabilities of Wall Street. We are tired of being fleeced. If you vote to support this plan, I will do everything in my power to remove you from office before you can give away any more of our money to failed businessmen.
Thank you, (state your name)”
More information about this grass-roots effort can be found at The Campaign For Liberty web site.
Folks:
Call your congressman/senator today to put an end to this travesty, this crime against the citizens of our great republic:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=608